The "Evidence" Bible [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Pai Geacademe

September 9th 2009, 11:00 AM

oxmixmudd

September 9th 2009, 11:46 AM

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

--glmorton

***

I’ve been giving Rogue guff for saying that Franklin Graham isn’t a creationist despite his endorsement of Ray Comfort’s The Evidence Bible (http://www.evidencebible.com/tableofcontents.shtml). I actually just assumed it contained creationist nonsense because I know that teleology is central to Comfort’s apologetic. Out of curiosity, I finally looked at some of the samples available online. Here’s a snippet of commentary from Psalms:

Try to think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a Big Bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears—thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose, and mouth? A child can see that there is “grand design” in creation.

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

“New scientific revelations about supernovas, black holes, quarks, and the big bang even suggest to some scientists that there is a ‘grand design’ in the universe.” (U.S. News & World Report, March 31, 1997)

“The universe suddenly exploded into being...The big bang bears an uncanny resemblance to the Genesis command.” Jim Holt, Wall Street Journal science writer (http://www.evidencebible.com/pdf/28_Psalms_1_to_25.pdf)

Forget about the flagrant offenders like Comfort and Strobel. It’s the enablers that hold my interest of late. In the Hummingbirds and Evolution thread, Rogue said that Franklin, having made no specific mention of creationism in his endorsement, was somehow off the creationist hook:

I’m convinced that when you downplay the significance of Billy Graham’s successor giving nod to the above commentary (and that’s just one example), you become complicit in the crisis. Franklin’s alliance with Comfort doesn’t sting his conscience because none of his brethren have bothered to even explain to him why this imperils souls. If it doesn't imperil souls, then eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we go to Heaven.

Pai,

While I'm not fond of your attacks on rogue even a little bit, one thing you have said here and a few other places makes a certain amount of sense.

Those of us that do accept evolution and are also conservative/evagelical Christians, believing the Bible to be the word of God, who remain silent on the issue to a certain extent enable the 6/6000 creationists to dominate conservative Christian thought.

What you are not allowing for is the opposite side of the coin: The conservative/evangelical subset of Christianity has for the most part been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that if evolution is true, then the Bible itself is false. This is, to a certain extent, reinforced by the fact it is also essentially the believe of many of the more vocal 'new' atheists such as Dawkins and Meyers. Just walking in a room of these Christians and saying "I believe evolution is true" closes off all room for further communication on the issue.

Helping folks understand first you do have the same dynamic relationship with God they do helps them hear you later when you say to them you do think God used evolution to create life, and that the universe itself is likely 13.7 billion years old.

There are other issues. If I convince someone like Jorge or Calminium I'm correct, what will stop their indoctrination from kicking in the other side of its teaching - "Then the Bible is not true". That is the conditioned response. Work has to be done to 'uncondition' that response.

So, for those such as myself, it is not a simple issue. I don't want people losing faith, yet I also want to stand firm in the truth, both spiritual and natural. And I am sure it is also a difficult conundrum to properly balance for those that have sway over large segments of the Christian faith.

My gut feel is that the truth is best told, and we do our best to handle the consequences. But I do not think one can easily pass judgment on the motives of those who for whatever reason steer clear of this issue. It is not always or necessarily even mainly just a matter of retaining popularity or income.

Jim

ETA: PS - it is G.R. Morton

Pai Geacademe

September 9th 2009, 10:40 PM

Pai,

While I'm not fond of your attacks on rogue even a little bit, one thing you have said here and a few other places makes a certain amount of sense.

I’m sorry that you perceive these as attacks. I see them as useful observations.

Rogue’s reference to Billy Graham in light of Franklin Graham’s endorsement of Iron Age teleology got me to thinking that a smarter approach to the problem is warranted. I already knew about that endorsement and I think so should have Rogue – especially if he’s going to bust out quotes from Franklin’s father to demonstrate evolution and Christian theism aren’t mutually exclusive. If one respected evangelist can be quoted to demonstrate evolution shouldn’t be an obstacle to Christian theism, another respected evangelical can be quoted to demonstrate it should be an obstacle. The Evidence Bible screams the inverse of Billy’s sound pronouncement. Franklin being Billy’s son only amplifies the urgency of the matter. Clearly, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.

I do understand that Rogue is well-liked here and has an impressive knowledge of the natural sciences. If that’s why you perceive my observations as attacks, then, yes, I suppose they are attacks. Sometimes attacks are good, exposing, as in this case, another layer of the onion. Remember that Rogue said Franklin’s endorsement of The Evidence Bible “surprised” him. =)

Those of us that do accept evolution and are also conservative/evagelical Christians, believing the Bible to be the word of God, who remain silent on the issue to a certain extent enable the 6/6000 creationists to dominate conservative Christian thought.

Thank you. I’d encourage you to take that a step further. Too much emphasis on YEC tends to fog this issue. This isn’t just about $27 million Creation Museums; it’s about the mainstream evangelical support infrastructure, of which Strobel and Craig are a part. The sooner this is understood, the better equipped you are to deal with the problem more comprehensively. Let me put it another way: if, like Gordon Glover, you acknowledge that cosmic and biological evolution are fact – because that is where epistemology unquestionably leads – then you also must acknowledge that Strobel is as complicit in the crisis as Ham.

The dominators will continue to dominate until “silent groans” give way to actual confrontation, both private and public. (Rogue said that he “silently groaned” when his associate pastor cited The Evidence Bible as a useful tool of evangelism. I can only assume Rogue’s protest consisted of that and nothing else.)

What you are not allowing for is the opposite side of the coin: The conservative/evangelical subset of Christianity has for the most part been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that if evolution is true, then the Bible itself is false. This is, to a certain extent, reinforced by the fact it is also essentially the believe of many of the more vocal 'new' atheists such as Dawkins and Meyers. Just walking in a room of these Christians and saying "I believe evolution is true" closes off all room for further communication on the issue.

Indoctrinated by whom? Those who espouse doctrine, no? One of those doctrines is that Christians must be suspicious of their faculties of reason, which could very well be the devil in disguise. There’s a scene from Friends of God or Jesus Camp (I can’t remember which) that speaks to this. It’s a montage of billboards along a Bible Belt highway. One of the billboards shows an ape with horns and a demonic tail that reads “Evolution is from the Devil.” I acknowledge this is what you’re up against, but I can’t let your implication that this is the fault of atheists slide. Your giving short shrift to the origin of fundamentalist teleology has me wondering whether you’re trying to pin this on them. You can’t blame Christian fundamentalism on atheists no matter how hard you try.

So again I ask (not rhetorically) Who’s doing the indoctrination? If the “indoctrinated” are the “conservative subset,” I’m at a loss as to who you are referring to. I understand the “reinforced” by Dawkins bit, but the fact is that a literalist/quasi-literalist movement was started by Christians, was permitted to flourish, and came to dominate Christianity because of fear of general revelation. Fearing the general revelation is tantamount to fearing the Designer Himself, creating the perfect environment for apostasy. I’m just exploring that here and in my “attacks” on Rogue.

I’m certainly no fan of Dawkins’ counterapologetics, but the new atheist movement was triggered, and continues to be fed, by the sins of religion. Tolerance of Iron Age teleology is one of those sins (and a deadly one, if you take Morton’s confession seriously).

Helping folks understand first you do have the same dynamic relationship with God they do helps them hear you later when you say to them you do think God used evolution to create life, and that the universe itself is likely 13.7 billion years old.

I love you for saying that because it SO cuts to the heart of the matter. Direct confrontation of these ideas in the academic arena requires none of the pre-work you say must take place for theistic evolution to be palatable. You (and I mean “you” in general) need to be debating Sprouls and Strobels. You aren’t. You need to be writing articles and essays for magazines and journals, naming names. You aren’t. You need to trust God that the pure declaration of truth and sound epistemology is enough. You don’t.

It’s really no more complicated and controversial than that. Sam agrees with me.

There are other issues. If I convince someone like Jorge or Calminium I'm correct, what will stop their indoctrination from kicking in the other side of its teaching - "Then the Bible is not true". That is the conditioned response. Work has to be done to 'uncondition' that response.

I’m not talking about Jorge or Calminium or any other creationist troll. Their flawed perceptions can be traced back to a well-established religious pedagogy – i.e., the “conditioner.” The trickle-down would prevent Jorges and Calminiums from ever becoming victims of the false dichotomy.

In other words, go after Pavlov, not his dogs.

On a related note, Rogue last argued that conservative ideology becomes liberal ideology once the evolutionary position is declared. I say that’s a rationalization to not take more direct action. Do you think Zacharias’s or Craig’s conservative ideologies would blur beyond recognition if they publicly announced that evolution is not a matter of faith but fact? And, even if that were true, what does it say about their trust in God that epistemologically sound positions must be incrementally conceded, lest other Christians abandon their faith?

If Jorge’s and Calminium’s fragility of faith is true, teleology-rooted apostasy must be happening in spades as we speak; you fear the potential when the actual is in full swing. Where've ya been, brah? ;)

So, for those such as myself, it is not a simple issue

Neither is it for me. Neither is it for me. Think about how Morton felt.. Dude's STILL trying to fit that square peg into that round hole. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=11724)

So, for those such as myself, it is not a simple issue. I don't want people losing faith,

Jim, they already are losing faith thanks to a self-congratulatory and cozy fraternity of theologians and apologists who say evolution is atheistic and impossible. See Morton’s quote. See me.

yet I also want to stand firm in the truth, both spiritual and natural. And I am sure it is also a difficult conundrum to properly balance for those that have sway over large segments of the Christian faith.

Again, if what you say is true about the fragility of faith, you’re already losing badly. So why should you be concerned about the “conundrums” of those who have “sway over large segments of the Christian faith”? When you’re losing this spectacularly, you must re-gather yourselves and try a new approach*. The approach I’ve suggested is a reasonable one that can’t do any greater damage than the damage that’s already being done. Glenn and I aren’t exceptions to the rule; we ARE the rule.

My gut feel is that the truth is best told, and we do our best to handle the consequences. But I do not think one can easily pass judgment on the motives of those who for whatever reason steer clear of this issue. It is not always or necessarily even mainly just a matter of retaining popularity or income.

My observation of F. Graham’s endorsement is now the easy passing of judgment, is it? Listen to yourself, Jim. Listen to Rogue make excuses for F. Graham’s endorsement by challenging me to provide “evidence” (LOL!) that F. Graham specifically endorsed creationism by lauding a creationist “Evidence” Bible.

If you stay on this course, how do you think you’ll ever really counter the creationist juggernaut? You must start at the top (with the evil ones: the priestcraft;), not the bottom (with the confused, frightened, and pre-tenderized pupils: the pewsitters).

* Unfortunately, you can't because you're too busy "dividing and conquering" each other. With debates about whether *ahem* BIRDS HAVE SPECIATED.

oxmixmudd

September 10th 2009, 12:14 AM

I’m sorry that you perceive these as attacks. I see them as useful observations.

Rogue’s reference to Billy Graham in light of Franklin Graham’s endorsement of Iron Age teleology got me to thinking that a smarter approach to the problem is warranted. I already knew about that endorsement and I think so should have Rogue – especially if he’s going to bust out quotes from Franklin’s father to demonstrate evolution and Christian theism aren’t mutually exclusive. If one respected evangelist can be quoted to demonstrate evolution shouldn’t be an obstacle to Christian theism, another respected evangelical can be quoted to demonstrate it should be an obstacle. The Evidence Bible screams the inverse of Billy’s sound pronouncement. Franklin being Billy’s son only amplifies the urgency of the matter. Clearly, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.

I do understand that Rogue is well-liked here and has an impressive knowledge of the natural sciences. If that’s why you perceive my observations as attacks, then, yes, I suppose they are attacks. Sometimes attacks are good, exposing, as in this case, another layer of the onion. Remember that Rogue said Franklin’s endorsement of The Evidence Bible “surprised” him. =)

Thank you. I’d encourage you to take that a step further. Too much emphasis on YEC tends to fog this issue. This isn’t just about $27 million Creation Museums; it’s about the mainstream evangelical support infrastructure, of which Strobel and Craig are a part. The sooner this is understood, the better equipped you are to deal with the problem more comprehensively. Let me put it another way: if, like Gordon Glover, you acknowledge that cosmic and biological evolution are fact – because that is where epistemology unquestionably leads – then you also must acknowledge that Strobel is as complicit in the crisis as Ham.

The dominators will continue to dominate until “silent groans” give way to actual confrontation, both private and public. (Rogue said that he “silently groaned” when his associate pastor cited The Evidence Bible as a useful tool of evangelism. I can only assume Rogue’s protest consisted of that and nothing else.)

Indoctrinated by whom? Those who espouse doctrine, no? One of those doctrines is that Christians must be suspicious of their faculties of reason, which could very well be the devil in disguise. There’s a scene from Friends of God or Jesus Camp (I can’t remember which) that speaks to this. It’s a montage of billboards along a Bible Belt highway. One of the billboards shows an ape with horns and a demonic tail that reads “Evolution is from the Devil.” I acknowledge this is what you’re up against, but I can’t let your implication that this is the fault of atheists slide. Your giving short shrift to the origin of fundamentalist teleology has me wondering whether you’re trying to pin this on them. You can’t blame Christian fundamentalism on atheists no matter how hard you try.

So again I ask (not rhetorically) Who’s doing the indoctrination? If the “indoctrinated” are the “conservative subset,” I’m at a loss as to who you are referring to. I understand the “reinforced” by Dawkins bit, but the fact is that a literalist/quasi-literalist movement was started by Christians, was permitted to flourish, and came to dominate Christianity because of fear of general revelation. Fearing the general revelation is tantamount to fearing the Designer Himself, creating the perfect environment for apostasy. I’m just exploring that here and in my “attacks” on Rogue.

I’m certainly no fan of Dawkins’ counterapologetics, but the new atheist movement was triggered, and continues to be fed, by the sins of religion. Tolerance of Iron Age teleology is one of those sins (and a deadly one, if you take Morton’s confession seriously).

I love you for saying that because it SO cuts to the heart of the matter. Direct confrontation of these ideas in the academic arena requires none of the pre-work you say must take place for theistic evolution to be palatable. You (and I mean “you” in general) need to be debating Sprouls and Strobels. You aren’t. You need to be writing articles and essays for magazines and journals, naming names. You aren’t. You need to trust God that the pure declaration of truth and sound epistemology is enough. You don’t.

It’s really no more complicated and controversial than that. Sam agrees with me.

I’m not talking about Jorge or Calminium or any other creationist troll. Their flawed perceptions can be traced back to a well-established religious pedagogy – i.e., the “conditioner.” The trickle-down would prevent Jorges and Calminiums from ever becoming victims of the false dichotomy.

In other words, go after Pavlov, not his dogs.

On a related note, Rogue last argued that conservative ideology becomes liberal ideology once the evolutionary position is declared. I say that’s a rationalization to not take more direct action. Do you think Zacharias’s or Craig’s conservative ideologies would blur beyond recognition if they publicly announced that evolution is not a matter of faith but fact? And, even if that were true, what does it say about their trust in God that epistemologically sound positions must be incrementally conceded, lest other Christians abandon their faith?

If Jorge’s and Calminium’s fragility of faith is true, teleology-rooted apostasy must be happening in spades as we speak; you fear the potential when the actual is in full swing. Where've ya been, brah? ;)

Neither is it for me. Neither is it for me. Think about how Morton felt.. Dude's STILL trying to fit that square peg into that round hole. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=11724)

Jim, they already are losing faith thanks to a self-congratulatory and cozy fraternity of theologians and apologists who say evolution is atheistic and impossible. See Morton’s quote. See me.

Again, if what you say is true about the fragility of faith, you’re already losing badly. So why should you be concerned about the “conundrums” of those who have “sway over large segments of the Christian faith”? When you’re losing this spectacularly, you must re-gather yourselves and try a new approach*. The approach I’ve suggested is a reasonable one that can’t do any greater damage than the damage that’s already being done. Glenn and I aren’t exceptions to the rule; we ARE the rule.

My observation of F. Graham’s endorsement is now the easy passing of judgment, is it? Listen to yourself, Jim. Listen to Rogue make excuses for F. Graham’s endorsement by challenging me to provide “evidence” (LOL!) that F. Graham specifically endorsed creationism by lauding a creationist “Evidence” Bible.

If you stay on this course, how do you think you’ll ever really counter the creationist juggernaut? You must start at the top (with the evil ones: the priestcraft;), not the bottom (with the confused, frightened, and pre-tenderized pupils: the pewsitters).

* Unfortunately, you can't because you're too busy "dividing and conquering" each other. With debates about whether *ahem* BIRDS HAVE SPECIATED.

A quick apology for not addressing your post point by point. When conversations get this complex, it tends to produce monotonically increasing post length to the word count limit. I don't think pursuing that in this case is necessary.

Two points:

A)

Yes, some, even many, are losing faith. And part of the reason is the Conservative Church's head in the sand approach to the real implications of the evidence found in the natural world on the traditional view and the aforementioned false dichotomy. But OTOH, many others are stuffed safely in their artificial cocoons courtesy of AIG and ICR etc. Unfortunately, they have a fast acting poison that if the cocoon is removed mostly kills anyone you try to rescue from the cocoon. You need to make sure you have a highly effective antidote ready to administer as soon as you break the seal. Right now the church's approaches to the theology has so far be less than stellar. Until I am confident I have a good antidote in place, I am reluctant to crack the seal.

But right now, I am still thinking you have a good counter point in that those of us that have some idea how the two work together need to go ahead and step up to it. You are right, many of our Christian kids go to college and get the cocoon slammed open. And sitting around whispering about being a Christian that believes God created via evolution means they have no idea there are folks in their church they can talk to that might help them deal with the false dichotomy.

B) I am not laying the blame for this at the atheists feet. The church is in trouble because rather than resting its faith in the Rock which is Christ, it has built a house on the sand of Biblical techno-scientific accuracy - which simply doesn't exist. What I was trying to say is the the mentality of the YEC's and the new atheists is roughly the same when it comes to what it means if the Bible isn't a techno-scientific text. They just respond differently the to evidence that shows it is not that kind of text. The atheist says "If I can't read Genesis literally and superficially as a techno-scientific proto history, it is not inspired. Now look at all this evidence I can't read Genesis literally. see, this book is not inspired". The YEC says, "Indeed, If I can't read Genesis literally and superficially as techno-scientific proto history,then the Bible is not inspired/not the Word of God. But that evidence you cite can't possibly really mean what it seems to mean".

The problem for both is that the Bible is not a thechno-scientific proto history, yet it is inspired and the word of God. But neither has faith that is possible.

Now a question for you Pai. You are concerned. Yet you are saying you've lost your (Christian) faith and have adopted deism. Why not take the path Rogue or myself or Ansgar (or so many others - like say Collins or Lamoureux) have taken? We accept there is a resolution, that the Bible is the Word of God, Christ is Messiah, but Genesis is not written outside the basic natural knowledge of the writers and thus conveys the spiritual truth of God as creator and man as fallen within a 'language' consistent with what they knew and understood. It seems you are trying to make a difference that will keep others from taking your path - why not take the path back yourself and help make that difference?

Jim

Jaecp

September 10th 2009, 12:35 AM

Methinks that he'd rather have a huge swathe of liberal christians than the destructive fundamentalist/conservative types. Better in the short run.

Our master plan will take awhile.

(dun dun duuun)

USIncognito

September 10th 2009, 01:33 AM

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 02:20 AM

A quick apology for not addressing your post point by point. When conversations get this complex, it tends to produce monotonically increasing post length to the word count limit. I don't think pursuing that in this case is necessary.

I’m glad you didn’t. You’ve moved the discussion forward with this response. Thank you.

Two points:

A)

Yes, some, even many, are losing faith. And part of the reason is the Conservative Church's head in the sand approach to the real implications of the evidence found in the natural world on the traditional view and the aforementioned false dichotomy. But OTOH, many others are stuffed safely in their artificial cocoons courtesy of AIG and ICR etc. Unfortunately, they have a fast acting poison that if the cocoon is removed mostly kills anyone you try to rescue from the cocoon. You need to make sure you have a highly effective antidote ready to administer as soon as you break the seal. Right now the church's approaches to the theology has so far be less than stellar. Until I am confident I have a good antidote in place, I am reluctant to crack the seal.

This response is interesting, but I’m afraid I don’t understand you. What specifically do you mean by antidote, and why aren’t you prepared with that antidote? Do you have more pressing obligations that keep you out of the lab? ;)

Also, I’m afraid your emphasis is still on YEC when I made it clear the Craigs and Strobels are equally to blame. These authors and their readerships don’t appear to be in need of any special antidote. The only thing they need to know is why a sound methodology and epistemology make their evangelism more persuasive. You’re needlessly complicating the issue with all these worries about more vulnerable groups. That vulnerable demographic is already in danger. They are falling as we speak. You can’t afford to stand by waiting for some elusive and vague “antidote.” When will that medicine be ready? 2014? 2015? You better hurry because the Webb telescope is going up before then. There are sure to be more surprises in that data.

Act now, not later.

But right now, I am still thinking you have a good counter point in that those of us that have some idea how the two work together need to go ahead and step up to it. You are right, many of our Christian kids go to college and get the cocoon slammed open. And sitting around whispering about being a Christian that believes God created via evolution means they have no idea there are folks in their church they can talk to that might help them deal with the false dichotomy.

YES. And in the manner I described. Good, stimulating debates and open refutations, like the kind that take place here and FRDB. Journals and open debate challenges where the MacArthurs chicken out because they have all bluster and no backbone. These would speak VOLUMES. NOTHING like that is happening. The priestcraft and apologetic intelligentsia remain oh-so-cozy in their air-conditioned offices drafting new polemics and sermons that question reality and hastening the destruction of the flock (do you really believe this stuff or not? And didja know Greg Koukl has a forum here? How about starting with him?*).

I think behavior of that sort – whether intentional or not, it doesn’t matter – deserves an open challenge. Like YESTERDAY.

B) I am not laying the blame for this at the atheists feet. The church is in trouble because rather than resting its faith in the Rock which is Christ, it has built a house on the sand of Biblical techno-scientific accuracy - which simply doesn't exist. What I was trying to say is the the mentality of the YEC's and the new atheists is roughly the same when it comes to what it means if the Bible isn't a techno-scientific text. They just respond differently the to evidence that shows it is not that kind of text. The atheist says "If I can't read Genesis literally and superficially as a techno-scientific proto history, it is not inspired. Now look at all this evidence I can't read Genesis literally. see, this book is not inspired". The YEC says, "Indeed, If I can't read Genesis literally and superficially as techno-scientific proto history,then the Bible is not inspired/not the Word of God. But that evidence you cite can't possibly really mean what it seems to mean". The problem for both is that the Bible is not a thechno-scientific proto history, yet it is inspired and the word of God. But neither has faith that is possible.

I’m so glad you said that. It just gives me another opportunity to remind you that THEY DON’T MATTER (capped for emphasis, not to yell). Let the Dawkinses and Hams go round and round on that false dichotomy. While they’re playing fundamentalist footsie, the smart ones will be challenging the enablers and flagrant offenders in the academic arena. Fill the internet with well-written literature, debates, and news of that coward Ray Comfort refusing to debate Gordon Glover. It’d be beautiful.

Nope, I see nothing like that. Just excuses. And really lame ones like “I’m afraid I’ll imperil souls, therefore I need an antidote…that doesn’t exist yet.” Souls are already imperiled. It can’t get any uglier than four presidential candidates raising their hands to declare evolution just a hoax (their advisors checked the demographic data, I assure you. And guess which party THAT was!).

Now a question for you Pai. You are concerned. Yet you are saying you've lost your (Christian) faith and have adopted deism. Why not take the path Rogue or myself or Ansgar (or so many others - like say Collins or Lamoureux) have taken? We accept there is a resolution, that the Bible is the Word of God, Christ is Messiah, but Genesis is not written outside the basic natural knowledge of the writers and thus conveys the spiritual truth of God as creator and man as fallen within a 'language' consistent with what they knew and understood. It seems you are trying to make a difference that will keep others from taking your path - why not take the path back yourself and help make that difference?

Probably because you’re too busy deriding YECs to log that lab time? =) If you think refuting the scary arguments of Jorge and JAYMZ is a proper stewardship of your skills, by all means, go right ahead. (You think I don’t know that antidote isn’t ready because you yourself can’t see Christ in the Cretaceous? Do you think I’m stupid or something?)

No, Morton wasn’t pushed to the brink of apostasy by Rogues and Gordon Glovers. He was pushed there because you’re so busy working on an antidote you forgot that Glenn might see expression in the data. That tends to happen when you’re crunchin’ the numbers. =P Same deal with me, only I have too much dignity to force square pegs into round holes (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=11724). I can't imagine doing THAT and taking abuse from Dark Agists pending the completion of that mysterious tincture. NO THANKS, Jim.

You must earn the respect first before you evangelize. Plenty of Billy Sundays around.

All I want now is smarter Christians. Believe it or not, I find them good company. ;)

* Or do you need me to tell you about Greg Koukl (like I had to tell Rogue about Franklin Graham)?

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 03:32 AM

I don't see Graham's endorsement of Comfort's Evidence Bible as an indication that the former is a YEC. There are lots of books out there with endorsements from people who agree with the gestalt content of them, even if they might quibble with certain parts or points.

The smoking gun for me would be a clear, unambiguous statement by Graham supporting and advocating YEC. And while Comfort's apologetics (especially his Creationism, but a lot of the street evangelism too) stinks in my opinion, Graham's endorsement of the Evidence Bible isn't that smoking gun.

The last thing an advocate of Christianity should do is keep such alliances. Rogue's point was that BG declared evolution a non-issue. Comfort makes it very much the issue and got an endorsement from FG AND writes for FG's ministry magazine, meaning FG must'n't have read the Bible he was endorsing or didn't care that it said teleological belief DOES affect the quality of one's belief. With more than a century of creationist nonsense, I'm in no need of a smoking gun here. This is just a poetic bonus. Clearly, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

An impressive model of authority that. =/

USIncognito

September 10th 2009, 04:27 AM

{snip} Clearly, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Are you analogizing the body of Christ to a literal body? :teeth:

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 09:45 AM

Are you analogizing the body of Christ to a literal body? :teeth:

No, just making an observation about epistemelogical confusion and the pretense of unity. If F. Graham thinks his alliance with Comfort conveys unity and methodological consistency (remember, it's called The Evidence Bible and Comfort founds his evangelism SOLELY on teleology and the provocation of existential fear, something Graham doesn't do and I assume for a reason), he'd be mistaken. It conveys something else entirely, doesn't it? If you're perceptive enough to see it.

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 11:00 AM

Ansgar Seraph

September 10th 2009, 11:42 AM

It seems to me that Jim's speaking for the Rogues and Glovers, and it appears their excuse for not directly challenging the priestcraft is no more complicated than this:

1) The church allowed a priestcraft to dominate evangelical pedagogy, imperilling souls.

2) An epistemologically astute Christian minority exists that can challenge that priestcraft by explaining to them the difference.

3) Explaining the difference to the priestcraft might imperil souls. A tincture is needed.

There are numerous things that imperil a soul, Pai. The decision to tread lightly around evolution and that controversy isn't an easy thing to determine. I've met many, many people who are, at the time of our conversation, incapable of dealing with the shock of tearing away from creationist faith in a responsible manner. One ought not to leave the matter entirely unchallenged but there is a wisdom in staged approaches. Sometimes, all I feel right in doing is demonstrating a bit of knowledge on the subject so that the person can come hunt me down when she's finally willing to engage the discussion.

It's an important discussion and it is vital that Christians seek truth in all its forms; it is sometimes unwise, however, to expose a person to more than she can bear at the time.
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

-Alexander Pope

—Sam

Jaecp

September 10th 2009, 11:45 AM

Sam,

Pai's stuff has, of late at least, been about the kind of people who don't have churchgoers like Rogue or yourself. Imagine, say, the deconversion process that Dan Barker went through.

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 11:53 AM

Ansgar Seraph

September 10th 2009, 11:57 AM

I've been somewhat scatter-brained of late, I'll admit. I had to Wiki Dan Barker but didn't see anything about his experience.

Any road, I think the Church's problem with origins is going to be an incremental battle, going one way or the other. I'd say the best option for the next generation is for this generation to encourage our kids to really dig science; but that's definitely approaching the problem from a multi-generational approach. For the current set, I guess we just have to spread ourselves a little wider, eh?

—Sam

Jaecp

September 10th 2009, 12:12 PM

His bio on the organization he helps run might be useful then,

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

tl:dr,

Ordained minister, read alot, became atheist, now active S/C&S activist in the vein of Jeffersons Wall, to work for a better society liiiink (http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/).

I found his online articles very helpful when I went from agnostic to atheist a few years ago, thought I got them from infidels.org/library instead of frff.com.

Ansgar Seraph

September 10th 2009, 12:15 PM

Sam, I think you left this part out:

...therefore we are forced to toss them the data while laughing in derision, hi-fiving atheists, and calling The Vulnerable Fringe "trolls" in order to woo them over to a sounder epistemology. Love demands that incremental approach.

*YARF*

If you're talking about seanD there, I wouldn't agree that the response he received was untoward. Naturally, I don't approve of everything that was said when the discussion became frustrating and heated (including my own comments) but the general tone towards someone who repeatedly misrepresented and ignored opposing points while claiming adequacy in the subject was proper, I believe. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary to deflate a swelled ego prior to a useful discussion.

Any road, what are the options? Rattle the cages, calling a spade a spade / Don't rattle the cages, imperiling the soul / Apply a sounder epistemology gently and quietly, becoming a small voice? It seems that you disagree with each of these approaches while folks like Rogue, oxmixmudd and I see value in incorporating all three at different times.

—Sam

*Mind; I think your points are valid and we agree that this is a serious problem for the Church. I'm disagreeing with what I perceive to be the unnecessary limitation of scope and method which seems to be causing to you sharply disagree with those who have the same goal as you have on this issue.

oxmixmudd

September 10th 2009, 12:18 PM

Sam, I think you left this part out:

...therefore we are forced to toss them the data while laughing in derision, hi-fiving atheists, and calling The Vulnerable Fringe "trolls" in order to woo them over to a sounder epistemology. Love demands that incremental approach.

*YARF*

The more bellicose YEC's that post here are not the 'vulnerable fringe' we have been talking about. They are the problem. They are the ones who establish the false dichotomy and then brow beat anyone who asks questions that might challenge it. Although at first I was concerned I might challenge some of them in ways that could cause them harm, I have since learned I need not be concerned.

For example, at one point John Baumgardner showed up here. And it did not take long before he was accusing me of being a compromiser and not believing the Bible. Now, that tack isn't going to do me any harm, but to someone just beginning to see there are cracks in the YEC armor, that approach is very destructive. Because eventually that person will see YEC for the farse it is, and having been accosted in a hostile fashion over honest questions only serves to aid their departure from the faith. And that approach is not uncommon, even at lower levels. I have been working very hard in my church to make it official policy in the youth groups to NEVER approach a kid asking questions on these issues that way. If I didn't have at least some respect, I wouldn't even get an ear for that.

Jim

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 12:31 PM

rogue06

September 10th 2009, 01:11 PM

I don't see Graham's endorsement of Comfort's Evidence Bible as an indication that the former is a YEC. There are lots of books out there with endorsements from people who agree with the gestalt content of them, even if they might quibble with certain parts or points.

The smoking gun for me would be a clear, unambiguous statement by Graham supporting and advocating YEC. And while Comfort's apologetics (especially his Creationism, but a lot of the street evangelism too) stinks in my opinion, Graham's endorsement of the Evidence Bible isn't that smoking gun.
For me, the smoking gun would be if Franklin renounced his father's views and declared you can't be a Christian and accept evolution. It makes little difference whether Franklin is a dyed-in-the-wool creationist or accepts evolution since there are many creationists who don't think evolution is automatically opposed to the Bible. Unless Franklin said his father was wrong and Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive this is nothing more than an attempt to turn a molehill into a mountain.

Ansgar Seraph

September 10th 2009, 01:58 PM

Sam and Jim keep bringing it back to YEC, and I've seen Rogue play this game as well. It's a (perhaps subconscious) distraction from the elephant in the room. Greg Koukl remains unchallenged. He commands undeserved epistemological respect and encourages Christians to distrust reality. He isn't YEC.

Sling the smooth stone already. Sink it deep into his forehead. The sissification of language, hypocritical references to "staged approaches" (of which many of the discussions here empirically refute), and collective shoulder shrugging on this issue makes me sick.

You aren't being truthful. There Koukl awaits and nothing's stopping you. Those excuses don't fly with me and I'm happy to explain in so many iterations why.

I don't know who Koukl is or what his platform is. While I admit that ignorance should always be rectified when the situation warrants (and I'll be looking him and Barker up when I've got free time tonight (thanks for the link, Jaecp :thumb:)), I don't think I need to know exactly what every apologist is saying and address the arguments one by one. When they pop up in the discussion, I think it's fair to address them. And there's nothing in my posts that narrows the topic down to YEC, either.

Now, to the point of the hostile language in your post. I don't think that you have enough information about this cadre to substantiate that we're being hypocritical in our methodology. If you wish to substantiate that with evidence from past threads, please do so — as a rather constant observer of my own life, however, I can categorically say that your accusal of hypocrisy (in this area) is wrong. Neither have many of us simply shrugged our shoulders and twiddled our thumbs; we're here, actively discussing this issue on a routine basis. Most of us, I dare to say, find ourselves repeatedly dealing with this issue in our personal interactions outside TWeb. And while we may express things more diplomatically than you would at times and less diplomatically than you would other times, that's just the way it is; we try to do our best in any given situation and adjust our tone as we believe most conducisive to the discussion (well, at least when not excessively hungry, angry, lonely or tired (aka: HALT) :blush:).

And I am unable to discern what would make you happy in these dealings; if we're diplomatic in our approach, it's a "sissification of language". If we're stern and pointed and taking the piss out of an over-inflated sense of knowledge, we're "tossing them data while laughing in derision." How would you approach similar situations and in what situations have you done so? My guess is that your discussions would be just as prone to hyperbolic criticisms as ours are.

You've previously acknowledged that Rogue and I understand this situation and I can definitely say that oxmixmudd understands it better than I do. One thing that all three of us also understand, though, is that this is not a primary issue. The only primary issue is the Church's expression of Christ; if I determine that a secondary issue will undermine the primary one, I'll try to tread carefully there, attempting first to establish a stronger foundation. If I determine that a secondary issue is taking precedence over the primary one, I'll do my best to expose that. I admit fallibility in my categorization and have undoubtedly missed opportunities because of it but I don't see that as being the case in recent TWeb discussions.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 10th 2009, 03:03 PM

For me, the smoking gun would be if Franklin renounced his father's views and declared you can't be a Christian and accept evolution. It makes little difference whether Franklin is a dyed-in-the-wool creationist or accepts evolution since there are many creationists who don't think evolution is automatically opposed to the Bible. Unless Franklin said his father was wrong and Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive this is nothing more than an attempt to turn a molehill into a mountain.

Actually, it's just one peak in the whole mountain range.

Understand that no "smoking gun" is needed. We have the body, the gun, the fingerprints, the DNA, the video of the crime, and the confession. The excuses for Franklin Graham's endorsement of Comfort's "Evidence" (seen in the OP quote that compares the Big Bang to a terrorist bomb, therefore magnifying the problem you claim to be concerned about) is simply another expression of the enablement. F. Graham has a shady and disturbing alliance with a man who makes Jorges; while he scratches Comfort's back, you dutifully draft excuses for his behavior. This would be hilarious if it weren't so perverse.

Keep making this about YECs and not about Koukl and the multitude of anti-evos who churn JAYMZes out. Keep your smooth stones pouched and, by all means, continue to treat the priestcraft with respect they don't deserve. You might -- gasp! -- imperil souls if you call THEM the trolls they actually are. It's easy to anonymously deride, say, a Calminian; you're admitting it's not so easy when it's an apologist with undeserved clout. That Strobels and Koukls intimidate you to such a degree is quite possibly the most devastating inadvertant admission I've seen here at T-Web. And they keep coming. Now we have talk of tinctures not yet at-the-ready, which somehow is supposed to explain the obvious lack of direct confrontation. Now we have grown men admitting to being easily intimidated by gaggles of pre-tenderized young earthers who call them "godless." (Who do you suppose prepares them for the grill, Rogue? =P)

BTW, I'm not even suggesting you go at Koukl with that level of rhetorical hubris. An open challenge to GK would be sufficient. The inevitable declined offer would be POWERFUL data demonstrating Koukl doesn't have the guts to defend his epistemelogical carelessness.

MrManNo1

September 10th 2009, 10:53 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 11th 2009, 12:33 AM

Why, exactly, is this thread in Nat Sci? This is a philosophy thread, not really a science thread. Pai seems to just want to spew his teleology argument anywhere he gets a chance, with no regard for whether or not it's appropriate. He also seems to really like that whole faulty "Christianity asks us to check our brains at the door" argument.

Because it's called The Evidence Bible. One of the commentaries therein explained the Big Bang incorrectly (it was not an explosion like a bomb is an explosion) in order to make it sound like a clumsy theory. The authors do that with evolution, too. Perhaps even gravity, I do not know. =)

i.e. We're discussing the moral consquences of supposedly "transformed" believers pre-tenderizing their children for the grill. Interesting topic. You should stick around.

Pai Geacademe

September 11th 2009, 01:28 AM

We must take an account of what's been said. Here's where we are so far:

1) Jim agrees the problem is a tragedy but that more direct and appropriate action is not warranted. He's working on an antidote. When that antidote's ready, THEN it will be time to spring into action.

2) Sam says a staggered approach prevents runaway apostasy. He has no clue who Greg Koukl is, but he has enough experience to know incrementalism works best. The teachers are just fine; it's the STUDENTS who are out of control, he believes.

3) Rogue agrees with Jim and Sam and still defends F. Graham. He says that one can endorse a document whose central apologetic is creationism without any measurable conflict with one's own belief that creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive. He says there is no problem when a well-respected evangelist who has a solid understanding of the distinction between general and special revelation (Franklin, supposedly) endorses the commentary of a man who insists that evolution is atheistic.

Jaecp

September 11th 2009, 03:15 AM

Then we have the people who dedicated a large amount of their life to spreading the word, then later in life found it wanting. Dan Barker is one of the better known examples of this, I don't know who Koukl is, maybe he is too.

MMN1, since its about, generally, a guy who is advocating something full of creationism as good, while not being a creationist, or something.

shunyadragon

September 11th 2009, 08:16 AM

There are numerous things that imperil a soul, Pai. The decision to tread lightly around evolution and that controversy isn't an easy thing to determine. I've met many, many people who are, at the time of our conversation, incapable of dealing with the shock of tearing away from creationist faith in a responsible manner. One ought not to leave the matter entirely unchallenged but there is a wisdom in staged approaches. Sometimes, all I feel right in doing is demonstrating a bit of knowledge on the subject so that the person can come hunt me down when she's finally willing to engage the discussion.

It's an important discussion and it is vital that Christians seek truth in all its forms; it is sometimes unwise, however, to expose a person to more than she can bear at the time."A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."

-Alexander Pope

—Sam

'The more than one can bear at the time,' nor fear related threats of the imperalment of the soul, are not adequate arguments to address the problem. Evolution has been around along time, and It is one of strongest best established concepts and theories in science. I disagree with grmorton and others that still try to selectively gerimander an interpretation of the Bible into science, and still hold the Bible in some way the literal word of God. It does not work to work translations in a modern academic way to justify anything other than the fact that those that wrote the Bible believed there was a world flood and a creation as depicted in the Bible. The Bible is an ancient text and an ancient world view, clinging to it as the word of God creates a skitsopheria that cannot be resolved, and thus believers most often cannot deal with science in an objective and unbiased manner. It is best to give up the ghosts of the past.

Pai Geacademe

September 11th 2009, 10:02 AM

'The more than one can bear at the time,' nor fear related threats of the imperalment of the soul, are not adequate arguments to address the problem. Evolution has been around along time, and It is one of strongest best established concepts and theories in science. I disagree with grmorton and others that still try to selectively gerimander an interpretation of the Bible into science, and still hold the Bible in some way the literal word of God. It does not work to work translations in a modern academic way to justify anything other than the fact that those that wrote the Bible believed there was a world flood and a creation as depicted in the Bible. The Bible is an ancient text and an ancient world view, clinging to it as the word of God creates a skitsopheria that cannot be resolved, and thus believers most often cannot deal with science in an objective and unbiased manner. It is best to give up the ghosts of the past.

And that's why the teachers must be gone after. My criticisms of the excuses provided thus far all focus on Jim's and Sam's fundamantal denial that the teachers are the problem (not the students). The teachers require none of the "pre-work" or "staged approaches" that Jim and Sam have said are necessary to curb the loss of souls (which is already happening and could not possibly get any worse!). All their focus on "the students" is just a red herring. I acknowledge it might be an unconscious one.

Jaecp, Greg Koukl is a very well-respected apologist and author in Southern California. He has an entire forum here called Stand to Reason. I know he challenges evolution. I'll try to get back with some links to his articles.

Jaecp

September 11th 2009, 10:32 AM

Oh,

Whoops,

Amusingly, his second to the top post "Just the facts ma'am" is an incorrect reference, only clicked it to see if he would notice it. Lovely stuff, like "The greatest evil has not resulted from people zealous for God. It has resulted when people are convinced there is no God they must answer to." I wonder what percent of the world would have died if we had airplanes and machine guns during the crusades, or if Genghis khan had tanks. Nevermind the "atheists aren't moral" stereotype.

This is hardly the time or place for that though,

Anyway,

Thanks Pai,

Pai Geacademe

September 11th 2009, 10:52 AM

Jaecp

September 11th 2009, 10:59 AM

Well,

I mean,

Its not like Koukls articles are hard to find, I managed it. I wasn't impressed though, stereotyping abounding. Statements that are true, but not accurate.

Meh,

Ansgar Seraph

September 11th 2009, 11:07 AM

And that's why the teachers must be gone after. My criticisms of the excuses provided thus far all focus on Jim's and Sam's fundamantal denial that the teachers are the problem (not the students). The teachers require none of the "pre-work" or "staged approaches" that Jim and Sam have said are necessary to curb the loss of souls (which is already happening and could not possibly get any worse!). All their focus on "the students" is just a red herring. I acknowledge it might be an unconscious one.

Jaecp, Greg Koukl is a very well-respected apologist and author in Southern California. He has an entire forum here called Stand to Reason. I know he challenges evolution. I'll try to get back with some links to his articles.

Oh, do come off it, Pai. If you want a red herring, look no further on that post. When have I ever indicated that the "teachers" were not a problem? I remember quite well "standing shoulder to shoulder" with you on the Apologetics forum, criticizing Strobel, Geisler and Sproul. You want me to be walking up to their door, calling them outside to "settle this like men?"

I'd never heard Koukl's name before and from all appearances, he's a "minor player" in popular apologetics. I make no apologies for not having a Rolodex full of these guys. From a perusal of his resources concerning evolution, he makes no new claims — what am I missing, other than familiarity with a name? And recall what I said long ago; even if you shout the bad creationism arguments out of Strobel, Geisler, Sproul and Koukl, ten more people will take their places. I'm highly uninterested in wasting time keeping tabs on an ever-changing caroseul of faces. It's the arguments, the message, that I am concerned with.

And let me make it clear again: the primary goal is to express Christ's love through the Church. Koukl and I very likely agree on a good many topics. My old philosophy professor is a respected apologist and I won't be surprised when his books become top national sellers. I vocally disagree with his views on Intelligent Design but we agree on many more topics than we disagree on and I see his work as having a huge net benefit to the Church. I certainly tell him the areas I think he's wrong and he's done the same for me (gently, time and time again in philosophy class!). I don't give the "teachers" a free pass (and you know this) but I'm not going to tear them off the wall and stone them, either.

I've explained my approach and methodology in a broad sense for you so that you could understand my perspective. If you wish to legitimately critique that approach, I'm happy to discuss it with you. What I will not do is simply suffer your slings and arrows so carelessly hurled.

—Sam

oxmixmudd

September 11th 2009, 11:09 AM

And that's why the teachers must be gone after. My criticisms of the excuses provided thus far all focus on Jim's and Sam's fundamantal denial that the teachers are the problem (not the students). The teachers require none of the "pre-work" or "staged approaches" that Jim and Sam have said are necessary to curb the loss of souls (which is already happening and could not possibly get any worse!). All their focus on "the students" is just a red herring. I acknowledge it might be an unconscious one.

Jaecp, Greg Koukl is a very well-respected apologist and author in Southern California. He has an entire forum here called Stand to Reason. I know he challenges evolution. I'll try to get back with some links to his articles.

Ok - interesting. First of all, the approach I am talking about is oriented around dealing with those in the church, not the leaders of the church. For the most part these are the only people I have any influence on. My experience with these 'teachers and leaders' is that if you don't have some kind of paper qualification or a widely recognized public 'ministry' of some kind, they wont give you the time of day. For example, I did take on the reasonably well known apologist who posts here - JPholding - on the issue of the ancient Hebrew cosmology. His primary approach to me was "Who the hell are you to challenge me!". And I've already described the response I got from Baumgardner. Oh yes, and I once also had a YEC friend of mine 'negotiate' getting Russell Humphreys to hear and answer 1 (one) question from me, to which he responded, but I was not allowed any followup questions ...

So as you can see, I'm not particularly impressed by the effectiveness of trying to engage these folks. They live in their little ivory towers and have no time for the likes of me. Indeed, the appear to think I should consider myself blessed they would even talk to me. Hence I am much more focused on how to deal with those that I DO have influence on.

Now you say koukl has a forum here. Fine - I'll have a look at it. But this is the first I've heard of it, and the first I've heard of koukl. And I don't expect if I do chose to engage him I'll get any more than I got from holding or baumgardner, or that I'll accomplish anything useful.

Jim

Ansgar Seraph

September 11th 2009, 11:11 AM

Dr.GH

September 11th 2009, 11:31 AM

I was going to post links to Koukl's articles, but then I thought What am I DOING this for? Sam's claim he'd research Koukl just doesn't jibe: what fruit would that specific research yield, anyway? Sam already insisted he wouldn't go after his "well-respected" ilk and that Christians should wait for the teachers, such as Koukl and Sproul, to come to THEM. Like that's gonna happen.

My point is they're already in your grills, and have been for a long time, PRECISELY because you let them go unchallenged in academia. If the current discussion is any indication, that will exponentially continue.

All I needed was a synopsis (below). I spared myself the rest because I KNOW the rest. So should you:

Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science

I have found nothing in Koukl's writing that is not generic creationism.

Friends, there is no need for any of us to flirt with evolution. Darwinism is false. It can't even get out of the starting blocks. The world looks designed because it is designed, just like the Bible says. It's as simple as that.

See? It is simple.

If anyone wants to read more of this tripe, go to Koukl's website (http://www.str.org) and register.

Pai Geacademe

September 11th 2009, 11:38 AM

I don't give the "teachers" a free pass (and you know this) but I'm not going to tear them off the wall and stone them, either

Sam, this shows you really aren't reading what I've said. I went out of my way to say you needn't go at each other with knives. You're exagerrating. I've always said you challenge the ideas in the noble format of academic back and forth. You may "have a problem with the teachers," but your frustration with their ideas hasn't expressed itself, and will never express itself, in any significant way.

I mean "you" in general. And I thank you for your candor in finally expressing WHY you cannot do this: you're bound to a sanctimonious politeness. Koukl and the priestcraft specifically benefit from that faux unity.

No one's faulting you for having an empty rolodex. It's your clear denial that the teachers are the root of the crisis (NOT THE STUDENTS) that doesn't sit right with me (ie the pedagogists THEMSELVES, not the VICTIMS of the pedagogy). And it's so obviously false as to warrant many more reiterations of the argument, which you'll definately get if you continue on this course. Or perhaps I should just be satisfied with your answer that you're bound by the Decalogue to pretend solidarity, even when your brethren hold knives to the flock's collective throat (how convenient!).

This isn't hostilty, btw; it's honesty. Toughen up and learn the distinction.

Ansgar Seraph

September 11th 2009, 12:00 PM

Sincere or not, your posts have been rather hostile here, Pai. And do not be deceived; I'm not psychologically bound to "sanctimonious politeness" — I struggle often enough to not express myself more crudely. And as anyone who sits down and has a long discussion about this topic with me can tell you, I have no problem with "significantly expressing" my frustration with apologists' poor scientific arguments.

Now you "summarized" my position as:

2) Sam says a staggered approach prevents runaway apostasy. He has no clue who Greg Koukl is, but he has enough experience to know incrementalism works best. The teachers are just fine; it's the STUDENTS who are out of control, he believes.

which is nonsense, since I've vocally criticized popular apologists' arguments, both on TWeb and in my personal day-to-day life. When I responded in full, you merely gave lip service to the acknowledgment that I see the problem but then added that my frustration hasn't "expressed itself in any significant way". Again, I ask what you would have us do? Obviously just criticizing the arguments isn't enough. How would you approach the problem?

—Sam

Jaecp

September 11th 2009, 12:14 PM

Ansgar Seraph

September 11th 2009, 12:37 PM

No worries. I still haven't finished all of the books you sent me :) (though, this is from one of Lewis's statements about halfway through really pissing me off, I keep meaning to make a thread about it, but w/e. Theres this part where he says he'd rather play a game with someone who blinding follows an ethic he can't explain, than someone who knows why things are righ and wrong. Paraphrased slightly, but the meaning is captured)

My take on "christians fixing christians" is that when people are wrong, and they are actively making other people wrong, it should be our duty to help them understand why they are wrong, for the betterment of all. Enlightened egoism. Especially with teachers, since the sooner you fix them, the less students you gotta fix

Interesting; the only quote from Lewis that comes to mind is when he says that he feels that men sometimes incorporate more meaning from myths they don't believe than from the histories that they profess. I'll be interested in that thread!

Well, here's a story about a rather through rattling I had to give a girl once. I'd been friends with this lady since she was a freshman in college and we'd had several conversations about evolution and creationism. Her senior year, I was over at her house fixing computers while she and her friends were discussing the next year of teaching elementary school. They started discussing how my friend would be incorporating creationism into her class (a social studies class, even). At that point, I felt it imperative to dispense with the "soft sell"; we had a five-hour marathon of Creationism vs. Evolution and she was, unpleasantly, almost to the point of tears several times. A week later, she let me know that she had been placing too much of her belief in creationism and that, while she was still a creationist, it was not a foundational position for her faith any longer.

Now, if I had gone in "guns blazing" her freshman year or only discussed evolution that single time her senior year, she would've completely walled me out. If I hadn't made it clear at some point that she was doing a severe disservice to her students, I would have been irresponsible. It's a difficult situation and my approach needed to be expressly tailored to her mentality. Sometimes a good result follows, sometimes it doesn't. That subjectivity and ambiguity is the essence of what I think we've been arguing for.

—Sam

Jaecp

September 11th 2009, 12:42 PM

Well,

I won't fault you for taking a measured approach tailor to the individual, its what I did in the navy. Sadly, back home, people have things to do when not working so less random conversations of a bunch of 20 something guys stuck with each other for months on end. Mind you, it was me, in one fashion or another, acting as an, uh, atheist missionary, so to speak :-p

I'll find the quote and type it up at some point.

oxmixmudd

September 11th 2009, 02:18 PM

I have found nothing in Koukl's writing that is not generic creationism.

See? It is simple.

If anyone wants to read more of this tripe, go to Koukl's website (http://www.str.org) and register.

Yep - with the exception of yielding to the idea the Universe and Earth are vastly older that 6000 years (an acknowledgment that should earn him about as much respect as acknowledging 2+2 = 4 or that the Earth orbits the sun), he takes essentially the same extreme views on evolution as we would expect to see from any YEC.

It is only among those that see any deviation from 6/6000 as radical that he appears more moderate than a Ken Ham or a John Baumgardner.

Jim

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 02:48 AM

Ok - interesting. First of all, the approach I am talking about is oriented around dealing with those in the church, not the leaders of the church. For the most part these are the only people I have any influence on. My experience with these 'teachers and leaders' is that if you don't have some kind of paper qualification or a widely recognized public 'ministry' of some kind, they wont give you the time of day. For example, I did take on the reasonably well known apologist who posts here - JPholding - on the issue of the ancient Hebrew cosmology. His primary approach to me was "Who the hell are you to challenge me!". And I've already described the response I got from Baumgardner. Oh yes, and I once also had a YEC friend of mine 'negotiate' getting Russell Humphreys to hear and answer 1 (one) question from me, to which he responded, but I was not allowed any followup questions ...

So as you can see, I'm not particularly impressed by the effectiveness of trying to engage these folks. They live in their little ivory towers and have no time for the likes of me. Indeed, the appear to think I should consider myself blessed they would even talk to me. Hence I am much more focused on how to deal with those that I DO have influence on.

Now you say koukl has a forum here. Fine - I'll have a look at it. But this is the first I've heard of it, and the first I've heard of koukl. And I don't expect if I do chose to engage him I'll get any more than I got from holding or baumgardner, or that I'll accomplish anything useful.

Jim

Hey Jim. There's still much misunderstanding here, but we're getting closer to agreeing to disagree. I think I know what guides your decisions, so it'd be pointless to discuss this any further when it's confirmed. First, let's clear up the misunderstandings.

When I said "When I say 'you,' I mean you in general" I do that for a reason. To a certain extent, I do mean you, but I'm really talking about the the Gordon Glovers and other men and women with degrees and ministries who know better. As you can see, there aren't many, and the ones that do exist don't even openly challenge those with the modest clout of Koukl This is left up to liberal Catholics like Ken Miller (he's the only one I'm aware of). Believe me, I want to know there are more, but you'd have proffered some encouraging examples by now. They don't exist. If they do, the ratio is so unbelievably lopsided, we could ask "What's the problem here?" Someone's CLEARLY not getting the picture that pain is being unnecessarily inflicted and souls are being put at risk (if your religion is true). Creationism such as Koukl's is an egregious attempt to pervert a numinous perspective of nature and keep Christians in the Stone Age.

Consider, for example, Sam's description of that creationist woman he gave a 5-hour "talking to." She wept. Cried like a baby. And that was supposedly following his gentler "staggered approach." If that doesn't make you (and I mean "you" in general) mad enough to want to confront the priestcraft and Christian intelligentsia OPENLY and in full view of the evangelical and academic communities, I just don't know what to say. How could I have more passion about this than you? All this talk about antidotes-in-progress and overlapping core beliefs and brotherly harmony sounds awfully subjective and wishy washy to me.

Clearly you don't have your heads. I've talked to Wiccans who have more spiritual and moral clarity than this.

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 09:07 AM

Consider, for example, Sam's description of that creationist woman he gave a 5-hour "talking to." She wept. Cried like a baby. And that was supposedly following his gentler "staggered approach." If that doesn't make you (and I mean "you" in general) mad enough to want to confront the priestcraft and Christian intelligentsia OPENLY and in full view of the evangelical and academic communities, I just don't know what to say. How could I have more passion about this than you? All this talk about antidotes-in-progress and overlapping core beliefs and brotherly harmony sounds awfully subjective and wishy washy to me.

Clearly you don't have your heads. I've talked to Wiccans who have more spiritual and moral clarity than this.

No, she didn't. I said she was almost to the point of tears several times in the conversation; she never cried and certainly never "cried like a baby". And since you're using my illustration, do you know who the mooring for her creationist beliefs was? It wasn't Strobel, Sproul, Ham or even Hovind . . . it was her parents, whom I've never met and probably never will. Another friend once confessed (while we were discussing Hovind) that she was still a creationist only because she'd be disowned if her parents found out she "switched sides".

You are under the impression of "kill the head and the body will die" — that if we manage to knock off the creationist arguments from the "leaders", everyone else will just fall into agreement (or at least won't know enough to formulate new arguments). That's not the case; this is a very complex issue and things like familial ties and relationships have to be accounted for.

And if you're meaning "you" as in "you Christians" and not "you who I am talking to", then you need to stop crisscrossing between the specific and the general. It does not seem that you are speaking generally, as your criticisms have been very specifically aimed at our positions (or what you make of our positions). Case in point: you call "all this talk about antidotes-in-progress and overlapping core beliefs and brotherly harmony" wishy-washy (a specific criticism of oxmixmudd) while lamenting that the general populace doesn't do something more about these creationist apologists — it's a completely inconsistent sentence. oxmixmudd has challenged these guys in the public forum so if you are not talking about him personally, why should you then specifically criticize his reasons for being cautious at times? You certainly have not been asking, "Why aren't more people like Jim?" . . . you've been saying that oxmixmudd (and Rogue and myself) are in denial of the real problem.

So I have to ask that you please do not elaborate on my personal experiences if you weren't party to them and that you clarify exactly who you are speaking to and about in further posts.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 10:45 AM

No, she didn't. I said she was almost to the point of tears several times in the conversation; she never cried and certainly never "cried like a baby". And since you're using my illustration, do you know who the mooring for her creationist beliefs was? It wasn't Strobel, Sproul, Ham or even Hovind . . . it was her parents, whom I've never met and probably never will. Another friend once confessed (while we were discussing Hovind) that she was still a creationist only because she'd be disowned if her parents found out she "switched sides".

You are under the impression of "kill the head and the body will die" — that if we manage to knock off the creationist arguments from the "leaders", everyone else will just fall into agreement (or at least won't know enough to formulate new arguments). That's not the case; this is a very complex issue and things like familial ties and relationships have to be accounted for.

And if you're meaning "you" as in "you Christians" and not "you who I am talking to", then you need to stop crisscrossing between the specific and the general. It does not seem that you are speaking generally, as your criticisms have been very specifically aimed at our positions (or what you make of our positions). Case in point: you call "all this talk about antidotes-in-progress and overlapping core beliefs and brotherly harmony" wishy-washy (a specific criticism of oxmixmudd) while lamenting that the general populace doesn't do something more about these creationist apologists — it's a completely inconsistent sentence. oxmixmudd has challenged these guys in the public forum so if you are not talking about him personally, why should you then specifically criticize his reasons for being cautious at times? You certainly have not been asking, "Why aren't more people like Jim?" . . . you've been saying that oxmixmudd (and Rogue and myself) are in denial of the real problem.

You're forgetting Rogue's specific defense of F. Graham's endorsement of The Evidence Bible in the Hummingbirds thread, which went something like this.

YOU'LL HAVE TO PROFFER EVIDENCE OF FRANKLIN'S SPECIFIC CREATIONISM TO DEMONSTRATE HIS SUPPORT OF THE LIES WITHIN THAT BIBLE.

THAT'S what I mean by denial of the real problem, and, yes, I do believe you share in that to an extent. Remember that I had to tell you about Comfort's infamous and DEVASTATING banana argument despite it being, well, infamous. Something about Rogue's "silent groans" (he was beholden not to speak up to his assistant pastor because of those shared core beliefs you mentioned earlier) and your not being informed about the globally broadcast gaffes of your creationist "brothers" has me believing you still don't have your heads around the issue, at least like I do (you're forgetting I have the same experience as that girl). I want you to understand that you're not immune from criticism just because you happen to have a sophisticated epistemology. This problem is much worse but far less complicated than you've been describing. That might explain why you think I'm being hostile toward you. I'm trying to get you mad and motivate you to be mad at the top brass. At the very least, be informed about the latest black eyes* they've dealt the evangelical reputation. It might be useful in your staggered approaches. ;)

I apologize for getting the story wrong. She didn't cry like a baby. She almost cried because her parents told her lies. The source of those lies is a well-established Christian
support infrastructure. Koukl (or another pedagogist) might very well have shored up her parents' teleological delusions with a radio program on the paucity of transitional fossils! The origin and maintenance of THAT urban legend is the fault of the top brass, not the parents who've been merely been inculcated to trust the top brass. Defending the pedagogists, or implying they needn't be openly challanged in full view because your shared core beliefs are more important than their soul-imperiling lies misses the mark ENTIRELY.

So I have to ask that you please do not elaborate on my personal experiences if you weren't party to them and that you clarify exactly who you are speaking to and about in further posts.

—Sam

Will do. Specificity is called for and I apologize for the misunderstandings. I'll strive to be clearer. Perhaps you and Jim can be clearer about delayed antidotes (what they are, who's working on them, and why they are so delayed).

* Craig's progressive creationism is one of those black eyes. It bespeaks a deliberate refusal to process facts that, according to Glover, ultimately have no bearing on the Bible's veracity. What's preventing me from going around, as I have, to explain that bald inconsistency to the fencesitters? Craig can easily be proved to be epistemelogically handicapped, which casts doubt on the methodological steps he took to arrive at his Reasonable Faith. More Christians need to understand that.

Dr.GH

September 12th 2009, 11:01 AM

Believe me, I want to know there are more, but you'd have proffered some encouraging examples by now. They don't exist. If they do, the ratio is so unbelievably lopsided, we could ask "What's the problem here?" Someone's CLEARLY not getting the picture that pain is being unnecessarily inflicted and souls are being put at risk (if your religion is true). Creationism such as Koukl's is an egregious attempt to pervert a numinous perspective of nature and keep Christians in the Stone Age.

Here is a short list of books that would seem to meet your request. I included Ken Miller's two. These are limited to those books specificly addressing biblical religion and evolution from the viewpoint of a practicioner, and that I have read in the last few years. (Sprong has a wider range of topics, but the rest are focused on evo v. creationism).

Ayala, Francisco
2006 "Darwin and Intelligent Design" Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Ayala, Francisco
2007 "Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion" Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press

Collins, Francis S.
2006 "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons

Giberson, Karl W.
2008 “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution” New York: HarperCollins (Giberson is a physicist and it shows. He makes many errors of fact, scientific and historical).

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.
2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: The Paulist Press

Hyers, Conrad
1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Kitcher, Phillip
2007 “Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Life” Oxford University Press

McGrath, Alister E.
2009 "A Fine-Tuned Universe" Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press

Ken Miller
1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins
____
2008 “Only a Theory” New York: Viking Press

Miller, Keith B. (editor)
2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company

Slifkin, Rabbi Natan
2006/2008 “The Challenge of Creation: Judaism’s Encounter with Science, Cosmology and Evolution” New York: Zoo Torah and Yashar Books

Spong, John Shelby
1992 "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" New York: HarperCollins

Towne, Margaret Gray
2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism" Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

shunyadragon

September 12th 2009, 11:45 AM

I was going to post links to Koukl's articles, but then I thought What am I DOING this for? Sam's claim he'd research Koukl just doesn't jibe: what fruit would that specific research yield, anyway? Sam already insisted he wouldn't go after his "well-respected" ilk and that Christians should wait for the teachers, such as Koukl and Sproul, to come to THEM. Like that's gonna happen.

My point is they're already in your grills, and have been for a long time, PRECISELY because you let them go unchallenged in academia. If the current discussion is any indication, that will exponentially continue.

All I needed was a synopsis (below). I spared myself the rest because I KNOW the rest. So should you:

Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science

Greg may claim to show that 'Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science,' but his claim is an 'Air Ball' and ho valid foundation whatsoever in science.

shunyadragon

September 12th 2009, 11:51 AM

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 12:12 PM

You're forgetting Rogue's specific defense of F. Graham's endorsement of The Evidence Bible in the Hummingbirds thread, which went something like this.

YOU'LL HAVE TO PROFFER EVIDENCE OF FRANKLIN'S SPECIFIC CREATIONISM TO DEMONSTRATE HIS SUPPORT OF THE LIES WITHIN THAT BIBLE.

THAT'S what I mean by denial of the real problem, and, yes, I do believe you share in that to an extent.

First of all, Rogue never defended Franklin Graham's endorsement of The Evidence Bible. Not once. He said that he was disappointed hearing that Graham endorsed it. You called him out for "merely" being disappointed . . . but what would you have Rogue do? Write a letter to Graham? Challenge him to public debate? Stage a hunger strike? Write a book? Help us out here, Pai: what action should we be taking other than what we already do by actively discussing this topic with people who are interested in a dicussion?

Remember that I had to tell you about Comfort's infamous and DEVASTATING banana argument despite it being, well, infamous. Something about Rogue's "silent groans" (he was beholden not to speak up to his assistant pastor because of those shared core beliefs you mentioned earlier) and your not being informed about the globally broadcast gaffes of your creationist "brothers" has me believing you still don't have your heads around the issue, at least like I do (you're forgetting I have the same experience as that girl).

Pai, do you know how many creationist arguments are out there? I certainly don't. When a new one pops up, I try to familiarize myself with it. I've never heard the "banana argument" in any discussion except ours and it's an easy argument to refute, even with no prior familiarity. Just like I don't need to know every creationist apologetic, I don't need to know each and every "hail Mary" creationist argument as soon as they appear. I can explain, to some good extent, the fatal flaws of White Hole Cosmology (which I believe will be presented in an upcoming movie this Christmas) and that's a far more important and time-consuming argument to deal with. I can explain radiometric dating in-depth and I can give a good opening argument on morphological evidences of evolution and genetics (though I have to quickly pass those issues on to more knowledgeable folks). Absolutely, there's a lot that I don't know — and I doubt that you'll find anyone here who accurately sees the entire scope of the issue. That's the beauty of both Science and Christianity: they are both akin to a body comprised of many different parts; parts sometimes at odds with one another but working in concert towards a purpose achievable only as a whole.

I want you to understand that you're not immune from criticism just because you happen to have a sophisticated epistemology. This problem is much worse but far less complicated than you've been describing. That might explain why you think I'm being hostile toward you. I'm trying to get you mad and motivate you to be mad at the top brass. At the very least, be informed about the latest black eyes* they've dealt the evangelical reputation. It might be useful in your staggered approaches. ;)

I don't think at all that I am immune to criticism. But what am I being criticized for? Speaking too harshly to "the students"? Not being forceful enough with "the teachers"? Not knowing every creationist argument in existence? Like I said, I've explained my methodology to you and I welcome a legitimate critique — but what, in your mind, am I doing wrong, here?

I apologize for getting the story wrong. She didn't cry like a baby. She almost cried because her parents told her lies. The source of those lies is a well-established Christian support infrastructure. Koukl (or another pedagogist) might very well have shored up her parents' teleological delusions with a radio program on the paucity of transitional fossils! The origin and maintenance of THAT urban legend is the fault of the top brass, not the parents who've been merely been inculcated to trust the top brass. Defending the pedagogists, or implying they needn't be openly challanged in full view because your shared core beliefs are more important than their soul-imperiling lies misses the mark ENTIRELY.

I've never said that the apologists who put forth creationist arguments ought not to be challenged on that issue. But what makes you think that there is a great deal of difference between the apologists and the parents? Sometimes they are better educated, sometimes not. In any case, they are still human, still Christians. Our shared core beliefs may well prove to be the only reason a friend, a parent or an apologist listens to me when I speak. Relationship is an important aspect of this issue. Speaking as someone rather intertwined with the Evangelical church, I feel very confident in saying that the "top brass" are in that position because they express the ideas of the populace, not because they shape those ideas. Often apologists bring forth new arguments to reinforce the ideas but that's not shaping the misguided science of the populace; it's "merely" exacerbating it.

Will do. Specificity is called for and I apologize for the misunderstandings. I'll strive to be clearer. Perhaps you and Jim can be clearer about delayed antidotes (what they are, who's working on them, and why they are so delayed).

I think you mistook oxmixmudd's meaning. Sometimes, we perceive that a person ought not be confronted with our strongest arguments immediately, that we must first having a trusting relationship. When we've demonstrated that we are actually Christians and adhere to the same creed she does — when we've gained her trust — then we can "make the extraction and apply the antidote". But that's another level of complexity — this isn't about finding the best way to introduce good science; it's a concern for our sister's whole life. I am more concerned with peoples' spiritual and social states than I am about their scientific acumen. I want my Christian family to be best equipped to express Christ; this issue is only one facet of that discussion. Important, yes, but not all-consuming.

—Sam

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:12 PM

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:19 PM

I’m sorry that you perceive these as attacks. I see them as useful observations.

Rogue’s reference to Billy Graham in light of Franklin Graham’s endorsement of Iron Age teleology .

Philosophically the above statement is so utterly confused as to be mumbles of nonsense. Do you not believe in teleology? I think everyone does. When you buy a car, you have a purpose, a teleology in mind for it. It will take you places. When I buy a tool I need for my ranch, I buy it for the purpose of doing what the tool was designed for doing--in other words, I buy it for its teleological function.

The problem you have with 'iron age teleology' is that you ascribe lack of purpose to the universe--something you can not be certain of and then act as if ascribing purpose to the universe is idiotic (when everyone believes that there is teleology IN the universe). Those, like me, who ascribe teleology to the universe can't prove it any more than you can disprove it. All we can do is believe it one way or another.

If Graham is to be accused of iron age teleology, then accuse me of it as well. Your quote of me really drags it away from its original context. I am always talking about observational fact, not teleology. It wasn't the claim of teleology that almost drove me from Christianity it was the mistatements of clear observational fact by YECs that made me wonder if the early christians were as bad at dealing with observational reality as are the modern YECs, then how could I trust the observations of the empty tomb.

[quote]Neither is it for me. Neither is it for me. Think about how Morton felt.. Dude's STILL trying to fit that square peg into that round hole. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=11724) [/quoe]

I don't think you have a clue about how I felt, but I can tell you that it doesn't feel good being used by you to advance an agenda that I do not favor.

rogue06

September 12th 2009, 12:19 PM

First of all, Rogue never defended Franklin Graham's endorsement of The Evidence Bible. Not once. He said that he was disappointed hearing that Graham endorsed it. You called him out for "merely" being disappointed . . . but what would you have Rogue do? Write a letter to Graham? Challenge him to public debate? Stage a hunger strike? Write a book? Help us out here, Pai: what action should we be taking other than what we already do by actively discussing this topic with people who are interested in a dicussion?
Considering a recent gain in weight over the past 2 years perhaps a hunger strike might not be a bad idea. :blush:

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:24 PM

Considering a recent gain in weight over the past 2 years perhaps a hunger strike might not be a bad idea. :blush:

You ought to see what the cancer meds do for the old waistline! Sumo wrestling, here I come :jinroh: :rofl: :lmbo:

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:28 PM

Methinks that he'd rather have a huge swathe of liberal christians than the destructive fundamentalist/conservative types. Better in the short run.

Yeah, the libs are better in the short run until everyone figues out that instead of making the Bible false by offering false data for its support, the libs simply proclaim it historically and scientifically false. Kind of like the French style of fighing a war :sos:

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:29 PM

The last thing an advocate of Christianity should do is keep such alliances.

Kinda like Jesus shouldn't go to the houses of pharisees and associate with sinners. Isn't that what you are really saying? I have lots of YEC friends. I disagree with them strongly (as is very obvious) but I count them as my friends.

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 12:35 PM

'The more than one can bear at the time,' nor fear related threats of the imperalment of the soul, are not adequate arguments to address the problem. Evolution has been around along time, and It is one of strongest best established concepts and theories in science. I disagree with grmorton and others that still try to selectively gerimander an interpretation of the Bible into science, and still hold the Bible in some way the literal word of God. .

Disagreement is fine, but since you are a geologist and a Bahai, would you care to explain what standing you should have in an argument about how Christians interpret their bible? Would you like it if I got into a Bahai discussion of how you all should interpret the following piece of mis-information from one of your most significant books?

"For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. There are some, however, who maintain that copper itself is gold, which by becoming solidified is in a diseased condition, and hath not therefore reached its own state."

"Be that as it may, the real elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold, and will traverse the seventy-year stages in a single moment. Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touch-stone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?"

Frank, does copper REALLY turn into gold? That is an observational question, not a teleological question and this question DOES belong in natural science.

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 12:54 PM

Considering a recent gain in weight over the past 2 years perhaps a hunger strike might not be a bad idea. :blush:

Consider my "Appendectomy with Complications Weight-loss Plan". You'll have people saying "You look like a skeleton!" in no time.

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 03:42 PM

Pai, I would have to be considered to be a creationist. I believe that God designed and created the universe. That makes me a creationist. Now,if you are trying to use creationist as in young-earth creationist, you should be clearer about it.

I have zero doubt that Graham is a creationist in the same sense that I am. So, would you care to clarify?

Welcome Glenn. You triggered this with your admission that your faith hinged on nothing other than a 6/6000 Creation. You have no room to lecture me by ANY means. I’m actually here to help you muzzle the priestcraft that did it that to you. By “muzzle,” I mean embarrass into submission. We have the smoking gun, the DNA, the fingerprints, the video of the crime, and the confession. As Ken Miller says, "We have the fossils." We also have rocks that contain them. We also have the genomic record. "We win."

This is the third time I've been told all Christians are creationists. You must regather. This is amateur . Frankin nodded approval of the Big Bang/Terrorist Bomb (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131887) analogy, despite the clash between the commentary and the bottom quotes. That is just one (1) commentary among many that suggest, and sometimes say outright, that Iron Age teleology must be believed. Franklin is thus complicit in the crime. The defenses of that shameful endorsement get funnier with each new iteration. Do continue.

I learned something profound and interesting about you recently. A few weeks ago we had a small exchange. You had completely misread my argument and turned it into a strawman. You said that I demanded YECs not teach their children YECism. You said that totalitarian attitude disgusts you and that parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. Well aside from the fact I wasn’t arguing that, what struck me about your comment was the revelation of how seriously you regard this. If an inculcation of YEC doctrine led to your proto-apostasy (which I later found out after associating you with your famous essay), I hardly think that’s the kind of ideology you should even be MILDLY defending. I wasn’t advocating the extermination of YEC ideas (i.e., the burning of their books and the imprisonment of the Elders); I was simply pointing out that those ideas produce atheists – and the good kind of atheists who actually know their science….the ones who make your job exponentially harder. Do you enjoy YE zombies removing the T from your name and calling you godless? Did you know that’s because evangelicals of renown (the teachers with the ministries) instill them with that confidence? Get mad. Get mad at Koukl for having his secretary draft the following synopsis of "Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science" (as if the title isn't enough to boil your blood!):

Greg explains why Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.

Hayward’s book snatched you from the brink. The ratio of Haywards to Hanegraafs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWaQuiUnW5I) should then sober you.

My proposal de-fangs those with the fangs.

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 05:49 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 05:55 PM

shunyadragon

September 12th 2009, 06:11 PM

Disagreement is fine, but since you are a geologist and a Bahai, would you care to explain what standing you should have in an argument about how Christians interpret their bible? Would you like it if I got into a Bahai discussion of how you all should interpret the following piece of mis-information from one of your most significant books?

"For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. There are some, however, who maintain that copper itself is gold, which by becoming solidified is in a diseased condition, and hath not therefore reached its own state."

"Be that as it may, the real elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold, and will traverse the seventy-year stages in a single moment. Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touch-stone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?"

Frank, does copper REALLY turn into gold? That is an observational question, not a teleological question and this question DOES belong in natural science.

Yes, this question belongs in science, if it was met to be necessarily interpreted literally to be necessarily true, but than again the intent may not be so.

You may full well interpret or discuss Baha'i views and writings as I may the Bible. Being a Christian does not make one any more an authority on the Bible than not being a Christian. In fact being a Christian or any believer of any religion may bias one toward a more open and unprejudiced understanding of the writings of ones own religion.

Quote mining in the Baha'i writings is not a good way to start. If your goal was understanding and communication it would be different, but your sole purpose is malicious snipping with quote mining, and the arrogant foolish claim that only believers may interprete or have understanding of scripture.

Yes the above quote is by Baha'u'llah, and should be put in context with the over all Baha'i scripture. The quote you used is in the symbolic context of 'anything is possible' if God wills it. Not all quotations from the Baha;i Faith are specifically literal. Yes, if this quote were to become literal dogma in conflict with science, than it be superstition and an antithesis to knowledge. Fortunately the Baha'i writings have guidlines to deal eith this problem lacking in religions like Christianity who become devided and in conflict over science.

The bottom line is Baha'i Faith turns to science for the interpretation of physical evidence regardless of the what is written by Baha'u'llah concerning the physical nature of our existence..

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

. . .Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which a man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time. Many religious leaders have grown to think that the importance of religion lies mainly in the adherence to a collection of certain dogmas and the practice of rites and ceremonies! Those whose souls they profess to cure are taught to believe likewise, and these cling tenaciously to the outward forms, confusing them with the inward truth.

Note the warning, '. . . cling tenaciously to the outward forms, confusing them with the inward truth.'

Jaecp

September 12th 2009, 06:17 PM

Yeah, the libs are better in the short run until everyone figues out that instead of making the Bible false by offering false data for its support, the libs simply proclaim it historically and scientifically false. Kind of like the French style of fighing a war :sos:

Everyones had bad wars, we are embarrassing ourselves in our current endeavors, in vietnam. The french got themselves owned in WW2. Everyone seems to forget napoleon, or the good amount of help we got in the revolution.

Kinda like Jesus shouldn't go to the houses of pharisees and associate with sinners. Isn't that what you are really saying? I have lots of YEC friends. I disagree with them strongly (as is very obvious) but I count them as my friends.

Not the same thing as this, and you know it. Jesus didn't have to deal with televangelists. One of the points of christianity is associating with sinners, no? Your supposed to make sure they aren't doing anything stupid though. Creationism, now, that is stupid. Fix your friends, fix the people who are misinforming your friends. Problem solved.

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 06:46 PM

Jaecp

September 12th 2009, 06:50 PM

Ya know, they got a button that will do that for ya :D

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 06:54 PM

Pai, it seems (at least to me as I reread it) Ray's statement in the "Questions and Objections" section in Psalms is providing thoughts challenging an evolution devoid of God.

In that aspect, Franklin's endorsement doesn't appear to violate the possibility that evolution (to whatever degree) could occur in a God-created universe.

From Psalms in The Evidence Bible:

104:24 The peppered moth: evolution comes unglued. “Almost all textbooks on evolution include the peppered moth as the classic example of evolution by natural selection. There are two types of peppered moths, a light-colored speckled variety and a dark variety. Most peppered moths in England were the light variety, which were camouflaged as they rested on tree trunks. The black variety stood out against the light bark and were easily seen and eaten by birds. But as the industrial revolution created pollution that covered tree trunks with soot, the dark variety was camouflaged better, so birds ate more of the light moths.

“The peppered moth story has been trumpeted since the 1950s as proof positive that evolution
by natural selection is true. In 1978, one famous geneticist called the peppered moth ‘the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed.’
“However, this ‘clearest case’ of purported Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not true!
The nocturnal peppered moth does not rest on the trunks of trees during the day. In fact, despite
over 40 years of intense field study, only two peppered moths have ever been seen naturally resting

The sad part is this takes all of 5 seconds to find. And I only have 3 samples from which to search. Imagine what the rest of the commentary looks like. =)

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 07:01 PM

Oh, he goes on...

Evolutionary humor. It’s humorous that evolutionists cite the peppered moth as their best example, enabling them to “watch evolution in action.” Watch closely: Before the moth’s environment
changed, some of the moths were mostly white, some were mostly black. After their environment changed, some were mostly white, some were mostly black. No new color or variety came into
being, yet we have supposedly just witnessed evolution.

Evolutionist John Reader (Missing Links) explains this biased interpretation: “Ever since Darwin’s work . . . , preconceptions have led evidence by the nose.” Harvard professor and evolutionist Steven Jay Gould admits this scientific bias, “Facts do not ‘speak for themselves’; they are read in light of
theory.”

Even Charles Darwin concedes, “Alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.” Keep this in mind when scientists proclaim the
theory of evolution as “fact.”You cannot use multiple posts to circumvent fair use.

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 07:09 PM

Darwinian evolution...

Doesn't Darwinian evolution suggest an evolution devoid of God? If so, the quotes you provided don't change my previous statement.

Ray seems to be addressing an evolution devoid of God. He doesn't seem to be challenging the possibility of God using evolution (to whatever degree) in his creation.

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 07:33 PM

Doesn't Darwinian evolution suggest an evolution devoid of God? If so, the quotes you provided don't change my previous statement.

Ray seems to be addressing an evolution devoid of God. He doesn't seem to be challenging the possibility of God using evolution (to whatever degree) in his creation.

Darwinian evolution doesn't suggest that evolution is devoid of God. Darwinian evolution incorporates random mutation . . . and that technically means statistically random mutation. Since it's impossible to demonstrate whether supernatural beings "fiddle" with the mutations to produce a desired result or whether a supernatural being initiated the process that drives evolution (in the grand sense), Darwinian evolution can't suggest that God is not involved. One can reason that a statistically random event is more likely truly random than initiated by an invisible power but it can't be demonstrated any better (or worse) than the idea that God drives or sustains evolution.

—Sam

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 07:35 PM

I don't think at all that I am immune to criticism. But what am I being criticized for? Speaking too harshly to "the students"? Not being forceful enough with "the teachers"? Not knowing every creationist argument in existence? Like I said, I've explained my methodology to you and I welcome a legitimate critique — but what, in your mind, am I doing wrong, here?

*bump*

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 07:58 PM

*bump*

Hahaha. I was getting around to that, impatient one. =P

You share responsibility for giving morality the cast of subjectivity. The topic of this thread is F. Graham's endorsement and the enablement it represents. That endorsement was tantamount to giving the Comfort the thumbs up on his teleological phobias. I already told you these are relatively easy things to find knowing how the creationists operate. F. Graham is complicit in the crime. Even THIS fact you fight. And that'd barely even be a concession, Sam.

It'd earn about as much respect in my eyes as saying *ahem* 2 + 2 = 4 and the earth revolves around the sun.

There's much more work that needs to be done that you would interpret as controversial. You must if you find it controversial to merely say "Okay, you know what? Franklin's endorsement is a shame, and I really am embarrassed and "surprised" by it. There is no excuse for a well-respected evangelical giving nod to it; it just looks like so much perverse mutual back scratching."

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 08:10 PM

When there was darkness and the void was king and ruled the elements
When there was silence and the hush was almost deafening

Out of the emptiness, Salvation! (Salvation!)
Rhythm and light and sound
It 'twas the Rock & Roll creation
It 'twas a terrible big bang
It 'twas the ultimate mutation
Yin was searching for his yang
And he looked and he saw that it was good *evil laughter*

When I'm alone beneath the stars and feeling insignificant
I turn within to see the forces that created me

I look to the stars and the answer is clear
I look in the mirror and see what I fear

It 'tis the Rock & Roll creation
It 'tis the absolute rebirth
It 'tis the rolling of the ocean
And the rocking of the earth
And I looked and I saw that it was good (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbi5Zegp55o)

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 08:22 PM

LOL.. Comfort's starting to make sense to me. That antidote ready? Does it come in grape flavor?

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 08:29 PM

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 08:31 PM

“There is no absolute truth. You can’t be sure of anything!”

Are you absolutely sure?

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 08:35 PM

Thanks for the clarification Ansgar. Pai, Ray clearly is speaking out against the idea some have that evolution exists in a universe without a God, but it's not clear in his statements whether he believes evolution (to whatever degree) can't exist in a universe created by God.

If God created the universe, couldn't he have created the various sciences we uncover along the way?

Yes. That has nothing to do with Ray's perpetual telling of teleological lies and F. Graham's encouragement of that sinful activity. If that isn't sin, then nothing is sin. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you go to Heaven anyway.

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 08:51 PM

From BGEA's site (http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=112):

Evolutionists, on the other hand, usually leave God completely out and assume that everything "just happened."

Some scientists who believe the biblical account of God's creation think that it can fit with some aspects of evolutionary theory.

No matter what, Ray's comments are thought provoking, and hopefully people who contemplate his words will be encouraged to further research for themselves, much like Christians are called to not take their minister's word for something they claim is in the Bible - they are to check for themselves.

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 08:53 PM

fue una gran explosión terrible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI)

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 09:00 PM

From BGEA's site (http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=112):

No matter what, Ray's comments are thought provoking, and hopefully people who contemplate his words will be encouraged to further research for themselves, much like Christians are called to not take their minister's word for something they claim is in the Bible - they are to check for themselves.

Ray's comments aren't thought provoking. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWBC0AnAAT0)

/\
/ \
/ \

Another casualty of the teachers or victim of his own design? I blame the pedagogy. I blame the enablers who give them undeserved credit.

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 09:05 PM

Ray's comments aren't thought provoking.

Are you suggesting the people Ray was talking to in the video weren't thinking?

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 09:09 PM

Regarding post #86, something about the twangy smiling delivery of Pat Robertson's question:

It has so many holes in it, but what are some of the significant flaws in the theories of evolution that he [Darwin] has advocated?

sends cold chills through me.

The answer is, as expected, bewildering and maddening.

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 09:12 PM

Are you suggesting the people Ray was talking to in the video weren't thinking?

No, I'm suggesting Ray Comfort is a scoundrel and a deceiver. In fact, I'm explicitly stating that and have for a long time.

That antidote handy, Jim? Ranger needs about a gallon.

rangeraragorn

September 12th 2009, 09:26 PM

That antidote handy, Jim? Ranger needs about a gallon.

Hey, I never said I know all the secrets of the universe (nor do I try and pretend like I do). :wink:

Jaecp

September 12th 2009, 09:31 PM

Bit of a difference between not knowing everything and not believing in one of them for nebulous reasons.

Just for clarification, whats your take on evolution, RA?

shunyadragon

September 12th 2009, 09:51 PM

Are you absolutely sure?

There is likely a realm of absolute truth whether a 'Source' some call God(s) exists or not. If the absolute nature of existence is natural than the absolute truth is natural. If there is a 'Divine Source' of everything than the absolute turth is the 'Divine Source.' The problem is from the human perspective, and no it is very unlikely that the human view of any particular religious belief represents an 'absolute truth' in form or degree. The history of humanity is good witness to this problem.

Pai Geacademe

September 12th 2009, 09:53 PM

Hey, I never said I know all the secrets of the universe (nor do I try and pretend like I do). :wink:

Sorry man. When I see someone like you -- a bona fide victim of the pedagogy -- pop into a conversation like this -- which is supposedly (according to Jim, Sam, and Rogue) a Rending Open of the Cocoon -- I can't help but gloat with tongue firmly in cheek. It's not that I don't care. I really do want more informed Christians. It's just that I percieve such a careless form of caring in the caretakers, I know my definition of caring could never align with theirs. Their morality is way too subjective.

Ray needs to die if what Jim, Sam, and Rogue say is true about the consequences of his ideology. Instead, Ray only gets hammering from the liberals and atheists and endorsements from well-respected evangelists, making him feel cozy about STILL CITING HOVIND.

Dr.GH

September 12th 2009, 10:46 PM

From BGEA's site (http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=112):

No matter what, Ray's comments are thought provoking, and hopefully people who contemplate his words will be encouraged to further research for themselves, much like Christians are called to not take their minister's word for something they claim is in the Bible - they are to check for themselves.

When I listen to the garbage from Ray Comfort, the ony thought I have is how can people fall for this con-man?

oxmixmudd

September 12th 2009, 11:07 PM

Poetic justice smells like burnt Christian [bold mine]:

What exaclty is your point? The change in nature brought about by faith in Christ is standard Christian teaching. Has been for millenia. That there are folks that claim to be Christian but are not and act accordingly has also been the case from the very beginning. We read about them in Paul's letters. The difference between 'stumbling in temptation' as part of an overall journey to righteousness and "pursuing sin under the cloak of religion' is virtually impossible for one human to discern of another. But it is clearly distinguished in scripture. God sorts it out in the end. Our calling is to deal with the outward results justly, fairly, and mercifully.

Jim

Ansgar Seraph

September 12th 2009, 11:09 PM

Hahaha. I was getting around to that, impatient one. =P

You share responsibility for giving morality the cast of subjectivity. The topic of this thread is F. Graham's endorsement and the enablement it represents. That endorsement was tantamount to giving the Comfort the thumbs up on his teleological phobias. I already told you these are relatively easy things to find knowing how the creationists operate. F. Graham is complicit in the crime. Even THIS fact you fight. And that'd barely even be a concession, Sam.

It'd earn about as much respect in my eyes as saying *ahem* 2 + 2 = 4 and the earth revolves around the sun.

There's much more work that needs to be done that you would interpret as controversial. You must if you find it controversial to merely say "Okay, you know what? Franklin's endorsement is a shame, and I really am embarrassed and "surprised" by it. There is no excuse for a well-respected evangelical giving nod to it; it just looks like so much perverse mutual back scratching."

Look, you keep acting like all members here have just been turning blind eyes. I've never said that F. Graham isn't wrong in endorsing Comfort's Bible, nor has Rogue, nor has oxmixmudd. If you're addressing the Christian community at large, Dr. GH has provided a list of books from various authors that specifically deal with this issue.

Now, you're not only taking issue with Franklin Graham, you responded to my first post by alluding to your criticisms of Rogue (and the rest of us) in dealing with seanD. Here in the above post, you paint it as though none of us wants to say "Franklin Graham is wrong to endorse 'The Evidence Bible'." And you've taken to posting a Gish-gallop set of Comfort's claims that have no real relevance to anybody else's posts. I'm finding it very difficult to see continuity in your posts. If you've got a criticism of my professed methodology, I'd like you to address that, not a phantasmal argument I never made. I'm sure Rogue and oxmixmudd desire the same. If you're just preaching that there's a creationist problem that needs solved, then you're in a place where most everyone is already aware of that message.

—Sam

grmorton

September 12th 2009, 11:13 PM

Welcome Glenn. You triggered this with your admission that your faith hinged on nothing other than a 6/6000 Creation. You have no room to lecture me by ANY means.

I have every right to lecture you when you use my name in your agenda.

I’m actually here to help you muzzle the priestcraft that did it that to you. By “muzzle,” I mean embarrass into submission. We have the smoking gun, the DNA, the fingerprints, the video of the crime, and the confession. As Ken Miller says, "We have the fossils." We also have rocks that contain them. We also have the genomic record. "We win."

You started off talking about teleology in your OP. Teleology was not my issue. Data was.

This is the third time I've been told all Christians are creationists.
[/quote]

Maybe you should listen.

You must regather. This is amateur . Frankin nodded approval of the Big Bang/Terrorist Bomb (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131887) analogy, despite the clash between the commentary and the bottom quotes. That is just one (1) commentary among many that suggest, and sometimes say outright, that Iron Age teleology must be believed. Franklin is thus complicit in the crime. The defenses of that shameful endorsement get funnier with each new iteration. Do continue.

Look, I have spent years arguing against YEC. Everyone knows that. My views on YEC have not changed. For a christian, one must at least believe that God is the creator. If he isn't, then frankly, Christianity is wrong. And that brings with it the concept that the earth has a purpose--teleology.

I learned something profound and interesting about you recently. A few weeks ago we had a small exchange. You had completely misread my argument and turned it into a strawman. You said that I demanded YECs not teach their children YECism. You said that totalitarian attitude disgusts you and that parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. Well aside from the fact I wasn’t arguing that, what struck me about your comment was the revelation of how seriously you regard this.

I am a libertarian. I don't beleive you have a right to tell others what to teach their children. I vaguely remember the discussion and I don't recall (I may be wrong) you saying at the time that you didn't argue that position.

If an inculcation of YEC doctrine led to your proto-apostasy (which I later found out after associating you with your famous essay), I hardly think that’s the kind of ideology you should even be MILDLY defending.

I was not taught YEC by my parents. My father was an atheist. He was very unlikely to teach me YEC or allow it to be taught unchallenged.

I wasn’t advocating the extermination of YEC ideas (i.e., the burning of their books and the imprisonment of the Elders); I was simply pointing out that those ideas produce atheists – and the good kind of atheists who actually know their science….the ones who make your job exponentially harder. Do you enjoy YE zombies removing the T from your name and calling you godless?

I don't really get all worked up about what people call me. I know who I am and my family loves me. It doesn't matter what others outside of that group think about me.

We would agree that teaching YEC leads to atheism. I have often said it is the fastest road to atheism. But while I would beg plead and cajole parents not to teach their children YEC, I would absolutely defend their right to do so. This is a free country and I don't get to be the dictator of it and neither do you.

Did you know that’s because evangelicals of renown (the teachers with the ministries) instill them with that confidence? Get mad. Get mad at Koukl for having his secretary draft the following synopsis of "Evolution: Philosophy, Not Science" (as if the title isn't enough to boil your blood!):

Greg explains why Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science.

Hayward’s book snatched you from the brink. The ratio of Haywards to Hanegraafs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWaQuiUnW5I) should then sober you.

My proposal de-fangs those with the fangs.

With all due respect, I would suggest that I have done far more than you in an attempt to change Christianity away from the two groups that I see make the Bible false--the liberals and the YECs. I have failed.

But that being said, I don't think you have much of a right to act as if I have sat on my hands these past 15 years since I changed from YEC to evolutionist.

What would you suggest we do to those yec people who chose to exercise their free speech rights to teach their children yecism? Should we cut out their tongues? Poke out their eyes?

All either of us have at our disposal is our persuasion skills. Maybe you will do better than I did but not if you tell parents they can't teach their kids what they want to teach them. Shoot, there are all sorts of people who teach their kids things I disapprove of. The difference may be that I don't intend to be a nanny to others.

oxmixmudd

September 12th 2009, 11:30 PM

Everyones had bad wars, we are embarrassing ourselves in our current endeavors, in vietnam. The french got themselves owned in WW2. Everyone seems to forget napoleon, or the good amount of help we got in the revolution.

Not the same thing as this, and you know it. Jesus didn't have to deal with televangelists. One of the points of christianity is associating with sinners, no? Your supposed to make sure they aren't doing anything stupid though. Creationism, now, that is stupid. Fix your friends, fix the people who are misinforming your friends. Problem solved.

Oi vey. The difference between 'sinners' and 'pharasees/sadducees' was primarily their own self-righteousness. Self righteous behavior is when you think you are the one with all the right answers, and you are willing to judge the behavior of everyone else based on your own distorted view you yourself rarely if ever do anything wrong.

Self righteousness has no preferred group. We see it in Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Deists, Jews, Muslims whatever. And it doesn't matter who we are, if we are self-righteous, we would get a tongue lashing from Christ if He was physically here right now. Christ calls us to personal repentance and humility, to recognize our own sin BEFORE the sins of others.

How this works out in creationism is not even close to what you want. The harmful aspects of creationism do need to be dealt with. I have agreed with you on that. But not in this self-righteous, bombastic manner you seem to be looking for. Especially at the lower levels. Sure maybe the big guns need to be taken to task. But you don't go ripping the guts out of Joe Christian that is simply believing what He's been told.

How successful is random cold turkey at helping a drug addict get off drugs? You are dealing with people here, not automatons.

It's like what happens with auto "Road rage". We see the car as a thing, not the person inside. We don't think the reason they are in the way might be some sickness or major distraction. That they are just old or feeble. That they just aren't in the same hurry we are. We aren't thinking of them at all. We are thinking of ourselves, what we need or just want.

Likewise here. These are people, many of them are very sincere with very good motives for what they are doing. Wouldn't it be best, if possible, to preserve the good parts of who they are while redirecting them to a more correct understanding on this issue?

It is very easy to demonize our opponents. We all do it. I do it. But only rarely is our opponent truly a demon.

Jim

oxmixmudd

September 12th 2009, 11:35 PM

.
.
.
With all due respect, I would suggest that I have done far more than you in an attempt to change Christianity away from the two groups that I see make the Bible false--the liberals and the YECs. I have failed.

But that being said, I don't think you have much of a right to act as if I have sat on my hands these past 15 years since I changed from YEC to evolutionist.

.
.
.

No you have not! You have been a SIGNIFICANT positive influence on many, many people, Christian and otherwise. Myself included.

I don't want to hear talk like that from you ever again! :teeth:

Jim

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 01:22 AM

Look, you keep acting like all members here have just been turning blind eyes. I've never said that F. Graham isn't wrong in endorsing Comfort's Bible, nor has Rogue

Rogue did precisely that when he asked me to proffer evidence that FG was a creationist in the anti-evo sense. The proof was in the endorsement. You know as well as I do that was a TheologicalDisc move: asking for evidence of something that is blatantly obvious. You used $27 Creation Museums to "prove" to TD that teleological terrorism is real and out of control. I'm using FG's endorsement of a creationist Bible to show that mainstream evangelists enable teleological terrorism. The enablers are people like Franklin Graham. Clearly Graham is a creationist or else he would not endorse a book that says evolution is a hoax with no strong evidence that sha'n't be believed. Rogue should know better. He enables by suggesting that Franklin disagrees with, or does not endorse, one of the central messages of the Evidence Bible -- the very core of Comfort's evangelism next to the manipulating of gullible people's existential fear. (You better believe that's deliberate.)

Again, one of the central messages of the Evidence Bible is that evolution has no strong evidence and was invented by atheists Rogue, therefore, was waffling. Rogue was enabling. There is no excuse for this Keystone Kops routine, and even the mildest defense of it is deplorable. Franklin endorses anti-evo creationism in that endorsement. Think of the consequences of an evangelist doing that. It is the smearing of dung on the face of epistemology.

, nor has oxmixmudd. If you're addressing the Christian community at large, Dr. GH has provided a list of books from various authors that specifically deal with this issue.

Dr. GH missed that I was talking about Christians who challenge their well-respected brethren in the debating arena :

...I'm really talking about the the Gordon Glovers and other men and women with degrees and ministries who know better. As you can see, there aren't many, and the ones that do exist [B]don't even openly challenge those with the modest clout of Koukl

then I said ,

They don't exist. If they do, [B]the ratio is so unbelievably lopsided, we could ask "What's the problem here?" Someone's CLEARLY not getting the picture that pain is being unnecessarily inflicted and souls are being put at risk (if your religion is true).

In other words, the ratio is puzzling and raises interesting questions about subjective morality. Only the liberals, Catholics, and functional atheists do the challenging and name names. You already admitted you're bound to not make this an issue (because of overlapping beliefs). You therefore wait for the students to come to you. You wait for apostates (like me) to bust out quotes from the Evidence Bible to make my point about Comfort being a dangerous influence and FG being his enabler.

I think you knew what I meant by ratio. I think you also understand the significance of Spong being in his list. Spong's so liberal as to be a functional atheist.

Now, you're not only taking issue with Franklin Graham, you responded to my first post by alluding to your criticisms of Rogue (and the rest of us) in dealing with seanD.

You had no idea who Sean was. For all you knew his "cocoon" had been rent. He certainly spilled his guts when he said everything unravels if Genesis isn't true. Perceptive bloke that you are, you went right back to talking about a subject he couldn't possibly grasp. In light of the confession you got, it was cruel and ugly. You knew he had no idea what he was talking about and allied with atheists to attack him. And this while you claim concern about YEs worrying about your godless proclivities and pagan alliances.

Yes, it is complex. Pretending that you know every facet of its complexity given the ignorance you've had to admit here (about creationists' doings) is galling.

Here in the above post, you paint it as though none of us wants to say "Franklin Graham is wrong to endorse 'The Evidence Bible'." And you've taken to posting a Gish-gallop set of Comfort's claims that have no real relevance to anybody else's posts.

Gish galloped by citing many strawmen in one long burst, making it look like his opponents had no answer when they fell short of addressing each distortion. All those Comfort quotes we agree are lies. I specifically cited them because Ranger and Rogue defended FG's endorsement. I was not galloping but hammering the point home that FG endorsed a creationist Bible.

I'm finding it very difficult to see continuity in your posts. If you've got a criticism of my professed methodology, I'd like you to address that, not a phantasmal argument I never made. I'm sure Rogue and oxmixmudd desire the same. If you're just preaching that there's a creationist problem that needs solved, then you're in a place where most everyone is already aware of that message.

The flaw in your methodology is not recognizing the levels of enablement (explained in this post) AND your mixed up views about who shares more responsibility: the students or their teachers. Your answer that it's the students and their parents -- not the teachers themselves -- doesn't ring true. Comfort starts these fires and stokes The Fires to facilitate the delusion. When someone defends the endorsement of that by asking for evidence for FG's SPECIFIC creationism, he's stooped to TD's level. That's disappointing.

Jaecp

September 13th 2009, 02:03 AM

oxy, I haven' t actually called for any action to be taken, just called creationism stupid. Pai has a plan or something or other. A number of things in post 98 really don't apply to me.

All I've said, is that creationism is stupid, well earlier I posted a little of that Koukl guys stuff, but meh. I wan't people to get fixed, I know its not instantaneous. I think what Pai's issue is that the people who advocate a "slow heal" of their brethrens scientific illiteracy do not have the same support on a popular level that people who advocate positions that require, or even foster, scientific illiteracy. Gallup released another a poll where only about 40% of Americans believe in evolution. I don't know when it came out exactly. The problem is, quite striking, no?

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 02:20 AM

Rogue did precisely that when he asked me to proffer evidence that FG was a creationist in the anti-evo sense. The proof was in the endorsement. You know as well as I do that was a TheologicalDisc move: asking for evidence of something that is blatantly obvious. You used $27 Creation Museums to "prove" to TD that teleological terrorism is real and out of control. I'm using FG's endorsement of a creationist Bible to show that mainstream evangelists enable teleological terrorism. The enablers are people like Franklin Graham. Clearly Graham is a creationist or else he would not endorse a book that says evolution is a hoax with no strong evidence that sha'n't be believed. Rogue should know better. He enables by suggesting that Franklin disagrees with, or does not endorse, one of the central messages of the Evidence Bible -- the very core of Comfort's evangelism next to the manipulating of gullible people's existential fear. (You better believe that's deliberate.)

Again, one of the central messages of the Evidence Bible is that evolution has no strong evidence and was invented by atheists Rogue, therefore, was waffling. Rogue was enabling. There is no excuse for this Keystone Kops routine, and even the mildest defense of it is deplorable. Franklin endorses anti-evo creationism in that endorsement. Think of the consequences of an evangelist doing that. It is the smearing of dung on the face of epistemology.

All right; let's bring this back into context. This is what Rogue actually said (not just the truncated version):

Franklin Graham:

When I goggle him along with creationist or creationism I didn’t find any mention of him being a creationist (though by definition all Christians are creationists of one form or another including those who accept evolution since we all believe that God created us) except for one site that claimed he was listed as a YEC on Wikipedia which isn’t the case.

Even his endorsement of Comfort’s book was generalized and never mentioned anything about evolution.

"In a day when Christians are too often silenced by the questions of skeptics, The Evidence Bible will help you 'be prepared to give an answer...for the hope that you have...(1 Peter 3:15, NIV (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=1+Peter+3%3A15)). ...its innovative format makes it especially easy to use. You'll find it to be an invaluable tool for becoming a more effective witness."

-- from what appears to be either Comfort’s or “Way of the Master’s” website

He appears to be recommending it as useful in countering atheists. And such a generalized endorsement shouldn’t be completely unexpected considering that Comfort has written for Billy Graham's Decision magazine (something I had forgotten about).

Originally posted by Pai Geacademe (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2772628#post2772628)
If Billy’s well-known and well-respected successor is a creationist, that pretty much neutralizes Billy’s statements that evolution isn’t atheistic. How so? Has he declared that you can’t be a Christian and accept evolution? Franklin’s father listed either view as equally acceptable. Just because he may choose to reject evolution (if he does) that doesn’t equate to his thinking evolution is atheistic.

I really would like you to back up your assertion that Franklin Graham “actively endorse a Bible that claims” evolution is atheistic. Where has he said anything even resembling this?

And this was further in the context of Rogue's recollection that Franklin Graham has historically steered away from siding one way or another on the evolutionary debate, seemingly taking his father's stance that it doesn't much matter whether God created Man from the dust through evolution or special creation.

Now I think it is fair to ask for a better clarification of Franklin's Graham's position on evolution than an ambiguous endorsement of Comfort's book. I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on Intelligent Design; such things do happen in life. You are immediately willing to throw Franklin Graham in with Baumgardner, Ham and Hovind. While Rogue did not defend Graham's endorsement, he did ask that you substantiate that Graham was specifically endorsing the creationist aspect of Comfort's book — I think that is fair.

Dr. GH missed that I was talking about Christians who challenge their well-respected brethren in the debating arena [bold added]:

then I said [bold added],

In other words, the ratio is puzzling and raises interesting questions about subjective morality. Only the liberals, Catholics, and functional atheists do the challenging and name names. You already admitted you're bound to not make this an issue (because of overlapping beliefs). You therefore wait for the students to come to you. You wait for apostates (like me) to bust out quotes from the Evidence Bible to make my point about Comfort being a dangerous influence and FG being his enabler.

I think you knew what I meant by ratio. I think you also understand the significance of Spong being in his list. Spong's so liberal as to be a functional atheist.

And here we go again. Pai, I make this an issue when the situation warrants it. You want more conservative Christians hopping on the science side of this debate? So do I. So does practically everyone who posts in this forum. If you think that you've got a method for better facilitating this conversion, please engage it. I think that your solution, to embarrass the creationist apologists into silence, won't work but you are free to try it out.

You had no idea who Sean was. For all you knew his "cocoon" had been rent. He certainly spilled his guts when he said everything unravels if Genesis isn't true. Perceptive bloke that you are, you went right back to talking about a subject he couldn't possibly grasp. In light of the confession you got, it was cruel and ugly. You knew he had no idea what he was talking about and allied with atheists to attack him. And this while you claim concern about YEs worrying about your godless proclivities and pagan alliances.

I never attacked seanD and don't dare pretend I did. I became frustrated with him, yes, and had to apologize for some overly-harsh wording I employed. My intent was always to bring him into a better understanding of a subject in which he repeatedly claimed adequacy. This is old ground and it's been worked over before, so I'll let my reputation on this forum convince people of what my intentions were in that discussion. I will warn you that you are building a reputation, in my mind, at least, of callously using and manipulating people's experiences to serve your own cause.

Yes, it is complex. Pretending that you know every facet of its complexity given the ignorance you've had to admit here (about creationists' doings) is galling.

Luckily, I never claimed that I know every facet of the issue (or every true motivation of other posters, for that matter). And what ignorance have I admitted here, Pai? That I didn't know who Koukl, a minor apologist, was? That I'd not heard of Comfort's banana argument?

My patience is running thinner with every uncharitable misrepresentation and false image of myself and others you present. At the moment, it's incredibly thin.

The flaw in your methodology is not recognizing the levels of enablement (explained in this post) AND your mixed up views about who shares more responsibility: the students or their teachers. Your answer that it's the students and their parents -- not the teachers themselves -- doesn't ring true. Comfort starts these fires and stokes The Fires to facilitate the delusion. When someone defends the endorsement of that by asking for evidence for FG's SPECIFIC creationism, he's stooped to TD's level. That's disappointing.

From my experience, that's exactly the case — very few creationists that I've met spend any time listening to creationist apologists; they don't care enough about the evolutionary debate to spend their time on it; the matter is quite settled in their minds. It is a rare person, from my experience, who can converse on the level of this forum. If every creationist apologist became TE's tomorrow, it would do little to change the opinion of most creationists, I think.

And you still haven't told me what I and others here ought to be doing different.

—Sam

wattsr1

September 13th 2009, 03:43 AM

I have failed.
I hope you are not being to hard on yourself here GM.

While liberal Christianity makes more sense to me that does the road you took when you left YEC, I don't see the outcome of you leaving YEC as a failure.

I think you provided many (including we atheists) with a valuable resource to show other YECs that Christianity continues beyond YEC. To me, that is so very important.

What the actual outcome of that is, well who knows.

I too have failed to convince any YEC of a single thing regarding evolution, ancient earth, etc. Yet who really knows.

There is always that great, un-measurable mass of lurkers out there. Besides, you took the path of truth. How can that ever be a failure? Very occasionally someone will say that you have influenced them, however, it is a thankless task and as such you can never really know what failure or success really is.

Regards, Roland

PS Don't be too hard on the poor old liberals. I do still enjoy listening to a good liberal, Christian theologian. :teeth:

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 11:46 AM

All right; let's bring this back into context. This is what Rogue actually said (not just the truncated version):

And this was further in the context of Rogue's recollection that Franklin Graham has historically steered away from siding one way or another on the evolutionary debate, seemingly taking his father's stance that it doesn't much matter whether God created Man from the dust through evolution or special creation.

Now I think it is fair to ask for a better clarification of Franklin's Graham's position on evolution than an ambiguous endorsement of Comfort's book. I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on Intelligent Design; such things do happen in life. You are immediately willing to throw Franklin Graham in with Baumgardner, Ham and Hovind. While Rogue did not defend Graham's endorsement, he did ask that you substantiate that Graham was specifically endorsing the creationist aspect of Comfort's book — I think that is fair.

It was a red herring and another expression of enablement. Whether Graham explicitly declared his 6/6000 creation isn't the point. The fact is he endorsed the commentaries of a man who DOES declare that and openly and loudly. This is not a "minor detail." Graham's scratching the creationist back is the very reason these superstitions persist and have intellectual merit in the Christian community. Even if Graham had somewhere declared he is a theistic evolutionist, the enablement has the same effect as never having declared it at all. That endorsement is as dangerous as the open declaration, playing a key role is sustaining the crisis. It is so manifestly reckless that any defense of it, no matter how small, is laughable.

You fear "cocooned" anti-evos thinking you have atheist alliances (despite the "cocooned" having a significant presence here). A much more worrying alliance is a well-respected evangelical endorsing Iron Age teleology. That Bible is not a "useful tool" by any stretch of the imagination; it is only useful in sending the flock to Hell. Founding a believer's faith on horse hockey fattens them for the fire.

I'm glad you're mad. I hope to make you madder. We're talking about pure evil here not a whoops!. Stupidity and recklessness of this magnitude is the virtual equivalent of debauchery and here you are enabling it by saying F.Graham doesn't publicly espouse Hovind's Dual Ice Meteor Theory explaining the origin of polar caps. The sum of the facts screams that he need not.

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 12:12 PM

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 12:15 PM

It was a red herring and another expression of enablement. Whether Graham explicitly declared his 6/6000 creation isn't the point. The fact is he endorsed the commentaries of a man who DOES declare that and openly and loudly. This is not a "minor detail." Graham's scratching the creationist back is the very reason these superstitions persist and have intellectual merit in the Christian community. Even if Graham had somewhere declared he is a theistic evolutionist, the enablement has the same effect as never having declared it at all. That endorsement is as dangerous as the open declaration, playing a key role is sustaining the crisis. It is so manifestly reckless that any defense of it, no matter how small, is laughable.

No — you introduced Franklin Graham into the conversation to "negate" Rogue's mention of Billy Graham (well-respected by the conservative community) explicitly "giving a pass" to evolutionary theory. Now, aside from the point that mentioning Franklin Graham to negate Billy Graham is a red herring, it is fair for anyone to ask for more evidence than what you provided to demonstrate that F. Graham is, indeed, a creationist and not just negligent or careless in his endorsement.

You fear "cocooned" anti-evos thinking you have atheist alliances (despite the "cocooned" having a significant presence here). A much more worrying alliance is a well-respected evangelical endorsing Iron Age teleology. That Bible is not a "useful tool" by any stretch of the imagination; it is only useful in sending the flock to Hell. Founding a believer's faith on horse hockey fattens them for the fire.

I don't have any fear whatsoever like what you claim. I have atheists friends on this board and in person and I have no shame in calling them friends. If you mean that I fear people thinking I have atheist intentions, I don't fear that either. I do worry about pushing too far too fast but I'm well past the point of feeling that I need to subject my behaviour to your critiques.

I'm glad you're mad. I hope to make you madder. We're talking about pure evil here not a whoops!. Stupidity and recklessness of this magnitude is the virtual equivalent of debauchery and here you are enabling it by saying F.Graham doesn't publicly espouse Hovind's Dual Ice Meteor Theory explaining the origin of polar caps. The sum of the facts screams that he need not.

You're not making me mad, Pai. You're making me annoyed. It gets tedious listening to a broken record play the same tune over and over. You preach your message and aim it towards whoever will react to you, regardless of their interest, knowledge or activity in the area. I am interested in actually discussing these issues and making headway in the discussion; all you've been doing here is harping on a soapbox.

—Sam

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 12:26 PM

I'm also glad you're patience is at an end with me. Examine that. Your patience comes to quick ends with students of the priestcraft but is endless with the priestcraft itself -- even when they endorse the strict adherence to willful ignorance with fearful existential consequences. ;)

He's bedding Comfort, giving him soft smooches on the ear. Your handwave of that.is the very definition of watershed.

Long or short, you've outworn my patience, Pai. This entire discussion never left the starting gate because you refuse any answer except "teh creationizts! they is evilz!!111!!" It doesn't matter to you that I (and others) routinely criticize popular creationist arguments and apologists.

The good Lord knows I've tried giving you every benefit and vocally defended your intentions when others made untoward accusations. But I'll take your disdain for enablers to heart and stop enabling you now. I sincerely look forward to a time when you are willing to engage people as they actually are.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 12:32 PM

No — you introduced Franklin Graham into the conversation to "negate" Rogue's mention of Billy Graham (well-respected by the conservative community) explicitly "giving a pass" to evolutionary theory. Now, aside from the point that mentioning Franklin Graham to negate Billy Graham is a red herring, it is fair for anyone to ask for more evidence than what you provided to demonstrate that F. Graham is, indeed, a creationist and not just negligent or careless in his endorsement.

I don't have any fear whatsoever like what you claim. I have atheists friends on this board and in person and I have no shame in calling them friends. If you mean that I fear people thinking I have atheist intentions, I don't fear that either. I do worry about pushing too far too fast but I'm well past the point of feeling that I need to subject my behaviour to your critiques.

You're not making me mad, Pai. You're making me annoyed. It gets tedious listening to a broken record play the same tune over and over. You preach your message and aim it towards whoever will react to you, regardless of their interest, knowledge or activity in the area. I am interested in actually discussing these issues and making headway in the discussion; all you've been doing here is harping on a soapbox.

—Sam

F. Graham's endorsement easily countered Billy's giving you folks permission to choose your teleology. He endorsed a Bible that SPECIFICALLY dismissed that as an option.

Be "annoyed" with the well-respected evangelists who make your job harder. Your annoyance is suspiciously misdirected. So long as THAT is your standard, my position remains defensible.

grmorton

September 13th 2009, 12:33 PM

No you have not! You have been a SIGNIFICANT positive influence on many, many people, Christian and otherwise. Myself included.

I don't want to hear talk like that from you ever again! :teeth:

Jim

I appreciate the sentiment but all in all, the successes have been few. One always needs to deal with brutal reality, not with what one wishes things to be.

grmorton

September 13th 2009, 12:40 PM

I hope you are not being to hard on yourself here GM.

While liberal Christianity makes more sense to me that does the road you took when you left YEC, I don't see the outcome of you leaving YEC as a failure.

I think you provided many (including we atheists) with a valuable resource to show other YECs that Christianity continues beyond YEC. To me, that is so very important.

What the actual outcome of that is, well who knows.

I too have failed to convince any YEC of a single thing regarding evolution, ancient earth, etc. Yet who really knows.

There is always that great, un-measurable mass of lurkers out there. Besides, you took the path of truth. How can that ever be a failure? Very occasionally someone will say that you have influenced them, however, it is a thankless task and as such you can never really know what failure or success really is.

Regards, Roland

PS Don't be too hard on the poor old liberals. I do still enjoy listening to a good liberal, Christian theologian. :teeth:

I have good friends of all sorts, atheists, deists, Christians, Buddhists, even communists(in China), even a liberal here or there :lol: As stated I think the liberal approach is a surrender simply becausse we wouldn't talk about how phlogiston theory is scientifically false but deeply meaningful and full of truth. We do that only in theology.

But as you, who have also spent much time talking with YECs (probably far more civilly than I), know, it is hard to convince them to change a view that is so deeply ingrained in their world view.

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 12:41 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 01:30 PM

But I'll take your disdain for enablers to heart and stop enabling you now. I sincerely look forward to a time when you are willing to engage people as they actually are.

—Sam

All my slandering and misconstruing of your methodology resulted in an important new piece of the puzzle -- another layer of the enablement. Now you're defending FG by citing your OWN careless endorsement of a book that contains a chapter on creationism with a haircut. The Smarter Core once agreed (in all those other Dover discussions) that I.D. is just that. Now we're backtracking. That looks indecisive and idiotic. It's certainly not something a Smarter Core should be doing if it wants to win this fight.

I daresay your oversight of a chapter on Flood Geology wouldn't have shored up your Tough as Nails reputation as one who "sticks it" to anti-evos. You wouldn't have given nod to Dual Ice Meteor Theory because doing so is irresponsible and strongly suggests an alliance of purpose. Keep waffling. Given your declared ignorance of cutting-edge teleological terrorism, you'll be no match for me when I reveal the other layers of this onion. FG's alliance with Comfort is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 01:42 PM

All my slandering and misconstruing of your methodology resulted in an important new piece of the puzzle

I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who intentionally uses libel, misconstruction and deception to demonstrate his points. If you think that you can bring others to your point of view through deception without it destroying your argument, then you are no better than the apologists you criticize. In many cases, you are undoubtedly worse for, while some creationist apologists are sincere, you are not.

What shameful hypocrisy.

—Sam

oxmixmudd

September 13th 2009, 01:59 PM

I appreciate the sentiment but all in all, the successes have been few. One always needs to deal with brutal reality, not with what one wishes things to be.

Ah - but one never knows what the end of one's actions will be. What looks to be a failure to you may, in the end, be a great success. You have made difference in many peoples lives. You can see direct evidence for that. But the end of your efforts will likely never be known by you. So to classify them as success or failure seems a bit premature. What you have done is stick your nose out for the truth as best you understand it, and made a great deal of well researched material available to a great many people. And you have made yourself accessible to those who might benefit from what you know. That is more than 99.99% of people ever do. All of those things are successes. And their final end or result will not be known for quite some time I would think.

Now - I'll quit embarrassing you with public accolades.

Jim

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 02:16 PM

I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who intentionally uses libel, misconstruction and deception to demonstrate his points. If you think that you can bring others to your point of view through deception without it destroying your argument, then you are no better than the apologists you criticize. In many cases, you are undoubtedly worse for, while some creationist apologists are sincere, you are not.

What shameful hypocrisy.

—Sam

Your methodology starts with the carnage, not the source of the carnage. A pretended unity of overlapping beliefs enables their confidence and further spread of the meme. I should have put "misconstruing" and "slandering" in quotes because that is what you say I've done. I haven't. Your methodology is backward and I haven't misconstrued a thing. Your endorsement of a book that contains a chapter on geocentrism* fairly proves that. Using your own similar gaffe to defend evangelical back-tickling isn't elevating your integrity (except in your own mind).

* Regress to the hyperliteral at your own peril.

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 02:43 PM

I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on [evolution not being compatible with Christianity]; such things do happen in life.

It's the "don't bother to" part that's deeply worrying. This discussion has paid dividends.

Don't expect anyone to be impressed that you sometimes tell the 2+2=5ists that 2+2=4.

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 02:58 PM

Roy

September 13th 2009, 03:49 PM

I appreciate the sentiment but all in all, the successes have been few. One always needs to deal with brutal reality, not with what one wishes things to be.

The successes you know about may have been few - but how many people have read your articles and posts and influenced later rather than immediately, or been influenced but not responsive, or had your words be just a small step in a long process the ultimate part of which was triggered by someone else? You can't possibly know, and so can't justify the conclusion you have reached.

For what proportion of the articles that influence your thoughts do you contact the authors afterwards? That'll be roughly the same proportion of those you've influenced that contact you. Do the math :smile:.

Roy

grmorton

September 13th 2009, 04:12 PM

Ah - but one never knows what the end of one's actions will be. What looks to be a failure to you may, in the end, be a great success. You have made difference in many peoples lives. You can see direct evidence for that. But the end of your efforts will likely never be known by you. So to classify them as success or failure seems a bit premature. What you have done is stick your nose out for the truth as best you understand it, and made a great deal of well researched material available to a great many people. And you have made yourself accessible to those who might benefit from what you know. That is more than 99.99% of people ever do. All of those things are successes. And their final end or result will not be known for quite some time I would think.

Now - I'll quit embarrassing you with public accolades.

Jim

Yeah, my reputation for being a crusty mean ol geezer will get tarnished badly if you keep this up.:wink:

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 04:21 PM

You don't know what you are talking about. My professor (Chad V. Meister, for those interested) has never said that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. He knows very well that I'm an evolutionist and still considers me Christian. He comes from an engineering background, so it's not surprising that he finds ID so compelling. When the topic has anything to do with science or evolutionary theory, I make sure that my objection to his stance on ID is known.

Had I known you were this obtuse, I would have preferred your silence, not your oft-alluded-to brief “solidarity” with me. If I knew you’d one day defend and downplay F. Graham’s endorsement of The Evidence Bible, I would have told you to get behind me.

By subbing out with [evolution isn’t compatible with Christianity], I meant to make more parallel your comparison. You’d have never endorsed a book with a chapter on Flood Geology. If you had, you’d make sure to amend your endorsement when recommending that book. Yet you compare these two crimes of endorsement as if they equate; it’s all just a [i]whoops! to you, deserving of an infinite patience. *YARF*

Get your head back. Pretend that whole “Truth with a Capital T” speech actually means something to you.

P.S. By the way, you meant "recommend," not "endorse to the nation," right? What kind of clout do you have to endorse a book that has a chapter on geocentris, I mean, Intelligent Design?

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 05:14 PM

Check your dictionary; the meaning of the two words is the same.

And you don't know what I'd do in regards to endorsement. I recommend "Love Your God With All Your Mind" by Moreland, even though he briefly mentions that he is a creationist and "about one day a week", a literal six-day creationist. In neither book is creationism/ID the primary topic.

As I said at the beginning, your limited scope is producing tunnel-vision. And I certainly don't need you to be chiding me about truthfulness, all things here considered. But since you have decided to go the route of being uninterested in properly characterizing your opposition and preferring to bray the same speech regardless of your environment, I'm not going to pursue this any further. Whatever mis-characterizations you make of me or others have been demonstrated to be "fang-less".

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 07:01 PM

Check your dictionary; the meaning of the two words is the same.

No one i know of save for those with clout goes around saying he "endorsed" a book. Usually it is recommended. You conveniently dismiss the marketing angle of FG's endorsement. His endorsement of that Bible went worldwide. The commentary endorsed therein was perverse to the extreme, an insult to you and Christianity entire.

Your "endorsement" cannot even compare in reach or in content. That's why I made your comparison more parallel, to demonstrate there is no comparison. Again, Franklin endorsed an author who cites Ken Hovind. If you endorsed a book as bad as that, you'd have been more careful to tell your friends and colleagues to skip the chapter where Ken Hovind says evolution isn't scientific or compatible with Christianity. Franklin has a global reach and hasn't done that amending, nor will he ever. We're not just talking about a chapter but an overriding theme of evolution being the root cause of moral evil. That's your Evidence Bible. Lots of talk about how lying sends one to Hell. =O

And you don't know what I'd do in regards to endorsement. I recommend "Love Your God With All Your Mind" by Moreland, even though he briefly mentions that he is a creationist and "about one day a week", a literal six-day creationist. In neither book is creationism/ID the primary topic.

THAT'S what I mean by "dividends," babe. These little revelations and glimpses into your ACTUAL loyalties and motives are educational. Now we're back to ID not being Creation Science in disguise but something more palatable and deserving of merit.

I wasn't informed of this change of heart, but, again, that's what I meant by "dividends."

As I said at the beginning, your limited scope is producing tunnel-vision. And I certainly don't need you to be chiding me about truthfulness, all things here considered. But since you have decided to go the route of being uninterested in properly characterizing your opposition and preferring to bray the same speech regardless of your environment, I'm not going to pursue this any further. Whatever mis-characterizations you make of me or others have been demonstrated to be "fang-less".

—Sam

You "recommend" two books containing chapters on ID's veracity. You're in no position to talk about fangs or de-fanging. =)

Pai Geacademe

September 13th 2009, 08:57 PM

This is not a Gish Gallop but the hammering home of a point. Comfort is dangerous. He is dangerous because he espouses teleological delusion enforced by the fomenting of existential fear and paranoia. That delusion is specifically endorsed by Franklin Graham. I contend it encourages mutual evangelical back-tickling; that endorsement is the latest in a long tradition of sleazy marketing favors evangelicals do for each other, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED. =/

It is MENTAL that you minimize the gravity of it, Sam. And shocking. You really managed to throw me for a loop on this one.

Will UC Berkeley Ban "Origin of Species"???

A recent study revealed that in the 50 top universities in the U.S. (in the fields of psychology and biology), an amazing 61 percent of respondents described themselves as atheists or agnostics. It's no wonder atheism has doubled in the last 20 years among 19-25 year olds. An entire generation has been (and is being) brainwashed by atheistic evolution, and it's radically changing the culture of our nation.

In an effort to combat this, we produced a special 278-page full color cover edition of Origin of Species, which contains a 50-page introduction. This introduction gives the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin's life, Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, his disdain for women, and his thoughts on the existence of God. It lists the theory's many hoaxes, exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything, points to the incredible structure of DNA, and the absence of any species-to-species transitional forms.

It presents a balanced view of Creationism with information on scientists who believed that God created the universe--scientists such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur and Johannes Kepler. It uses many original graphics and "is for use in schools, colleges, and prestigious learning institutions." The introduction also contains the entire contents of the popular booklet, "Why Christianity?" Over 30,000 of these books were pre-ordered, and we hope to go for a massive print in the near future. This is why:

November 24th 2009 is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. On that day we will be taking a team to U.C. Berkeley and giving 1,000 copies of the book to students. Berkeley's website says: "Anyone is free to distribute non-commercial materials in any outdoor area of the campus," so there shouldn't be a problem. Besides, what are they going to do--ban Origin of Species? That would be big news, especially when their own bookstore sells it for $29.99.

We want Christians around the country to do what we are doing at Berkeley on Nov. 24th--to give out 1,000 copies in each one of those top 50 universities. Imagine, 50,000 copies of these books suddenly flooding major learning institutions in one day!

When we get teams who commit to do a university, we will mark that particular one on www.OriginIntoSchools.com as being "covered," until we have all 50 covered, along with contact details of how to get involved with each group.

The Alliance Defense Fund (1300 Christian lawyers who are on-call across the country) are working closely with us on this project. They will post each university's free speech and literature distribution policies (in a downloadable format) on the OriginIntoSchools.com website. They will also provide information on Christian groups in each one, and immediate cell phone access to lawyers in that area.

We want to give away these books to our future politicians, doctors, lawyers, etc., while we still have the liberty to do so. Please seriously consider working with us.

The first print of the book arrived on Friday. In more than 30 years of ministry, we have never had so much trouble with delivery. Amazingly, five different freight companies let us down. We therefore had to delay our email Update about the arrival of the books.

When the shipment came, our fork-lift broke down as we wheeled it towards the truck (which had never happened before). When we tried to send out an Update saying the books had finally arrived, our website crashed and was down for an unprecedented 30 hours.

So if you are going to become involved in the front lines of fighting for this generation in this way, expect a battle (discouragement, hindrances, etc.). This is going to deal a powerful blow to the enemy, so keep in mind: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places..." Please keep us and yourselves in prayer.

To order a box of 40 books at 99 cents each (and the free poster), go to our webstore:

Singles copies are $4.99 each. Feel free to also call (800) 437-1893.

If you or your church wants to get 1000 copies into your local university on November 24th (at a cost of $990 plus shipping), or if you or your church would like to sponsor a university (pay for 1,000 copies for a team to give them out), send your email address and details to: origins@livingwaters.com.This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Please tell your Christian friends about this project.

Order your books now and we will drop in

the poster you see above at no cost.

Thank you.

Until the trumpet sounds,

Ray Comfort (http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=398&Itemid=34)

Jaecp

September 13th 2009, 11:16 PM

Can we all take a breather and just calm the hell down?

Ansgar Seraph

September 13th 2009, 11:44 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 01:06 AM

I intend to take a long breather; I don't enjoy watching people twist arguments and mis-characterize others to prove their point. I've reread the thread several times now and my opinion of Pai's behaviour here hasn't changed. I simply cannot excuse such consistent uncharitable and deceptive behaviour, no matter who engages in it.

I am upset at Pai but I am calm, as I imagine is Pai. One (or both) of us is simply idiotically wrong in his approach to this issue. If it's me, I'll have to trust others to point that out for me. I can't trust Pai to treat my position and arguments with honesty at this point.

—Sam

I'm very calm, as well. Sam's on record as saying the FG's endorsement isn't an endorsement of creationism. I made my point, and got some lovely bonuses:

1) Sam now admits to recommending two books that contain chapters that advocate ID.

2) He says he should amend his recommendations to make it clear he doesn't endorse ID as well, though sometimes he doesn't "bother" doing that. (One wonders Why the apathy?)

3) FG makes no such amendments to his endorsement of The Evidence Bible, meaning that readers will interpret Franklin's recommendation as agreeing with Comfort's Evolution is Atheistic canard, which is repeated many times in said Bible. A problem? Sam says it isn't. These things happen, he says.

The point is Sam would never recommend a book that contained a chapter on Flood Geology or geocentrism without making it clear he didn't believe those unscientific concepts FIRST. Presumably, then, he would never recommend a book that said Evolution is Atheistic without the amendment. The Evidence Bible says all that about evolution and MORE. MUCH more. It is a blight on epistemology, and yet Sam doesn't think this is a form of enablement. That's funny.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 01:33 AM

Interesting piece of propaganda from Billy Graham's website (http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=112) :

[B]Q: How can the Bible be correct about the world being created in six days?

A: Many Christians become troubled when they read the creation account in the Bible and then listen to the ideas of evolutionists. The Bible, of course, asserts that God created the universe and everything in it.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, usually leave God completely out and assume that everything "just happened." In addition, evolutionists describe life developing over vast periods of time as a scientific fact, though it is really only a theory.

Some scientists who believe the biblical account of God's creation think that it can fit with some aspects of evolutionary theory. They use terms like "progressive" or "continuous" creation. For example, some suggest that the days of creation in chapter one of Genesis might be "age days," that is, long periods of time in which God created and then helped things develop.

Might be.

The only concession here is one of a possibly deep geochronology that has nothing to do with evolution itself (which they say is only a "theory").

Jim said that acknowledgment is about as impressive as conceding 2 + 2 = 4. I'd go a step further and say that about evolution. This is deplorable. Tens of thousands of people read this every day.

Jaecp

September 14th 2009, 01:34 AM

Fine,

My bad for using calm down, because, naturally, whenever anyone says that anywhere in the history of the planet, people will turn and go "but I am calm.

So maybe it would be better to say, "take a deep breath and relax" or "chill for a sec and try to get to the root issue" or some other thing to the meaning of "this argument is inane and off track and people are talking past each other"

Jeeze

My two bits, one negative thing for both of you,

Pai, I do think your being too caustic here, I don't think Ansgar has a very strong inherent responsibility to fix his brethren. There is one, but your putting more emphasis on it that I think is warranted,

Sam, advocating books with the caveat of "don't read this part" is going to get people taking the other advice to heart and once someone is engaged with a fellow, who sees the rest of his stuff as being good, whats actually stopping them from considering the stuff you personally don't agree with? I think the problem here is that you consider it solved when you say "read this book, but ignore that parts because its wrong", while Pai doesn't seem to think thats going to stop anyone once they already trust the other word of the author,

I didn't mean for yours to take more words to explain, oops.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 01:54 AM

This shows a literal Genesis is clearly the dominant teleology at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=99). Remember that Rogue cited Graham as upholding an apathetic creationist tradition. The one currently expressed at his website is far from that, being almost identical to the anti-evo propaganda that's been churned out by the priestcraft for decades: It's just a "theory." The majority of its believers are "godless." Etc.

[B]Q: Since Adam and Eve were the first humans, where did their eldest son Cain get his wife?

A: It is often asked where Cain got his wife. Genesis, chapter 5, gives the written account of Adam's lineage. From that chapter, we learn that Adam had sons and daughters; also, that he lived to the age of 930 years. No doubt Cain married one of those numerous daughters or granddaughters of Adam.

In other words, Cain married either his own sister or niece. In the dawn of history, such marriages would have been necessary and would not have been accompanied by the dangers which may result today. God later established laws to prohibit marriage within close degrees of kinship (Leviticus 20:17-20).

Intermarriage of closely related persons such as brothers and sisters today, according to doctors, would result in serious physical deterioration of the race.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 02:09 AM

Pai, I do think your being too caustic here, I don't think Ansgar has a very strong inherent responsibility to fix his brethren. There is one, but your putting more emphasis on it that I think is warranted,

My point has been clear. He doesn't have to because he doesn't have the clout to do it. Those with the clout should and don't. Instead, they enable. With endorsements like these.

Refusal to acknowledge FG's endorsement is enablement exacerbates the delusion, making Sam's job harder. That kind of stupidity makes me wax caustic. FG and Comfort send proto-apostates his way. I'll say caustic things about that, for sure. I'm not one to stay quiet when I see enablement of this magnitude in action.

I'm sorry, but as a life-long atheist, you can't really know how deep this goes. You need to understand how dysfunctional the Christian family is. There are many levels of enabling activity, and FG's endorsement of Comfort is but one example.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 02:20 AM

I think the problem here is that you consider it solved when you say "read this book, but ignore that parts because its wrong", while Pai doesn't seem to think thats going to stop anyone once they already trust the other word of the author,

I didn't mean for yours to take more words to explain, oops.

No, that's not the problem at all, Jaecp. My beef is with Sam defending the general endorsement when we all know he would have NEVER endorsed a Bible peppered with commentary saying that evolution is a hoax and atheistic. If Sam did endorse a Bible like that, his morality and sanity would be questionable.

Sam and Rogue defend the endorsement as not specifically recommending the creationist ideas in the Evidence Bible. All I'm asking for is for them to be honest and say "You know what? That's a bonehead move and DOES enable the creationists."

Comfort's reputation is buoyed by these endorsements. It's time to speak up. Instead, Sam's acting like I licked the red off his candy.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 04:25 AM

Ansgar Seraph

September 14th 2009, 10:25 AM

Sam, advocating books with the caveat of "don't read this part" is going to get people taking the other advice to heart and once someone is engaged with a fellow, who sees the rest of his stuff as being good, whats actually stopping them from considering the stuff you personally don't agree with? I think the problem here is that you consider it solved when you say "read this book, but ignore that parts because its wrong", while Pai doesn't seem to think thats going to stop anyone once they already trust the other word of the author.

Both of the mentioned books are primarily about engaging the Christian faith with reason and the mind; my philosophy professor is very much of the "have reasons to believe" bent, as, obviously, is Moreland. Neither work is a creationist or ID treatise — Moreland barely mentions it and Meister spends little time on ID, relative to the scope and size of his book.

I'm not trying to shield anyone from creationist or ID arguments. If I perceive the people I recommend the books to have any scientific bent, I'll likely spend the better part of an hour talking their ears off about ID and evolution if they let me. If someone approaches me about those elements in Meister's and Moreland's books, I'm pretty well-prepared to give a more consistent explanation that those books contain.

I don't think it's right to discard very good books because they contain bits that I don't agree with; I recommend "How To Read the Bible" by James Kugel, even though it has quite a bit that runs counter to conservative Christian thought; I ask people to read Biblical Archeology Review, even though it has a distinctive non-theist bent. I think every person who believes Roman Catholics aren't really Christians read the Catechism, even though there's a lot of RCC doctrine I don't agree with.

With limited human perspective, I'm sure that I'll never find a book I completely agree with (even if I wrote one myself). I don't think encouraging people to read books that stress the intellectual aspect of faith is in error, just because those books contain secondary ideas that I strongly oppose.

Ha—made mine long to get back at you :rasberry:

—Sam

Jaecp

September 14th 2009, 10:44 AM

Ansgar Seraph

September 14th 2009, 10:48 AM

Sam, I agree with Jaecp. Let's bring it down a notch. Let's be adults and you tell me two or three things that have you "upset." I'll own up if I have maligned you or lied about you. The fact is we have FG's endorsement of that Bible, the ideas of Comfort, and Billy Graham's posthumous ministry calling evolution "just a theory" and referencing an absurdly literal Genesis. This supposed insignificance of teleological bent wasn't apparently important enough to Billy Graham to establish respect for (or even awareness of) his idea. It should have been a LEGACY, my brother.

That it was so soon forgotten, or not even known, is part of what makes this a tragedy. I'm not shutting up about dysfunction that deep. It's far too rich with poetry.
So let's then find some common ground. We definately split somewhere.

I'm going to have to give that proposal consideration. Even now, you are writing that I defend Franklin Graham's endorsement of "The Evidence Bible" when I've done no such thing; I've (repeatedly) made it clear that it was wrong for Graham to endorse it.

You've shown a repeated penchant for using deception to make your point, from beginning a thread in Apologetics under completely false and deceptive pretenses to libeling a long-time friend by characterizing his chapter on Intelligent Design as a "chapter on [evolution not being compatible with Christianity]". You write that Moreland's book contains a chapter that advocates ID when I've never said anything like that; Moreland mentions creationism (not ID) briefly and as a neutral remark. It was obvious reading it that he is not advancing the platform. You have also repeatedly mis-characterized what Rogue and oxmixmudd have argued.

All that aside, you demonstrate an incredibly narrow tolerance on this issue, unwilling to allow for any latitude. You complain about the Church's dysfunction; imagine the chaos if every person held such inflexible views on every doctrinal matter. Some err because they are deficient, true. Others err because they are excessive. Wisdom, as Aristotle said, finds and chooses the mean.

All these things make me very reluctant to continue a conversation in this thread or at this time. I will consider it for a couple of days but you shouldn't expect further participation by me.

—Sam

Ansgar Seraph

September 14th 2009, 11:03 AM

I would say though, that there is a huge difference between disagreeing with someone, with things that really are a matter of discussion, like church doctrines and the analysis of various things from the other books you name dropped and something like creationism or ID, which is about as wrong as you can get, whose proponents have done... questionable things almost universally to support themselves (remember my thread with Dembski's college courses?)

Discussion over whether the RCC interpretation of a verse over the one you use is something that is useful for you to know, for the greater understanding of theology. The same cannot be said for ID/Creationism, understanding that isn't going to make you understand science any better (outside of knowing how, precisely, wrong it is, but the knowledge gained from understanding an alternative theological stance is of a different kind, I don't know a word to describe it, positive knowledge verse negative knowledge? bah).

Anyway,

I just saw the 2 of your, and some others, having some very, ah, non-constructive talking. Wanted to fix that.

I'd say it's just like everything else, both positive knowledge and negative knowledge must be accounted for — often times, what is cut-and-dry to one party is open for discussion by another. Papal authority, intelligent design, inerrancy, mind-soul dualism . . . I would say that one's perspective plays a large part in determining knowledge.

I agree that creationism and ID are wrong and I engage the discussion with full-force when appropriate; it doesn't mean that I get easily get people to agree with me. Meister is an engineer at heart and a good mathematician; arguments from biology are less persuasive to him. His position on ID is wrong but it's not incomprehensible.

In the Christian Body, we disagree on a great many important things; it's been this way since the beginning, according to Paul. While it remains the Christian's duty to pursue truth in all of its forms, I think it's a mistake to cast people and their work aside because there is a substantial disagreement on a topic. And I certainly wouldn't say that creationism/ID is a wrong as a Christian can get — I have Christian friends who believe that torturing suspected terrorists for the purposes of national security is acceptable. I have far more difficulty sitting at a table with someone who professes that than someone who professes creationism.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 11:32 AM

Both of the mentioned books are primarily about engaging the Christian faith with reason and the mind; my philosophy professor is very much of the "have reasons to believe" bent, as, obviously, is Moreland. Neither work is a creationist or ID treatise — Moreland barely mentions it and Meister spends little time on ID, relative to the scope and size of his book.

i.e., If ex-alchemists still occasionally and briefly give nod to alchemy, reason is unsullied.

That Moreland is of the Reasons to Believe bent is all the more reason to tell him his apologetics defame epistemology. The smarter skeptics -- the ones who'd be of real Christian value -- can see this is what it does, and that is why they make jokes about IDiots. That's a Huge demographic Moreland will never win.

Think about it: if the epistemology points away from the IDeology of Behe and Johnson -- who'll forever remain the associates of ID --
and points to something incredibly different, that's hardly giving his readership Reasons to Believe. Even suggesting that ID is a fertile idea runs counter to rationality because forcefitting Genesis 1 and 2 into pre-history doesn't work and was never MEANT to work. Genesis is culture-bound Iron Age myth. Who isn't telling Moreland this?!

The critical point here, Sam, is that Gordon Glover understands this. It is central to his apologetic.
I'm merely reading the books you recommend I read, books written by authors who supposedly represent the Smarter Core. If Glover says that, where then am I wrong? What have I misconstrued?

I don't think encouraging people to read books that stress the intellectual aspect of faith is in error, just because those books contain secondary ideas that I strongly oppose.

Ha—made mine long to get back at you :rasberry:[/i]

You're missing the point. It is counterintuitive to even MILDLY suggest that alchemy or geocentrism may be true. Genesis was never meant to be literalized. Some "hangers on" still have a firm grip on the baby bottle.

How can one understand metaphor and scriptural nuance if one can't even let THAT go?

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 01:29 PM

libeling a long-time friend by characterizing his chapter on Intelligent Design as a "chapter on [evolution not being compatible with Christianity]".

You didn't read my explanation of that bracketed substitution in post #120:

By subbing out [Intelligent Design] with [evolution isn’t compatible with Christianity], I meant to make more parallel your comparison..

It was not a libel. I did that to illustrate the endorsement of a book with a whackier claim would be unconscionable. The Evidence Bible contains that whacky claim. Some of you are denying that this is enabling behavior and that it strongly suggests Graham agrees with Comfort's teleological ideology. I'm asking you to examine that.

You write that Moreland's book contains a chapter that advocates ID when I've never said anything like that;

I was only going on the information you gave me :

I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse [b]the chapter on Intelligent Design.

Did it or did it NOT include a chapter on creationism? Why would you accuse me of libel when I merely agreed with what you said?

Moreland mentions creationism (not ID) briefly and as a neutral remark. It was obvious reading it that he is not advancing the platform. You have also repeatedly mis-characterized what Rogue and oxmixmudd have argued.
[/QUOTE]

No I have not. They say it is not enabling behavior, and I have given sufficient evidence explaining why it is enabling behavior. It's reflected in the creationism still found on Billy Graham's site. Billy Graham didn't leave a legacy of teleological clarity, despite Rogue's suggestion that the harmony between Genesis and Evolution were important to him. The urgency of the matter apparently became diminished over the years, allowing the flagrant offenders to swoop in. Who's fault is that?

If I have mischaracterized them, they should cite where. I have no problems starting from scratch here to clear up any confusion and accusations of mischaracterization.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 04:10 PM

From JP Moreland's response to Robert C. Newman:

My own views about the creation - evolution controversy are divided between old earth and young earth creationism. While I lean heavily toward old earth views, I do not see the issue as cut-and-dried. My greater concerns, however, involve my desire to promote theistic design and some form of special creationism over against theistic evolution, which I take to be biblically inadequate and less that required by the relevant scientific considerations.

…

For a moment, let us grant the unambiguous importance of fruitfulness as a criterion for evaluating the merits of a scientific theory or research program (roughly, a family of theories). I have two things to say on such an assumption. First, if we grant that theistic science (e.g. progressive creationist practices and theories) have not been fruitful, I think the same thing can be said of with equal force against evolutionary theory. How has evolutionary theory led to fruitful research, useful explanations, or empirically successful predictions? Various Christian and non-Christian scholars have claimed that evolutionary theory is in a period of crisis precisely because it is a dead-end research program if judged by its fruitfulness.

What's most worrisome about those passages -- even more than the derivative creationist propaganda they contain -- is Moreland's use of the term Theistic Science. There is no such thing as Theistic Science. Intelligent Design was exposed as the masquerade it was at Dover, and even years before that; it's barely even a hypothesis So what is Moreland doing still holding the baby bottle? Could it be because he's being enabled (either conciously or conscioiusly) by brothers who refuse to confront him on the above pack of lies?

He continues :

Moreover, even if we grant that a theistic scientist's utilization of theological concepts has not fruitfully suggested new lines of empirical research, (and this need not be granted), all that follows from this is that [b]theistic scientists need to do more work developing the infrastructure of their models [Pai: something Behe and Dembski should have done before creating the flap in the first place.], not that their models are not part of natural science or that they cannot be empirically fruitful where appropriate. Now some of this development is already taking place as excitement mounts about new efforts in Intelligent Design research.

I can hardly find the words to express how much Sam's endorsement of Moreland's methodology irritates me. One must explain the functional distinction between geocentrism and ID. Is ID no longer creationism re-packaged ?

oxmixmudd

September 14th 2009, 04:52 PM

From JP Moreland's response to Robert C. Newman:

What's most worrisome about those passages -- even more than the derivative creationist propaganda they contain -- is Moreland's use of the term Theistic Science. There is no such thing as Theistic Science. Intelligent Design was exposed as the masquerade it was at Dover, and even years before that; it's barely even a hypothesis So what is Moreland doing still holding the baby bottle? Could it be because he's being enabled (either conciously or conscioiusly) by brothers who refuse to confront him on the above pack of lies?

He continues :

I can hardly find the words to express how much Sam's endorsement of Moreland's methodology irritates me. One must explain the functional distinction between geocentrism and ID. [B]Is ID no longer creationism re-packaged ?

It depends on who you talk to. Look, the ideas put forward by Dembski is NOT just 'creationism repackaged'. His ideas may be flawed, but it is a completely different approach. You seem overall to be looking for some magic bullet, one size fits all bag to put all these ideas into. That way you can condemn them all equally. But you can't. An approach that says "perhaps there are artifacts in the creation of life that point to the direct action of the creator over deep time" is very, very different from an approach that says "the Bible says God made everthing in six days - forget the evidence". (saying you think it could be some arbitrary designer is disingenuous though - that is very definitely not the real intent).

You have to distinguish between generic creationism in the most general sense - which includes all Christians of all persuasions- and specific methods of approaching that belief. All Christians believe in an active God who made the universe and us with intention - however He did it - and who is actively pursuing relationship with mankind.

Now YEC is the most egregious distortion of fact and scripture. They end up with a complete disconnect between reality and what they think the Bible teaches.

OEC is more moderate, but there is still a bit of a disconnect between what the witness of nature about how God acted over time and what they think must be true. But even here you have a lot of variation. Some OEC's simply draw the line at the evolution of mankind. Generally though, OEC is characterized by the desire to see fiat creation of species over time.

ID is more like OEC than theistic evolution, except that it accepts for the most part much large chunks of truly evolutionary progression, it just thinks there are sticking points that can be observed for which evolution is insufficient. The most significant being getting life started and the proverbial "IC systems".

And then, of course, you have theistic evolutions who also actually represent a wide range of opinions about how God acted through that process and how that maps back to scripture.

Each of these presents a different set of ideas which must be dealt with, and each of these appeals to people differently, and different people. For the most part, to get an OEC to see what is wrong with ID takes a good bit of education. But to deal with a YEC requires as much a theological rework as a scientific one. Just making fun of these ideas doesn't get very far, and just making blanket statements doesn't get very far, and walking up to your favorite big name 'ministry' and saying its wrong doesn't get very far either - because there are factors influencing their 'hearing' that must be dealt with first.

So how do you deal with all these different approaches, each requiring different sets of data. This is a free county pai. They don't have to listen. They don't have to give you the time of day. Do you think throwing rocks will help? They have big audiences that want to hear what they are saying, that will likely reject them if they change their tune. So you change a koukl, don't you realise all that will happen is that the followers of koukl will just delete his website from their browser and move on to the next guy that says what they want to hear?

This is where what Sam and I and Rogue are saying comes into play. You have to

A) get people to listen. Be they big guns or the guy next door. You don't do that blasting them.
B) reach the audience at least as much as the performer.

Because while you think it is the 'priestcraft', in the protestant churches (who are very adamant about the fact we are ALL priests), generally when the ministers start saying things the people don't want to hear, the people move on. It's a cycle. The people are taught what to believe from ministers (and other people - the neighbor that led them to the Lord - and often THAT is the more important initial influence). But then they put demands on the ministers too. In a lot of YEC churches, the reason a Hugh Ross can't get in is just as much the uproar the ministers would get from various key church members as the reluctance of the ministers themselves.

Let alone a Francis Collins.

So you need to be thinking a bit more widely, and understanding that the approach sam advocates, duplicated a million times, is going to be at least as effective as Franklin Graham condemning the Evidence Bible for one section he doesn't agree with. likely more so.

But it will take work at both ends and over a good bit of time I would guess for there to be significant change.

Jim

Jaecp

September 14th 2009, 05:11 PM

Dembski is a bad example to use oxy,

Since while he claims to be an ID proponent, the "religion neutral" form of creationism, he does things much different behind (what he thought was) closed doors.

ID though, if you look at the history of the ID movement, when it started, whose been involved, and especially the information that came out in the Dover trial. Its really is just creationism.

Ansgar Seraph

September 14th 2009, 06:23 PM

Did it or did it NOT include a chapter on creationism? Why would you accuse me of libel when I merely agreed with what you said?

You are being accused of libel because Meister never said that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Just like it would be libel for you to say that I, in writing a chapter on evolutionary theory, wrote that Intelligent Design is not compatible with Christianity. It doesn't matter whether you were trying to demonstrate a point or not — it's a careless, negligent and deceptive thing to do.

You've repeatedly stated that I endorse two books that have chapters advocating ID but I've expressly contradicted your claim that it contains an entire chapter on creationism or ID. Moreland's book has very little do say about the scientific argument.

You continue to claim that we're defending Graham's endorsement of "The Evidence Bible" when it's been made clear that is not the case. Graham was wrong to endorse "The Evidence Bible". That endorsement, contrary to your repeated claim, however, does not necessarily imply that Graham himself believes evolution to be incompatible with Christianity.

And all along the way, you've seen fit to snipe and bite at people who disagree with you, twisting their arguments into caricatures and strawmen.

Add to all of that your willingness to use deception in a thread to make a point and I have no confidence that these have been sincere mistakes. I've considered it, reread the thread again and have decided that I'm not going to further discuss this with you in this thread.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 07:52 PM

It depends on who you talk to. Look, the ideas put forward by Dembski is NOT just 'creationism repackaged'. His ideas may be flawed, but it is a completely different approach. You seem overall to be looking for some magic bullet, one size fits all bag to put all these ideas into. That way you can condemn them all equally. But you can't. An approach that says "perhaps there are artifacts in the creation of life that point to the direct action of the creator over deep time" is very, very different from an approach that says "the Bible says God made everthing in six days - forget the evidence". (saying you think it could be some arbitrary designer is disingenuous though - that is very definitely not the real intent).

You have to distinguish between generic creationism in the most general sense - which includes all Christians of all persuasions- and specific methods of approaching that belief. All Christians believe in an active God who made the universe and us with intention - however He did it - and who is actively pursuing relationship with mankind.

Now YEC is the most egregious distortion of fact and scripture. They end up with a complete disconnect between reality and what they think the Bible teaches.

OEC is more moderate, but there is still a bit of a disconnect between what the witness of nature about how God acted over time and what they think must be true. But even here you have a lot of variation. Some OEC's simply draw the line at the evolution of mankind. Generally though, OEC is characterized by the desire to see fiat creation of species over time.

ID is more like OEC than theistic evolution, except that it accepts for the most part much large chunks of truly evolutionary progression, it just thinks there are sticking points that can be observed for which evolution is insufficient. The most significant being getting life started and the proverbial "IC systems".

And then, of course, you have theistic evolutions who also actually represent a wide range of opinions about how God acted through that process and how that maps back to scripture.

Each of these presents a different set of ideas which must be dealt with, and each of these appeals to people differently, and different people. For the most part, to get an OEC to see what is wrong with ID takes a good bit of education. But to deal with a YEC requires as much a theological rework as a scientific one. Just making fun of these ideas doesn't get very far, and just making blanket statements doesn't get very far, and walking up to your favorite big name 'ministry' and saying its wrong doesn't get very far either - because there are factors influencing their 'hearing' that must be dealt with first.

So how do you deal with all these different approaches, each requiring different sets of data. This is a free county pai. They don't have to listen. They don't have to give you the time of day. Do you think throwing rocks will help? They have big audiences that want to hear what they are saying, that will likely reject them if they change their tune. So you change a koukl, don't you realise all that will happen is that the followers of koukl will just delete his website from their browser and move on to the next guy that says what they want to hear?

This is where what Sam and I and Rogue are saying comes into play. You have to

A) get people to listen. Be they big guns or the guy next door. You don't do that blasting them.
B) reach the audience at least as much as the performer.

Because while you think it is the 'priestcraft', in the protestant churches (who are very adamant about the fact we are ALL priests), generally when the ministers start saying things the people don't want to hear, the people move on. It's a cycle. The people are taught what to believe from ministers (and other people - the neighbor that led them to the Lord - and often THAT is the more important initial influence). But then they put demands on the ministers too. In a lot of YEC churches, the reason a Hugh Ross can't get in is just as much the uproar the ministers would get from various key church members as the reluctance of the ministers themselves.

Let alone a Francis Collins.

So you need to be thinking a bit more widely, and understanding that the approach sam advocates, duplicated a million times, is going to be at least as effective as Franklin Graham condemning the Evidence Bible for one section he doesn't agree with. likely more so.

But it will take work at both ends and over a good bit of time I would guess for there to be significant change.

Jim

Jim, I understand that the approaches vary widely. The distinctions are quite clear to me. What struck me was that Moreland's more "sophisticated" view is founded on the same propaganda of the 6/6000ists. I tried not to bold all of the evidence in Moreland's text, but you can see it's there. All the differing teleological views are linked by those infamous lies. Moreland shouldn't expect me to take his more "moderate" views seriously if they are founded on precisely the same lies anti-evos have peddled for decades. Is this not shameful? Or is it just an oops!?

Yes, I understand that there are degrees to this. It's the pretense of sophistication in those degrees that makes me mad. Moreland may cloak his teleology in more syllables, but it's still nothing more than the same urban legend. What is the functional distinction between these views if the following claims are made by all of them? This is from Moreland's mouth, not Hovind's:

Evolutionary research produced no results.

Evolutionary research doesn't involve empirical observation.

Evolution is in peril. It is a dead-end research program.

ID is on the cusp of making amazing discoveries.

I think you give Dembski and Moreland more credit than they deserve. I wasn't shocked that Moreland told the same lies as his YE brethren because I know that progressive creationism is hindered by the same epistemological error as YE: fusing facts with folklore. That's a complete waste of time, and that leads me to Gordon Glover.

Another reason I refuse to distinguish the movements (in terms of motive and function) is because Gordon Glover says we needn't. His position is unapologetically blunt by claiming outright that cosmological accretion and biological evolution are fact (being rooted in sound epistemology), and Iron Age teleology was never meant to be harmonized with current perceptions. That's a devastating blow to the progressive creationists. It essentially says that Moreland plays in the same sandbox as Ham.

Regarding Koukl, you say if Koukl changes his teleological tune, people will delete him for their bookmarks. Well isn't that a tad presumptuous? LOL. What little faith you seem to have in Koukl and his followers (and Christians in general). Christianity, at the very least, is about faith, integrity, and truth. If a mere teleological shift would result in most, if not all, of this readership going elsewhere, who cares? If their faith hinged merely on a fig-leafed Adam, they weren't Christians anyway. (This is the spiel I've been hearing from many of your nastier brethren.)

Have some faith that Koukl, if properly challenged, would be a good Christian and not come back swinging with lies. There is something about your dismissing the TRANSFORMATIVE nature of the Christian life that doesn’t sit right with me. Does Christ transform? Does he mold the old sinner into something different? At the very least, then, you should have faith in your transformed brothers and sisters and the cognitive assistance of the Holy Spirit. I see none of that. I see an inexplicable donning of kid gloves and mild defenses of extremely damaging endorsements. Where do you get the idea that the tens of thousands of Christians who trust FG's endorsement are countered by the Smarter Core's pro-evo outreach? Even if the Smarter Core DID have such a wide influence (highly doubtful given the ratio of TEs to Anti-Evos), we'd merely see a "canceling out" not a stemming of the tide.

These genteel approaches will never bring shame to the teachers. Jesus saw great value in de-fanging the Pharisees in front of the pupils.

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 08:47 PM

You are being accused of libel because Meister never said that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. Just like it would be libel for you to say that I, in writing a chapter on evolutionary theory, wrote that Intelligent Design is not compatible with Christianity. It doesn't matter whether you were trying to demonstrate a point or not — it's a careless, negligent and deceptive thing to do.

Don't be dense. I made the point you'd never give nod to a book that claimed evolution is atheistic. Such an endorsement would suggest you agreed with that claim.

You've repeatedly stated that I endorse two books that have chapters advocating ID but I've expressly contradicted your claim that it contains an entire chapter on creationism or ID. Moreland's book has very little do say about the scientific argument.

Moreland might as well espouse geocentrism. You should be ashamed to "endorse" books by men with methodologies that retarded. It is counterintuitive to your apologetics.

You continue to claim that we're defending Graham's endorsement of "The Evidence Bible" when it's been made clear that is not the case. Graham was wrong to endorse "The Evidence Bible". That endorsement, contrary to your repeated claim, however, does not necessarily imply that Graham himself believes evolution to be incompatible with Christianity.

You'd never endorse a work whose central theme was that evolution causes abortion and moral decay. You wouldn't give nod to that pervasive theme because it would suggest you actually believed it. Whether or not Graham actually declares it outright is immaterial given the assumptions gullible readers will make (Comfort's readership is gullible). You fashion red herrings like Jorge.
This thread was not about Franklin's specific declaration of creationism but his equally damaging enablement of fools. This you could never manage to accuse FG of. You're bound to a brotherhood that prohibits the appearance of dissension and disunity. This couldn't be better expressed than in your lauding the alchemical epistemology of Moreland. He's your brother, despite issuing foolish claims (e.g., Evolution is a dead-end research program, Evolution produces no results, Evolution is in peril). Lies are OKAY to you when they come from the Christian intelligentsia, huh, Sam? Lies are OKAY provided something deep and spiritual is said in the next chapter.
Check yourself.

And all along the way, you've seen fit to snipe and bite at people who disagree with you, twisting their arguments into caricatures and strawmen.

Add to all of that your willingness to use deception in a thread to make a point and I have no confidence that these have been sincere mistakes. I've considered it, reread the thread again and have decided that I'm not going to further discuss this with you in this thread.

—Sam

Obviously I "touched a nerve" that even Jorge and Sean couldn't access. I hope it inspires some soul searching.

Ansgar Seraph

September 14th 2009, 09:07 PM

Lies are OKAY to you when they come from the Christian intelligentsia, huh, Sam? Lies are OKAY provided something deep and spiritual is said in the next chapter.

<snip>

Obviously I "touched a nerve" that even Jorge and Sean couldn't access. I hope it inspires some soul searching.

Don't flatter yourself. I merely expected more of you and I certainly haven't reacted to you any worse than I have others who demonstrate malicious and deceptive practices. Given this thread and that post, I was clearly wrong to give you as much credit as I had given. You don't listen, you merely rant. You are not interested in bringing people into a better understanding of reality; you're intent on forcing upon them your ideology. You don't desire to understand the people who disagree with you; you are content to throw them all into one stereotyped mass of hypocrites, liars and idiots.

You are, in short, acting exactly like a bigot.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 10:30 PM

You are not interested in bringing people into a better understanding of reality

You did NOT just say that. Consider the following claims about reality. Tell me if you recognize them:

Evolutionary research produced no results.

Evolutionary research doesn't involve empirical observation.

Evolution is in peril. It is a dead-end research program.

ID is on the cusp of making amazing discoveries.

Have you ever considered the Thought Train that led to those conclusions? Have you ever considered that Moreland's epistemology MIGHT be soiled by those unwieldy cars? If so, why DON'T you bother? It's a pertinent question:

I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on [evolution not being compatible with Christianity]; such things do happen in life.

You're not taking this seriously. A more earnest man would be careful making revelations like that. You can't keep claiming love for the fragile cocooned while recommending the alchemical methodology of one JP Moreland :

Why Evolution is Believed More Firmly than the Evidence Warrants

by J. P. Moreland

In my last article, I defined scientific naturalism and its relationship to evolution. In this article, I want to explain why, if evolutionary theory is false and the evidence for it falls far short of what is often believed, so many smart people believe in it so firmly. I also want to give some friendly advice to Christians who advocate theistic evolution, the view that evolutionary theory is true and that, in a scientifically undetectable way, God created living things by means of evolution.

Before embarking on our journey, let’s review the core of my last article. There I said that scientific naturalism includes three claims. First, scientific knowledge is vastly superior to all other forms of knowledge. Second, the scientifically authorized story of how all things came about revolves around the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary theory. According to the atomic theory of matter, all chemical change is the result of the rearrangement of tiny little parts — protons, neutrons and electrons. According to evolutionary theory, random mutations are largely responsible for providing an organism with a change in characteristics; some of those changes provide the organism with a survival advantage over other members of its species; as a result, the organism’s new traits eventually become the norm for all members of the species. The important thing about naturalism’s second claim is that its creation story is a purely mechanical, physical story with no need or room for miraculous divine activity. Third, the picture of reality that results from this creation story (which is, in turn, the only story alleged to have the support of scientific ways of knowing) is physicalism: the belief that the physical, material cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be.

It is important to note the relationship between these three claims: Most naturalists believe that the physical cosmos is all there is, was or ever will be because their creation story allows no room for miraculous divine activity. And most naturalists believe in a creation story with no room for divine activity because (a) their theory of knowledge says that it’s irrational to believe in things that can’t be tested scientifically with the five senses, and (b) because they believe that divine activity can’t be so tested. Thus most naturalists believe Claim Three because they believe Claim Two, and they believe Claim Two because they believe Claim One.

Curiously, naturalism’s theory of knowledge (i.e., Claim One, according to which a belief is rational only if it is scientifically testable) is not itself scientifically testable. Thus the naturalist’s theory of knowledge fails to pass its own standard of acceptability and refutes itself. But this leaves many naturalists without any basis for believing Claim Two and, therefore, without any basis for believing Claim Three either.

With this background in mind, let us recall that our present question is not about the scientific evidence for evolution.[B] I think this evidence is quite meager. In any case, even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that there is a decent amount of evidence for evolution, the degree of certainty claimed on its behalf and the widespread negative attitude toward creationists are quite beyond what is warranted by the evidence alone. What is going on here?

We have good interdisciplinary evidence for evolution, actually. The sum of it says we evolved. There's nothing "going on" here but Teachers' weird issues with God's method of creation.

First, the widely accepted intellectual authority of science, coupled with the belief that Intelligent Design theory is religion (rather than science) means that evolution is the only view of the origins of life that can claim the backing of reason. In our empirically oriented culture, science (and science alone) has unqualified intellectual acceptance. On the evening news, when a scientist makes a pronouncement about what causes obesity, crime, or anything else, he/she is taken to speak as our culture’s sole authority on the issue at hand. When was the last time you saw a theologian, philosopher or humanities professor consulted as an intellectual leader in the culture?

Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It is a hypothesis and a bad one.

All supposedly extra-scientific beliefs must move to the back of the bus and are relegated to the level of private, subjective opinion. Now, if two scientific theories are competing for allegiance, then most intellectuals, at least in principle, would be open to all evidence relevant to the issue. But what happens if one of two rival theories is considered scientific and the other is not? If we abandon the scientific theory in favor of the non-scientific one, given the sole intellectual authority of science, this is tantamount to abandoning reason itself. Because many think that Intelligent Design theory is religion masquerading as science, the creation/evolution debate turns into a controversy that pits reason against pure subjective belief and opinion. In the infamous creation-science trial in Little Rock, Ark., in December 1981, creation science was ruled out of public schools, not because of the weak evidence for it, but because it was judged religion and not science. Today, in the state of California, you cannot discuss creationist theories in science class for the same reason.

Good. Moreland shouldn't be wanting that, but he's blocked by a religious obsession telling him it's important. Like REALLY IMPORTANT. Important enough to declare Mondays "Bible Fantasy Day." =)

Crawl back into your sand box, Moreland.

Space forbids me to present reasons why almost all philosophers of science, atheist and Christian alike, agree that creation science is at least a science, and not a religious view, regardless of what is to be said about the empirical evidence for or against it. I have presented these arguments in The Creation Hypothesis (InterVarsity, 1994) and in Christianity and the Nature of Science (Baker, 1989). Suffice it to say that philosophical naturalists currently set the rules for what counts as science. The bottom line is this: Philosophical naturalism is used to argue that evolution is science and Intelligent Design theory “merely” religion, and it is used to argue that reason and rationality are to be identified with science. Thus, the empirical evidence for or against evolution is just not the issue when it comes to explaining why so many give the theory unqualified allegiance.

There is a second reason for the current over-belief in evolution: Evolution functions as a myth for secularists. By “myth” I do not mean something false (though I believe evolution to be that) but, rather, a story of who we are and how we got here that serves as a guide for life. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that evolution made the world safe for atheists because it supposedly did away with the design argument for God’s existence. In graduate school, I once had a professor say that evolution was a view he embraced religiously because it implied for him that he could do anything he wanted. Why? Given that there is no God and that evolution is how we got here, there is no set purpose for life, no objective right and wrong, no punishment after death, so one can live for himself in this life anyway he wants. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer made the same statement on national TV. Dahmer said that naturalistic evolution implied that we all came from slime and will return to slime.

We did come from slime (well, kinda...it's complicated).

General revelation via by sound scientific investigation proves this is actually true. We came from the ocean, actually, and we are, currently, primates. We used to be tetrapods.

The scientific method is not evil. Unlike religion, it is immune to prolonged hoax and conspiracy. That's why Christians here commit their time to tweaking the nose of Jorge.

So why should he resist deeply felt tendencies to kill, given that we have no objective purpose or value and there is no punishment after death? I am not here arguing that secularists cannot find grounds for objective purpose and value in their naturalistic worldview, though I believe that to be the case. I am simply pointing out that evolution functions as an egoistic myth for many intellectuals who have absolutized freedom, understood as the right to do anything one wants. Philosophical naturalists want evolution to be true because it provides justification for their lifestyle choices.

For these two reasons — the identification of evolution as the only option on origins that claims the support of reason, and the function of evolution as a convenient myth for a secular lifestyle — the widespread over-commitment to evolution is not primarily a matter of evidence. This is why people react to Intelligent Design theory with hatred, disgust, and loathing instead of respond to creationist arguments with calm, open-minded counter arguments. This situation is tragic because it has produced a cultural logjam in which philosophical naturalism is sustained as our source of cultural authority, protected from serious intellectual criticism and scrutiny.

For Christians — especially those sympathetic towards or embracing theistic evolution — there is a lesson to be learned from all this and an application to be followed. The lesson is this: The debate about creation and evolution is not primarily one about how to interpret certain passages in Genesis, though it is that. Rather, it is primarily about the adequacy of philosophical naturalism as a worldview and the sole authority of science, an authority that relegates religion to private opinion and presuppositional faith. The application is this: Believers owe it to themselves and the Church to read works that present well-reasoned alternatives to evolution and to keep an eye on the broader implications of taking theistic evolution as a via media. If what I have argued is true, the acceptance of evolution is not primarily due to empirical evidence, and evolutionary theory (in both its theistic and atheistic varieties) lacks the evidential grounding that warrants adjusting one’s view of creation to harmonize with evolution. And theistic evolution may well be inadequate to stop our collective avalanche toward a thoroughly naturalistic culture.

Still, you may think that, given enough time, evolution will be able to explain everything about the origin and nature of living things. In my next article on naturalism, I will show that, however successful evolution becomes in explaining the origin and nature of animal and human bodies, it will never be able to explain the origin and nature of animal/human consciousness and the souls that contain it

I can say so much more, but that should give you something to talk about. Remember this the next time you have the GALL to say I don't encourage a deeper understanding of reality. =P

Pai Geacademe

September 14th 2009, 11:00 PM

I won't bludgeon you with the 2nd article. It wasn't as good, but this was neat :

[B]Whether or not you agree with these statements, one thing seems clear. The certainty claimed for evolution and the ferocity with which belief in it is held go far beyond what is justified by scientific evidence and empirical testing. No one could digest Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity, 1991), Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986), or The Creation Hypothesis (which I edited, InterVarsity, 1994) without realizing that a serious, sophisticated case can be made against the blind watchmaker thesis even if one judged that, in the end, the case against the blind watchmaker thesis is not as persuasive as the blind watchmaker thesis itself. The problem is, most intellectuals today act as if there is simply no issue here and presume that if you do not believe in evolution, then you must believe in a flat earth or something equally absurd. Why is this? Why do so many people, including some well-intentioned Christians, heap so much scorn on creationists (young-earth and progressive) who reject the evolutionary story, and why do so many people act as though no informed, modern person could believe otherwise? I believe the answer lies in two directions, neither of which is purely scientific or subject to verification by our five senses.

That 2nd part sounds suspiciously like a whine about you guys, dunnit? He's threatened by your insistence that we developed over time through processes that we can test. He's threatened by a sane conclusion.

MrManNo1

September 14th 2009, 11:33 PM

You should be ashamed to "endorse" books by men with methodologies that retarded. It is counterintuitive to your apologetics.

Interestingly, prior to this thread, Pai (a deist) endorsed Sam (a Christian). Let's see if he notices the irony.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 12:31 AM

Interestingly, prior to this thread, Pai (a deist) endorsed Sam (a Christian). Let's see if he notices the irony.

Next time, I demand full disclosure. I had no idea he'd endorse Moreland's methodology in his next breath. Dude doesn't even know that a THEORY is.

I also didn't know he'd minimize FG's endorsement of The Evidence Bible. Sam masqueraded himself as a respector of epistemology in those threads. All those threads were about epistemelogical inconsistency being the Christian apologist's albatross. Look at him with his big bird necklace now.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 12:40 AM

opps...correction on post #146:

Sam did not say this:

I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on [evolution not being compatible with Christianity]; such things do happen in life.

He said this:

I endorse my philosophy professor's apologetic book and even sometimes forget (or don't bother) to go into depth that I strongly do not endorse the chapter on Intelligent Design; such things do happen in life.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 12:58 AM

"I think this evidence is quite meager."

---JP Moreland on evolution

Go up to JP Moreland and tell him you think this evidence for the resurrection is "quite meager." Let him bust out his rehearsed talking points on witnesses and empty tombs. Then explain to him how the same rules of epistemology and investigation point to evolution, just like the resurrection.

Not one of his brothers will ever confront him on this nor call him out in public. The meme spreads. It passes on to Koukl and a thousand other pastors in a day. Evolution is a dead-end research program. Yeah, that sounds clever. I like that. I'll use it in this Sunday's sermon. Evolution is in crisis. Oooh, that's good, too! It's a dying philosophy and has nothing to do with science (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494). It's just a theory.

Everyone's excited because ID is on the cusp of a new discovery. This is heady, inspiring stuff.

Dr.GH

September 15th 2009, 02:03 AM

Ya' know guys-

Liberal Christians are tolerant people. They respect other people's beliefs. They lose arguments with intolerant conservatives not because they are wrong, but because they tolerate and respect abject lies from their opponents. Conservatives do not waste time tolerating or respecting other people. They are too righteous for respect or tolerance.

Some examples I have read;

Batten, Don (ed.)
2002 "The Revised & Expanded Answers Book" Green Forest AR: Master Books

Brown, Walter
2001 “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” Center for Scientific Creation; 7th edition (April 2001) (Walter has a new edition- still the same)

DeRosa, Tom
2006 “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit” Fort Lauderdale: Coral Ridge Ministries. (Darwin-->Hitler, etc… cheap and incompetent)

Ham, Ken
2001 ed. The Lie, Evolution. Green Forest: Master Books

______, A. Charles Ware
2007 “Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots” Green Forest, Ark: Masters Books

Humber, Paul G.
2006 "Evolution Exposed" Enumclaw, Wa: Wine Press

Johns, Warren LeRoi
2007 “Beyond Forever: Evolution’s End Game” Creation Digest (Self Published)

Johnson, Phillip E.
1993 Darwin on Trial, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Morris, Henry M.
1974 "The Troubled Waters of Evolution" San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.

Pearcy, Nancy
2004 Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity. Weaton: Crossway Books for Good News Books

Sarfati, Jonathon
1999 Refuting Evolution Green Forest AR: Master Books

________
2002 “Refuting Evolution 2” Green Forest AR: Master Books

Weikart, Richard
2004 "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" New York: Palgrave/MacMillian.

Wells, Jonathan
2000 Icons of Evolution. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

White, Joe, Nicholas Comminellis
2001 “The Demise of Darwin: Why Evolution Can’t Take the Heat” Green Forest AR: Master Books

Windchy, Eugene G.
2009 “The End of Darwinism” Xlibris.com and Amazon.com

Every one of these, and the many Christian "ministries" they represent, damn all scientists, all Christian "compromisers," and all liberals. We are the true source of all the evils in the world. We are the true spawn of evil. Yadayadayada....

Oh yes, another classic is Jon Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise" (2004 Green Forest AR: Master Books).

Lots and lots of hate. Even Glenn Morton wants back on the bandwagon, mourning his inability to dissuade those minions of falsehood the evil liberals! We all know that Christ opposed helping the poor and sick, especially those lacking proper documents! Jesus also has been well documented as condemning public education, public health care and all other liberal evils. (Naturally a strong military that has popular support to kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children for good Christian conservative reasons is worth trillions of dollars without any questions asked. Anyone who objects is an Evil God Hater, or even worse, a liberal).

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 02:24 AM

Even Glenn Morton wants back on the bandwagon, mourning his inability to dissuade those minions of falsehood the evil liberals!

Hahaha. I hope you don't mean what I think you mean.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 04:13 AM

Here's more Moreland totally not getting it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xeVLrPv8o). Think of his logic chain. I doubt it's any more sensible than this:

Naturalistic evolution is harsh and removes moral responsibility. It makes me uncomfortable.

ID is on the cusp of an amazing discovery.

Therefore, there is no evidence for evolution.

Lots of people in this world, Sam. I'm sure you can find an author that "nails the theology" without defaming epistemology. You haven't looked hard enough. Whatever he says that is useful is canceled out by his Hammish spewing of influential propaganda. You have no idea what he or Koukl are creating and sustaining.

Cupofwrath.com

September 15th 2009, 05:48 AM

Jaecp

September 15th 2009, 07:01 AM

Your talking about abiogenesis man.

Entirely different field of study.

Have you read any of SeanD's long threads in this forum? Since its almost exactly what he was proposing and a good 6 people calmly, patiently, explained exactly why he was wrong on a good number of things. Bi-partisan really, atheist, christian, everyone really.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131097

Its a bit long, but it hits your points of

"there is no evidence for evolution" (yes, there is, go to a museum)

"The fossil record doesn't provide much evidence" (again, go to a museum)

"This is why the came up with punctuated equilibrium" (SJG and NE came up with this, not "they", and they used it, showed it, to show something that was happening. Neither of them said its the only way speciation happens, but that when a die-off happens for whatever reason then PE happens. Basically, species adapted to an environment wont change as much till the environment does. Rogue or Sam can correct me if I've gotten the gist wrong.)

"Science has always sought naturalistic answers to everything" (Science has sought the answer to everything, that it keeps being naturalistic is a bit telling. So many things that were considered miracles are now fully understood as natural processes, why does the scientific explanation of lightning work so much better than the churches explanation of lightening from that era?)

"simply insert and often disingenuously defend any proxy theory that fills a gap in their understanding of the natural world. " (I don't think so. Any theory at all? Please, examples are required here.)

"Evolution just plain isn't good science" (Why? Because its not abiogenesis?)

MrManNo1

September 15th 2009, 08:55 AM

Next time, I demand full disclosure. I had no idea he'd endorse Moreland's methodology in his next breath. Dude doesn't even know that a THEORY is.

I also didn't know he'd minimize FG's endorsement of The Evidence Bible. Sam masqueraded himself as a respector of epistemology in those threads. All those threads were about epistemelogical inconsistency being the Christian apologist's albatross. Look at him with his big bird necklace now.

Nope. He didn't see the irony.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 09:58 AM

Evolution just plain isn't good science. Its the best naturalistic explanation that they could come up with, but it really hasn't been proven. Sure natural selection exists and can change a species, but it can't account for the origins of life and the existence of many complex protein systems.

Further there really isn't alot of evidence for evolutionary origins in the fossil record. Species come and go and the Earth appears to have gone through many cataclysmic events in the past, but there really isn't much evidence for everything branching off from something else.

This is why they came up with punctuated equilibrium, because at every point in the fossil record when we should see evolution happening the evidence just isn't there.

Science has always sought naturalistic answers to everything, and will simply insert and often disingenuously defend any proxy theory that fills a gap in their understanding of the natural world.

Hi Cupofwrath. You ideas are interesting. I hadn't considered that punctuated equilibrium might be a smoking gun. I didn't know there was such a uproar about mechanisms of change. It doesn't make us look good when it's within evolutionary circles, I agree. I just googled "punctuated equilibrium," like you mentioned, and found this:

how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" - ---StevenJay Gold
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html)

I wasn't aware of that quote, and I found it with just 2 seconds of searching. It looks like there is more that I hadn't been told about. Can you recommend some more books and materials on this subject? Which authors influenced your change of mind, or have you always doubted evolution?

Jaecp

September 15th 2009, 10:10 AM

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 10:36 AM

MMN1,

Yeah, Pai is chastising Sam for endorsing people who have views that are wrong, and Pai's on previous endorsement of Sam would fall under these bits, yes.

I think Pai got that, its why he said he would demand "full disclosure", as in, he was unaware of Sam's ~whatever it is he's pissed about precisely~ (J is just here for the lulz)

It was my fault. I confess to putting too much trust in people with attractive ideas and revolutionary spirits. Then you realize they're merely saying "2 + 2 = 4" in an internet forum, which barely takes any work or ingenuity, especially when you're dealing with Jorges. Then you find out they heartily recommend the sound epistemology of Moreland.

No, Sam and I, it turns out, were never in agreement about anything. =)

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 10:40 AM

Are you stumped by a particular bible verse or passage? Do you have a bible-related question or comment? Send it in, and get a straight answer...

Email your questions to:

cupofwrathatcupofwrath.com

rogue06

September 15th 2009, 11:26 AM

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 12:11 PM

I can’t help but notice how Pai seems to find it necessary to grossly misrepresent the views of nearly everyone he encounters in order to continue to support his own view. In fact he makes no bones about his unsavory methods if he thinks it serves a higher purpose...

Pai seems quite comfortable there embracing deceptive behavior while at the same time hypocritically wagging his finger at others either blissfully unaware or deliberately not caring that you don’t combat one falsehood by telling several yourself. IOW, Pai is as bad if not worse than those he criticizes, willing to say anything no matter if it is accurate or not so long as it supports his view.

I needn't slander Sam's methodology. He admitted his methodology sometimes gives nod to the enemy's methodology. Moreland, for spreading those Hammish lies, is the enemy. Sam slandered himself by admitting he recommends books written by the same guys who send Jorges your way. Sam happily takes Moreland's punches.

This is why the teachers thrive in their Ivory Towers. The Smarter Core buys and recommends their books.
I would never recommend a Strobel book out of principle, because I take epistemological consistency seriously.

MrManNo1

September 15th 2009, 02:27 PM

It was my fault. I confess to putting too much trust in people with attractive ideas and revolutionary spirits. Then you realize they're merely saying "2 + 2 = 4" in an internet forum, which barely takes any work or ingenuity, especially when you're dealing with Jorges. Then you find out they heartily recommend the sound epistemology of Moreland.

No, Sam and I, it turns out, were never in agreement about anything. =)

Thing is, you still haven't understood the irony. My point was that you fully endorsed Sam <i>in spite of</i> his being a Christian. According to your argument, the very little you knew of him should have prevented you from endorsing him in the first place. Why can you endorse a Christian, but a TE can't endorse a YEC? How are you any better than those whom you criticize?

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 02:52 PM

Thing is, you still haven't understood the irony. My point was that you fully endorsed Sam <i>in spite of</i> his being a Christian. According to your argument, the very little you knew of him should have prevented you from endorsing him in the first place. Why can you endorse a Christian, but a TE can't endorse a YEC? How are you any better than those whom you criticize?

I think it's important to not encourage authors who perpetuate the crisis. Authors who make claims as reckless and manifestly incorrect as the following don't deserve more book sales or additional respect:

Space forbids me to present reasons why almost all philosophers of science, atheist and Christian alike, agree that creation science is at least a science and not a religious view, regardless of what is to be said about the empirical evidence for or against it... (
http://afterall.net/papers/25)

Lauding the methodology of a man who makes claims like "almost all philosophers of science, atheist and Christian alike, agree that creation science is at least a science and not a religious view" encourages that man to continue lying. There are plenty of other philosophers who don't lie. There isn't such a paucity of great ideas that alchemists like Moreland and Strobel need to be "endorsed" for ANYTHING. This is the great error of thinking the pupils are the problem.

The cocooned can still be incrementally approached without giving nod to the snakes who cocooned them. Giving nod to the authors of sewage is manifestly counterintuitive, indicating a lack of heart.

I was wrong if I ever indicated Sam and I shared the same views. It was a surface agreement whose true nature was exposed the instant Sam minimized the gravity of FG's endorsement of the Evidence Bible (it wasn't the enablement of fools; it was just a whoops) and confessed to recommending Moreland tomes.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 03:11 PM

When I was a pro-life volunteer, the prevailing wisdom of pro-life apologetics was that photographs trumped rhetoric. Rhetoric was tired. Words alone could not convey the horror of abortion. Out came the bloody placards and murals to de-fang our opponents. We complimented the imagery with Tiller and Sanger quotes.

This isn't much different. Only here, Moreland's technicolor lies are the baby guts. The lies, like the imagery, shock us into a deeper consideration of the problem.

Hopefully.

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 03:19 PM

Just as when accusing a fellow poster of lying, you must substantiate that Moreland is intentionally lying. Defamation is your game at the moment but you are still bound to forum rules.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 04:26 PM

Just as when accusing a fellow poster of lying, you must substantiate that Moreland is intentionally lying. Defamation is your game at the moment but you are still bound to forum rules.

Geocentric views are often held with sincerity, I concur. More often than not, willful ignorance comes into play. For example, interdisciplinary data exists that refutes the geocentrist's conviction that he's the literal center of God's universe. The data is easy to find and understand but is dismissed for want of a comfier model of the spheres.

There is very little distinction between the willful ignorance of Jorge and the willful ignorance of Moreland. The data is there to show Moreland that "all philosophers of science, be they atheist or Christian," DON'T "regard creation science as science." The data has always been there to refute Moreland's claim that evolution has born no fruit or that evolution is a "dead-end research program." These claims suggest an egregious lack of academic care and ignorance of the scientific method, enough to earn Moreland a full boycott until he repents. The last thing he needs is more undeserved academic respect, which your endorsements give.

It is true that Moreland's intentions cannot be substantiated. His careless methodology can. As long as that methodology is publically expressed, we should examine it and ask ourselves if Morelands, Koukls, and Strobels deserve even our partial support.

Men as careless and flagrant as that do not.

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 04:40 PM

A lot of words to say that you cannot, in fact, substantiate your accusations of lying.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 05:10 PM

A lot of words to say that you cannot, in fact, substantiate your accusations of lying.

It is true that Moreland's intentions cannot be substantiated

It was necessary to remind you that creationism is geocentrism's evil twin and the willful ignorance on the order of Moreland's is inexcusable -- the functional equivalent of bald lies. These reminders require subjects and predicates.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 06:16 PM

It's kind of a punch in the gut to witness this. I think I overstated the fact that Moreland's distortions of science don't surprise me. They actually do. I didn't want to know how far up the evangelical chain this went.

I'm on record as assuming Craig was a consistent epistemologist who understood the principles of investigation and culture-bound myth; I was only recently informed that he's a progressive creationist. I had no idea Moreland went the extra mile by advancing Hovindesque propaganda. I thought he'd be more sophisticated than that.

Moreland has substantial clout, and that clout translates to respectability of teleological perspective. When he says he thinks evolution has "meager evidence," his students and readership listen. When he implies that moral evil is evolution's result, people take him seriously. When he cites William Dembski as a respected leader of the ID movement, Dembski's Dover Cowardice becomes a Profile in Courage.

That's so dangerous and deserving of disrepect, it's hard to find the words. This man deserves your rebuke, not your endorsement. I have reason to believe from your comments that a code of religious brotherhood encourages your partial support of the most flagrant offenders.

Dr.GH

September 15th 2009, 07:28 PM

Dr.GH

September 15th 2009, 07:41 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 07:55 PM

JP Moreland has been a critical- if under rated- player in the ID game. His 1994 edited book, "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for the Intelligent Designer" (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) brought together the older "creation science" gang with the younger men who would lead the ID movement.

I found it wildly ironic that his anti post-modernism article, "Postmodernism and the Intelligent Design Movement" (1999 Philsophia Christi Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2:97-101) was followed six years later by Steve Fuller's Dover testimony.

Really, Moreland has had well over 25 years years to realize he is digging in a pile of manure. He must like the view.

That's what I mean by chronic ignorance (on the order of Moreland's and Jorge's) being indistinguishable from lying. Anti-evo urban legends started as quote mines and whoppers and then attained unmerited academic respectability as they were repeated by Moreland et al. Dover should have been their wake up call. Instead, Moreland still seriously tries to pass Dembski and Behe off as "Theistic Scientists" who never got a fair shake in court.

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 08:17 PM

Pai Geacademe, I watched the video you linked to JP Moreland's lecture; Moreland totally not getting it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xeVLrPv8o).

It really is pathetic. Maybe the guy is just stupid? Like his "rabbit" story from 3min 30sec to about 5:15. Stupid. So is he stupid or is he purposefully misleading his followers?

No, I don't think he's stupid. Unconfronted fear of a collapsing worldview triggers unweildy thought trains. Enablement encourages that, giving him the impression he's on the right track. At some point, however, a grown man must be confronted out of love and told that he's doing more damage to himself and others than he can possibly know. Letting that go unchallenged is unloving.

The data is there. Moreland can see it. A spiritual blockage prevents his acknowledgement of it. How do we know this? Because he claims to be convinced of the resurrection, a one-time untestable event based on less convincing lines of evidence.
The same tools of cognition and principles of investigation that he uses to "substantiate" that event were used to substantiate his primate lineage, etc. Evolution withstands a deeper scrutiny than that.

Failure to acknowledge that is one of the worst mistakes an apologist can make. He's not winning souls, just gullible people primed for apostasy.

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 08:42 PM

JP Moreland has been a critical- if under rated- player in the ID game. His 1994 edited book, "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for the Intelligent Designer" (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press) brought together the older "creation science" gang with the younger men who would lead the ID movement.

I found it wildly ironic that his anti post-modernism article, "Postmodernism and the Intelligent Design Movement" (1999 Philsophia Christi Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2:97-101) was followed six years later by Steve Fuller's Dover testimony.

Really, Moreland has had well over 25 years years to realize he is digging in a pile of manure. He must like the view.

No argument from me; I should re-state (since Pai keeps garbling what I've actually defended) that I'm not defending Moreland's creationism or ID leanings, no more than I defend Meister's chapter on ID. As far as I can recall "Love Your God With All Your Mind" only had one or two sentences dealing with creationism and it was a personal off-the-cuff remark. As a call to intellectual involvement in matters of faith, it is a very good book. Whatever Moreland writes substantially about ID or creationism will not be endorsed by me.

—Sam

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 09:23 PM

Pai Geacademe, I watched the video you linked to JP Moreland's lecture; Moreland totally not getting it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xeVLrPv8o).

It really is pathetic. Maybe the guy is just stupid? Like his "rabbit" story from 3min 30sec to about 5:15. Stupid. So is he stupid or is he purposefully misleading his followers?

I remember this same example being used in a junior level philosophy course, only it wasn't tied to evolutionary theory. If I remember correctly, it was used as an example of how assumptions or perceptions of reality can easily be wrong. As philosophy, it's a valid philosophical point (I think we were discussing Kant at the time) but it's mis-applied (or mistakenly limited, depending on how much you fancy Kant) to evolutionary theory, obviously.

I know Moreland is not stupid but I very much doubt that he's being misleading. "Entrenched in a false scientific perspective" is how I would word it. Negligent, also, of course, for teaching a subject he doesn't understand.

—Sam

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 09:34 PM

No argument from me; I should re-state (since Pai keeps garbling what I've actually defended) that I'm not defending Moreland's creationism or ID leanings, no more than I defend Meister's chapter on ID. Whatever Moreland writes substantially about ID or creationism will not be endorsed by me.

—Sam

There's been no garbling. I've made it crystal clear that, if you're serious about this re-education business, you don't pay the teachers of flawed epistemology back by adding to their academic renown. Your endorsement of Moreland's non-ID books gives his methodology undeserved legitimacy.

This problem gets worse because evangelicals scratch each others' backs with marketing favors. You do Moreland a marketing favor by nodding to his methodology and encouraging the reading of his books. You can easily find someone to recommend who doesn't make your job exponentially harder. If there isn't one Christian philosopher out there you can recommend who doesn't commit the same cognitive crimes as Moreland, the church is in a
worse spot than we imagined.

As far as I can recall "Love Your God With All Your Mind" only had one or two sentences dealing with creationism and it was a personal off-the-cuff remark. As a call to intellectual involvement in matters of faith, it is a very good book.

Moreland's "intellectual involvement in matters of faith" involves the rote spewing of anti-evo urban legends. There is nothing remotely intellectual about that. When people realize his epistemology is sorely flawed, whatever effect that book had will diminish.

Your approach is counterintuitive and encourages Moreland's abuse of the flock.

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 09:52 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 15th 2009, 10:14 PM

Sam's diminishing the moral gravity of Moreland's actions makes no sense. The basis of Moreland's objection to evolution is exactly the same as Jorge's: evolution is compromise of scriptural truth. Their objection isn't grounded in evidence but the implications of evolution, which they fear will topple their worldviews. That is a fragile faith indeed. Like Sean said, "If Genesis isn't true, everything else unravels."

This is Moreland's problem. He has all the evidence before him that Sean and Jorge have. He far exceeds them in moral culpability in terms of reach and clout. Yet he gets a free pass and hearty recommendations of his books on "the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith."

The last subject Moreland should be cited as an authority on is intellectual integrity. There is zero intellectual integrity in spewing lies that 5 minutes of research would refute. One must practice what he advocates to be taken seriously. That's why Sam's partial support of Moreland is counterproductive and counterintuitive. That 1 step forward/2 steps back approach is killing the evangelical reputation.

oxmixmudd

September 15th 2009, 10:55 PM

Pai Geacademe, I watched the video you linked to JP Moreland's lecture; Moreland totally not getting it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xeVLrPv8o).

It really is pathetic. Maybe the guy is just stupid? Like his "rabbit" story from 3min 30sec to about 5:15. Stupid. So is he stupid or is he purposefully misleading his followers?

What I think is interesting is how he could miss the obvious first level flaw in his analogy. That If a rabbit behaved that way to sensory input it 'thought' was a mate (running away), it would never mate and never pass on its genes.

In general, regardless of what goes on inside the black box, if it is not in fact homomorphic to an actual truth gathering system of some sort, it will ultimately fail. Because essentially the way the universe is, what will produce survival is the ability to truthfully perceive the world. That is, it doesn't matter if what red looks like to you is what green looks like to me, as long as each of us can identify it as red and understand what that means if it's the shape of an hourglass on the belly of a black spider.

Jim

Ansgar Seraph

September 15th 2009, 11:09 PM

What I think is interesting is how he could miss the obvious first level flaw in his analogy. That If a rabbit behaved that way to sensory input it 'thought' was a mate (running away), it would never mate and never pass on its genes.

In general, regardless of what goes on inside the black box, if it is not in fact homomorphic to an actual truth gathering system of some sort, it will ultimately fail. Because essentially the way the universe is, what will produce survival is the ability to truthfully perceive the world. That is, it doesn't matter if what red looks like to you is what green looks like to me, as long as each of us can identify it as red and understand what that means if it's the shape of an hourglass on the belly of a black spider.

Jim

Yes, he should have remembered his Quine and how to "solve" the problem of indeterminacy—weeding out bad translations (in this case, theories of motive) for a given action by repetitive tests.

—Sam

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 12:24 AM

What I think is interesting is how he could miss the obvious first level flaw in his analogy. That If a rabbit behaved that way to sensory input it 'thought' was a mate (running away), it would never mate and never pass on its genes.

In general, regardless of what goes on inside the black box, if it is not in fact homomorphic to an actual truth gathering system of some sort, it will ultimately fail. Because essentially the way the universe is, what will produce survival is the ability to truthfully perceive the world. That is, it doesn't matter if what red looks like to you is what green looks like to me, as long as each of us can identify it as red and understand what that means if it's the shape of an hourglass on the belly of a black spider.

Jim

He totally faked/lied about what a Black Box experiment was as well. The classic black box was a test of electrical engineering students. You varied the input to the box, and monitored the output with the goal of determining what sort of circuit was inside the box. Later, perceptual psychologists (later called neuropsychologists) adopted the notion as an analogy to how they discovered functions to neuro-architecture. Again, varied input results in varied output allowing you to determine the circuits.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 11:45 AM

:doh: Of course! That's exactly why I refrain from endorsing scientific articles written by prominent atheists, lest I give their anti-religious beliefs unwarranted credence!

Wait, what? Someone can be completely wrong about something and still be a valuable contributor in their field of expertise? What a terrifically odd concept.

Most evolutionary scientists are atheists or functional atheists (like deists and soft Christians who don't talk about their faith). Of course you’d cite them. You rely on those articles because atheists did the research while Christians were busy rejecting the general revelation. If theistic evolutionists did the same research and came to the same conclusions, you’d cite their articles over the atheists and for good reason.

Atheists aren't parallel to the argument here. Atheism doesn't indoctrinate literal belief in culture-bound stories and attach spiritual/existential consequences to not believing those stories. That’s what Moreland does. He teaches unprepared college students stuff like this:

A culture cannot adopt any world view it chooses without having to face serious implications of that choice. Once the ethical implications of taking the naturalistic turn are laid bare, it becomes clear just exactly where a major source of our current moral chaos lies: the world view of naturalism.

The Ethical Inadequacy of Naturalism
J.P. Moreland

That ‘s a whole lot more than being “entrenched in a false scientific perspective.” Here he’s telling college students that evolution is a godless non-option. Get mad about that. Don’t recommend his books on -- of all things -- intellectual integrity.

Sam, we never were in agreement. My central point in all those threads was that epistemological inconsistency in Christian apologetics is a huge mistake. That point was always complemented by a proposal about what should be done about it. That proposal always suggested that Christians (like you) challenge Christian leaders espousing anti-evo propaganda (like Moreland). It did not propose the paying of their salary and adding to their popularity and clout. It did not say we should endorse those who repeatedly tell young Christians that God's engine of creation is evil. That creates unimaginable conflicts and false dichotomies in a person.

You used to pretend that mattered to you. Now we know that you encourage those who insist on staying in the trench while pretending knowledge. Do you think Koukl and Moreland give a rip that you object to their teleology as long as you recommend their books on “intellectual integrity”? You have no principle except when their pupils make you cranky. Then you act like they licked the red off your candy, citing distortions, obfuscation, and blatant dishonesty.

Get mad about the teachers. Get mad when a Christian professor who should know better draws a correlation between creation and cruelty (as he did in that video), creating an entire classful of potential problems for you that you aren't prepared to address*. He's a Christian and a dysteleologist. This goes way beyond his not carrying the 2.

He is stubborn and obstinate and sending people to Hell. Start acting like you care about that. (Or clearly declare what YOU think the problem is**. Obviously we parted ways.)

The funny thing is that I've always agreed with you that an apologist using these bad arguments damages his credibility.

I didn't need a 2nd opinion on that. That was always a given and needed no corroboration from you. Like Koukl, you seem to be under the impression that saying 2 + 2 = 4 is impressive.

The sad thing is that you think an apologist who demonstrates incompetence in this area is worthless in all areas.

That's not sad. It's a safe conclusion. It's safe to conclude that a man who tucks away his intellect on "Bible Fantasy Day" wouldn't have anything novel to say on the matter of Christian intellectual integrity.

In sum, this is not parallel with your "citing the atheist" comparison at all. The atheist hasn't declared war on cognition. The militant ones militate because you reacted slowly and let Gish and Koukl dominate evangelical thought. You only cite prominent atheist evolutionists because there is a prevalence of them and they've done good research. If Christians did the same thing, you’d be an idiot to cite the atheists over the Christians. It’s sad that the only author who says anything meaningful about “Christian intellect” throws his intellect away one day a week to play strict creationist.

* One of the dividends of this thread: yours and Jim's admission that you aren't prepared to address this.

** If you're gonna re-engage, RE-ENGAGE. Answer that question and stop the I'm Leaving/I'm Back act.

Ansgar Seraph

September 16th 2009, 01:45 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 02:08 PM

Until the Jims, Rogues, and Sams realize that this isn't about science, they won't understand how to address it. Making it merely about flaws in scientific perspective dismisses the spiritual root of Moreland's problem. Moreland doesn't have a problem with fossils. He has a problem with a Bible whose message evolution muddles. He is a grown man who needs spiritual help, not undeserved accolades. Nodding to his apologetic expertise keeps him in that spiritual fog, giving him the false impression that he has a profound point. That fraternal encouragement is the last thing he needs given that he teaches his students that evolution makes no sense and is a godless non-option.

Moreland leapfrogs over theistic evolution calling it naturalism in disguise, strongly suggests you've been taken in by atheistic dogma, and tells his students evolution is in its death throes. You take those punches while lauding his intellectual integrity. If Moreland's material is all you have to convey the intellectual integrity of Christianity, evangelicals are in deeper trouble than I thought. It can't be that bad, can it?

Carrikature

September 16th 2009, 02:13 PM

Most evolutionary scientists are atheists or functional atheists (like deists and soft Christians who don't talk about their faith). Of course you’d cite them. You rely on those articles because atheists did the research while Christians were busy rejecting the general revelation. If theistic evolutionists did the same research and came to the same conclusions, you’d cite their articles over the atheists and for good reason.

I disagree that Christians who don't publicly discuss their faith are functional atheists. The scientists (and others) who behave this way are as much or more of a testament to me than those who feel the need to share with everyone. The difference mostly lies in people's personalities. Neither is necessarily better or worse.

That ‘s a whole lot more than being “entrenched in a false scientific perspective.” Here he’s telling college students that evolution is a godless non-option. Get mad about that. Don’t recommend his books on -- of all things -- intellectual integrity.

Evolution != naturalism. It can lead to naturalism, but does not necessitate it. It seems this point is quite frequently missed.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 02:15 PM

Back on your soapbox, I see.

I'll engage others on the thread as I see fit. I'll engage you on the thread when you've said something that merits a new response. Mischaracterizations, sloppy logic and rants will get the pass.

—Sam

Everything I've written since your promise to discontinue the discussion has been a re-iteration of what I previously said. Moreland's technicolor quotes re-engaged you, as well they should have.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 02:19 PM

I

Evolution != naturalism. It can lead to naturalism, but does not necessitate it. It seems this point is quite frequently missed.

Which is precisely why professors who haven't figured this out shouldn't be given accolades for their "intellectual integrity." LOL

oxmixmudd

September 16th 2009, 02:41 PM

superdan54

September 16th 2009, 02:54 PM

Until the Jims, Rogues, and Sams realize that this isn't about science, they won't understand how to address it.

You suggesting that we shift the focus of the Great Commission from the Gospel to a teleological debate will always fall on deaf ears of any true Christian, whether TE, OE or YEC. You have some points and there certainly is a time and place for it, but divisive as we can be, we will unify under Christ alone, or we will not unify at all.

"The Rock of Ages is more important than the ages of rocks." - William Jennings Bryan

Carrikature

September 16th 2009, 03:02 PM

Which is precisely why professors who haven't figured this out shouldn't be given accolades for their "intellectual integrity." LOL

Actually, I was referring to your statement. You posted this by JP Moreland:

A culture cannot adopt any world view it chooses without having to face serious implications of that choice. Once the ethical implications of taking the naturalistic turn are laid bare, it becomes clear just exactly where a major source of our current moral chaos lies: the world view of naturalism.

The Ethical Inadequacy of Naturalism
J.P. Moreland

Then you proceed to say:

Here he’s telling college students that evolution is a godless non-option.

Emphasis mine.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 03:37 PM

Sam earlier charged me with bigotry, so I'd like to address that.

Sam calls me a "bigot" because I pigeonhole the creationists. After Sam charged me with that, I cited many examples of Moreland's anti-evo propaganda showing that there's no distinction between them. All creationists, progressive and otherwise, base their objections on the same urban legends strewn throughout Moreland's anti-evo marketing material. Those urban legends disguise the core problem that Sam and Jim have admitted there is currently no antidote for. They are thoroughly unprepared to "re-educate" all the students who attend Moreland's classes or read his books. The ratio of Morelands to Glovers attests to that. The smarter approach in light of that mass indoctrination is to de-fang the indoctrinator.

This is not bigotry. My conclusion is informed by the homogeneity of creationist objections. Moreland and Gish are united by a common spiritual blockage Sam and Jim refuse to see. Evolution and its implications scare them, so they brand it "atheistic" to make the bad man go away. Classrooms-full of young men and women go away thinking that's an "intellectual" position to hold.

This, to Moreland, is Loving God with All Your Mind.

It takes courage do something about that because it necessitates pulling Moreland out of his comfort zone. Recommending Love Your God with All Your Mind justifies Moreland's conclusions. He is bouyed by any support you give him.

I understand this must be done to keep prayer breakfasts comfortable. I get that your overlapping beliefs unite you, and you must be careful in your responses. I'm not bound to that. I call them as I see them without worrying about tripping Christians up with the facts. They're already being tripped up by falsehood en masse thanks to Moreland, Koukl, and other well-respected members of the Christian intelligentsia.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 04:22 PM

Thank for setting us all straight. It is good to know there is someone who knows just exactly how to fix things up. How to make the Christian faith viable in the 21st century. To bad you are not the chief leader of the church, for clearly if you were, all this would be fixed up in a jiffy.

Now - the above clearly being the case - since there is a way to fix all this up and you know exactly what it is - you remain a deist because ... ?

Jim

Jim, you misconstrue. Nowhere have I claimed this will be a jiffy. I'm only asking what's the more sensible approach. You have to look at the numbers. Take Moreland, for example. We can very conservatively guestimate his anti-evo material reaches 1,000. Let's say half of those people believe that evolution is in peril. How do you re-educate those 500 if your numbers are no match and you remain meek in your approach (in some cases endorsing the very men who create the false dichotomy)? And that's just one sobering example of what you're up against; that's just Moreland, and his persuasive reach obviously exceeds 500. It's probably in the tens of thousands.

It makes far more sense to clean their epistemological clocks in debates and open refutations that say EXACTLY what you say here -- that it creates significant impediments to scriptural understanding that might imperil souls. When they refuse to debate you, that becomes big news and has even more pedagogical value by virtue of the message it sends. Refusal to respond says they don't have the substance. You need to empower these students psychologically, not address them in mousy, piecemeal fashion. That's obviously not workin for ya.

You can't do that, indeed you WON'T do that, because you are bound by a religious obligation to keep things polite and on an even keel. This is why Rogue silently groans when his assistant pastor recommends The Evidence Bible as a useful apologetic tool. Taking brothers to task on matters of salvational importance is too controversial. Comfort attaches salvational importance to teleological belief.

I keep having to explain the gravity of that to you. Please don't make me re-iterate that again.

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 04:37 PM

Which is precisely why professors who haven't figured this out shouldn't be given accolades for their "intellectual integrity." LOL

Pai G.,

There are only two reasons I can offer that Christians must take the leading role in countering the likes of AiG from a Christian perspective. The first comes from the theological position that the creation is to be seen as testament. For example,

Psalm 19:
1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” The Hebrew word translated here as "truth," emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.”

In the same vein, the verses in Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 45; 19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6 all indicate that for God to create things with a deceptive “appearance” of age or other deceits, would violate His own stated character.

All varieties of "special creationists" and "intelligent design creationists" would require that those verses are all false.

The other problem was noted by Augustine over 1,500 years ago, but better phrased by Aquinas;
"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

As it happens, I give public lectures fairly often about science and creationism. At nearly every event some Christian insists that my arguments are all false merely because I am not a Christian. This is a very common, and popular opinion. So, it falls to the Christian to tend to their own flock, which is also their obligation given in the Bible.

However Pai, you have managed to be very irritating to the very people here that you have tried to sway to your position. You have irritated me without ever responding (that I have noticed) to anything I have posted.

You might want to consider that further.

wattsr1

September 16th 2009, 05:20 PM

...

As it happens, I give public lectures fairly often about science and creationism. At nearly every event some Christian insists that my arguments are all false merely because I am not a Christian. This is a very common, and popular opinion. So, it falls to the Christian to tend to their own flock, which is also their obligation given in the Bible.

....

Amen.

To my mind the question of God /no God is not the important one, although I understand that most theists will disagree.

To me it is a question that cannot really be determined in any absolute sense.

Whether matter is made of atoms; whether germs cause disease; whether rain, wind and frost have natural origins; whether life evolves - these are the tractable and important questions.

As an atheist, I am simply a red rag to a bull as far as so many theists are concerned that my stances on these questions are immediately dismissed because of that.

Theists who accept that matter is made of atoms, that the earth is ancient, that germs cause disease, that life evolves, that rain has a natural origin - they are the ones who will make the real difference in this debate.

I take my hat off to them because many suffer vilification (to use Jorge's term) at the hands of their own brothers because of the stance they take.

We need Christians (and other theists in general) to counter the nonsense from organizations like AiG, ICR etc. They don't need us.

And it is a very messy world we live in. Being able to cast solutions to problems in black and white terms, rarely works.

Regards, Roland

oxmixmudd

September 16th 2009, 05:39 PM

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 05:49 PM

Pai G.,

There are only two reasons I can offer that Christians must take the leading role in countering the likes of AiG from a Christian perspective. The first comes from the theological position that the creation is to be seen as testament. For example,

Psalm 19:
1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.

Psalm 85:11 reads, “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” The Hebrew word translated here as "truth," emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.”

In the same vein, the verses in Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 45; 19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18 and 11:6, and I John 5:6 all indicate that for God to create things with a deceptive “appearance” of age or other deceits, would violate His own stated character.

All varieties of "special creationists" and "intelligent design creationists" would require that those verses are all false.

The other problem was noted by Augustine over 1,500 years ago, but better phrased by Aquinas;

As it happens, I give public lectures fairly often about science and creationism. At nearly every event some Christian insists that my arguments are all false merely because I am not a Christian. This is a very common, and popular opinion. So, it falls to the Christian to tend to their own flock, which is also their obligation given in the Bible.

However Pai, you have managed to be very irritating to the very people here that you have tried to sway to your position. You have irritated me without ever responding (that I have noticed) to anything I have posted.

You might want to consider that further.

Thanks, GH. This past Sunday in Southern California, I attended a church service in which the pastor said that evolutionists claim our uncles crawled out of warm ponds. Hyperbole, yes, but one must remember this is Southern California. Koukl and Moreland hail from here, are very well respected, and have the flock in a cognitive stranglehold.

So I'm not so concerned about the presentation of my ideas and whether they irritate my former brothers. There's catharsis in reminding them that their foot dragging, and piecemeal approach to countering it, got them to this point. It's quite possible my irritation drew out subsequent confessions of enablement going on behind the scenes. Remember this all started when Rogue referenced Billy Graham? I've since linked to his website showing that legacy never took root, that creationism is still espoused on his website as the correct view. The website literally says "evolution is just a theory." We can conclude two things from this:

1) Billy Graham didn't think his relaxed teleological views were important enough to transfer to the next generation.

2) Creationist forces within Billy's ministry overrode his sound pronouncement..

I find it extremely irritating that Jim and Sam don't acknowledge the enablement inherent in FG's endorsement of Comfort or the problems with Billy Graham's posthumous ministry declaring the evidence for evolution hangs on their infantile definition of "theory."

I'm on my Blackberry a lot when I post. I'm sure I merely overlooked what you wanted me to respond to. If you're referring to the list of Christian TE authors, I responded to that in one of my replies to Sam. It was a basic misunderstanding (on your part) about who I was referring to and the significance of the lopsided ratio.

If that wasn't the post you're referring to, can you tell me which one so I can respond?

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 06:04 PM

Yes - this is the part of Pai's message that is valid, yet gets lost in his own brand of extremism. Those of us like Rogue06, myself, Sam - we do have a responsibility not to hide what we believe is true in this area if the conservative church is ever to be able to accept certain realities. Nevertheless, it is quite the tightrope we walk. Those same people that tell you your opinion is not valid because you are not a Christian will tell us we are not Christians because we agree with you on this (and by transitivity our opinion on this is also therefore not valid).

Jim

Then you could get ready for them with the following (in addition to the remarks I made earlier since many fundies deny Catholics are Christian, and Augustine and Aquinas are freeking RC Saints);

John Calvin on Genesis

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use." (Calvin J., Genesis, I, 79 & 84)

More clearly,
“I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the
sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.” Calvin J., Genesis, Vol. I, Part 3.

Or how conservative British Christians dealt with Lylle;
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

Then the reading list I gave earlier had two in particular,
Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

Or Paul in the New Testament is really radical;

Romans 2
24. For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.

Or, 1 Corinthians 9: 20. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
21. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law.

Romans 2: 29. "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter (TANAKA!); whose praise is not of men, but of God."

2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (TANAKA!) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Romans 7:6. "But now we are delivered from the law (Torah!), that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (TANAKA!)."

Ephesians 2: 15. He has abolished the law (Torah!) with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,

rogue06

September 16th 2009, 06:36 PM

Then you could get ready for them with the following (in addition to the remarks I made earlier since many fundies deny Catholics are Christian, and Augustine and Aquinas are freeking RC Saints);

John Calvin on Genesis

More clearly,

Or how conservative British Christians dealt with Lylle;

Then the reading list I gave earlier had two in particular,
Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

Or Paul in the New Testament is really radical;

Romans 2
24. For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.

Or, 1 Corinthians 9: 20. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
21. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law.

Romans 2: 29. "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter (TANAKA!); whose praise is not of men, but of God."

2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (TANAKA!) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Romans 7:6. "But now we are delivered from the law (Torah!), that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter (TANAKA!)."

Ephesians 2: 15. He has abolished the law (Torah!) with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
I can say for myself that I have used the quotes from Augustine and Aquinas that you allude to as well as many other ECFs quite liberally over the years both here on Tweb and off the internet (and encounter similar reactions that you've experienced). The same for Calvin (but not as much) and many others as well all the way up to modern ones like the Billy Graham quotes that got Pai so exercised. And as any here that have read more than a couple of my posts realizes, I'm not afraid to cite Scripture in support of my position - including scientific ones.

The key to combating ignorance is education and things like those quotes often provide a good starting off point but you have to follow it up with more explanations and information, especially in cases of stubborn ignorance. Now as to willful ignorance... I admit I'm usually at a lose at how to handle it except to try to expose it to others if and when possible.

The thing is there just doesn't seem to be a single best approach to all situations (there rarely if ever is) and each needs to be handled in a unique manner where possible rather than stereotyped and given a one-size-fits-all type of "solution." To assume that everyone who supports a position do so for the exact same reasons and do so in the exact same manner is foolish and usually will result in the entrenchment of opinion.

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 06:46 PM

Occasionally, someone objects to my citing scripture. I make two responses, that the religious claim that their Bible is universally true, so it is for them to treat it seriously or not, and that if the verses I cite are "open to interpretation" then why is it that their interpretations are assumed to be correct?

I might add that Dana Point is solidly in Orange County, CA. :lol:

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 06:46 PM

oxmixmudd

September 16th 2009, 07:12 PM

Jim, when they charge you with apostasy here, you confidently tell them to take a hike. Why such confidence and lack of caution in a forum with a much wider reach?

The web is an artificial environment. The people here do not have the power to make my life miserable. They can't kick me out, tell my friends not to speak to me, or interfere with my ability to move in good standing to another fellowship. All methods I have either experienced or seen*. They also are unlikely to lose their faith as the ones stomping the floor here are pretty much hardened. However, I remember one young lady who showed up here with a very new faith that when it became clear a YEC basis for faith was not valid in any way shape or form - it appeared she basically lost it. Sorry, but I just don't get my jollies destroying people that way, or being slammed on as I mention above.

So whatever I do it will be soberly and with careful thought.

Jim

ETA: Not that that will stop me - in my own time and method.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 07:27 PM

Now - the above clearly being the case - since there is a way to fix all this up and you know exactly what it is - you remain a deist because ...

Jim

I already told you. I can't see Christ in the Cretaceous. Perhaps if you'd gotten off your tuchus sooner to combat the dopes who constructed that cognitive block, that cognitive block wouldn't exist. You were so busy being genteel, the Morelands and Koukls got to us first. If you think that's a pathetic excuse, I'd point you to the grown men whose faith also depends on a fig-leafed Adam -- the ones who currently spread that meme with no concern about the consequences. Theirs is an understandable ignorance, seems to be the consensus.

I see no allure in a religion that spreads delusion on that mass level and whose Smarter Core rewards the Deluders with book endorsements and marketing favors.

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 07:41 PM

I see no allure in a religion that spreads delusion on that mass level and whose Smarter Core rewards the Deluders with book endorsements and marketing favors.

Pai, Give it a rest. I suggest reading the books I recommended a few days ago- the Christian evolutionists. Then, if you like, work on how you will carry that message forward.

Best wishes.

Pai Geacademe

September 16th 2009, 08:05 PM

Pai, Give it a rest. I suggest reading the books I recommended a few days ago- the Christian evolutionists. Then, if you like, work on how you will carry that message forward.

Best wishes.

I can't carry the message forward if the degreed won't challenge Moreland et al.

I've read Beyond the Firmament and Finding Darwin's God. Miller I like because he directly confronts his brothers. He's the only one. I was talking about Christians who confront their brothers, not TE authors. You misunderstood that part. Also, you wouldn't be impressed by a much longer creationist bibliography. I find the ratio unsettling and indicative of a church that doesn't really know what it believes.

It is rich to hear an atheist tell an ex-Christian how to re-join the fold, though. I like your sense of humor. =)

oxmixmudd

September 16th 2009, 09:55 PM

I already told you. I can't see Christ in the Cretaceous. Perhaps if you'd gotten off your tuchus sooner to combat the dopes who constructed that cognitive block, that cognitive block wouldn't exist. You were so busy being genteel, the Morelands and Koukls got to us first. If you think that's a pathetic excuse, I'd point you to the grown men whose faith also depends on a fig-leafed Adam -- the ones who currently spread that meme with no concern about the consequences. Theirs is an understandable ignorance, seems to be the consensus.

I see no allure in a religion that spreads delusion on that mass level and whose Smarter Core rewards the Deluders with book endorsements and marketing favors.

Like I said. You seem to be motivated by a sense of vengence/bitterness whatever. You are responsible for yourself. If you see a way back to the cross, it is your responsibility to take it. You can't just sit around blaming others.

As for me, I have dealt with these issues in as direct a way as I can in my environment. It is an evolving story. 10 years ago, I was YEC - so clearly I would not have seen it as being correct or right to confront anyone on these positions. As I gradually became more and more aware of the problems with YEC, I gradually altered my position. But it has been a journey. I faced the same crazy stuff you have faced. I am JUST IN THE LAST 3 YEARS recognizing evolution as valid, and only in the last 1 or 2 years coming to see that there is a valid way of looking at scripture AND science that hits all the major points.

So as you can see, this whole bit of being a theistic evolutionist is a bit new to me, and I still have a lot of the 'programming' from previous ways of looking at things floating around in my head. And I sure as Hell am not going to go off half cocked preaching something I have not yet fully nailed down for myself - though at this point I feel I am close to being prepared to take a more direct stand. But I take quite seriously Christ's warning to teachers that lead the fold astray!

"Better to be tied to a rock and tossed into the sea than to lead one of these little ones astray" (paraphrase). So, while that certainly applies to the leaders that lead you astray, until I became very sure I was not in the reverse position, I didn't want to incur the same judgment on myself!! It is a fool who goes off half cocked teaching things that could undermine the faith of others without a clear understanding of exactly what they are doing and some level of surety they are correct and a well thought out game plan for doing it!

In the end, the chance I personally have ANYTHING to do with your fall from faith is about 0. However, had you been near me the last 3-5 years, you would have found a very sympathetic ear, and someone who you could have found encouragement from.

So you really need to figure out that

A) you are responsible for yourself. Just because somebody treated you bad or mislead you does not let you off the moral hook or give you the right to return evil for evil.
B) you can react to what has happened to you with bitterness and add more evil to the world or:
C) you can seek what is best, react with forgiveness and understanding as well as a good dose of the truth be a part of the solution and bring some good into the world.

It is your choice, but I am opting for the latter.

Jim

Dr.GH

September 16th 2009, 10:39 PM

I can't carry the message forward if the degreed won't challenge Moreland et al.

I've read Beyond the Firmament and Finding Darwin's God. Miller I like because he directly confronts his brothers. He's the only one. I was talking about Christians who confront their brothers, not TE authors. You misunderstood that part. Also, you wouldn't be impressed by a much longer creationist bibliography. I find the ratio unsettling and indicative of a church that doesn't really know what it believes.

It is rich to hear an atheist tell an ex-Christian how to re-join the fold, though. I like your sense of humor. =)

Pai, You are clearly new to this and "on fire" for the truth. Ken Miller is a smart guy, but he is far from the "only one" to confront his Christian brethren. As I mentioned, read some of the books I recommended. They were written (mostly) by Christians for Christians. Obviously, Rabbi Slifkin is not a Christian. As for a "much longer creationist bibliography," I have been reading and responding to creationists for well over a decade, and my creationist bibliographic list is rather long (and growing).

I first was drawn into this when I was the curator for anthropology, and director of education for a natural history museum. I had the thought that if I could understand the creationist perspective well enough, I could understand how to explain to them how science worked, and why we know that evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics all were coherent and supporting a unified perspective. I can read pretty fast. But, there is still something missing. Creationists are neither interested, nor moved by reality. Facts that conflict with their false understanding of reality are simply ignored.

Go figure that out.

And as for your jibe, "It is rich to hear an atheist tell an ex-Christian how to re-join the fold, though. I like your sense of humor."

Like a creationist you make several errors of fact and logic in a few words. 1) I am not an atheist, 2) it is your position that Christians must confront Christians- I agreed, 3) I don't care if you recover a faith I consider dubious, 4) I was not being humorous.

This is why you should be quiet until you have learned more and developed something worth paying attention to among adults. I was brought up deeply influenced by Quaker traditions and practices. Children were not allowed to speak at meeting, and young adults were respectfully cautious. Most adults understood that listening was in fact the greatest lesson, and in silence one is most likely to hear God. (Quakers refer to the "inner light" rather than the "voice of God" but I want to use the familiar phrase).

Pai Geacademe

September 17th 2009, 10:23 AM

Like I said. You seem to be motivated by a sense of vengence/bitterness whatever. You are responsible for yourself. If you see a way back to the cross, it is your responsibility to take it. You can't just sit around blaming others.

As for me, I have dealt with these issues in as direct a way as I can in my environment. It is an evolving story. 10 years ago, I was YEC - so clearly I would not have seen it as being correct or right to confront anyone on these positions. As I gradually became more and more aware of the problems with YEC, I gradually altered my position. But it has been a journey. I faced the same crazy stuff you have faced. I am JUST IN THE LAST 3 YEARS recognizing evolution as valid, and only in the last 1 or 2 years coming to see that there is a valid way of looking at scripture AND science that hits all the major points.

So as you can see, this whole bit of being a theistic evolutionist is a bit new to me, and I still have a lot of the 'programming' from previous ways of looking at things floating around in my head. And I sure as Hell am not going to go off half cocked preaching something I have not yet fully nailed down for myself - though at this point I feel I am close to being prepared to take a more direct stand. But I take quite seriously Christ's warning to teachers that lead the fold astray!

"Better to be tied to a rock and tossed into the sea than to lead one of these little ones astray" (paraphrase). So, while that certainly applies to the leaders that lead you astray, until I became very sure I was not in the reverse position, I didn't want to incur the same judgment on myself!! It is a fool who goes off half cocked teaching things that could undermine the faith of others without a clear understanding of exactly what they are doing and some level of surety they are correct and a well thought out game plan for doing it!

In the end, the chance I personally have ANYTHING to do with your fall from faith is about 0. However, had you been near me the last 3-5 years, you would have found a very sympathetic ear, and someone who you could have found encouragement from.

So you really need to figure out that

A) you are responsible for yourself. Just because somebody treated you bad or mislead you does not let you off the moral hook or give you the right to return evil for evil.
B) you can react to what has happened to you with bitterness and add more evil to the world or:
C) you can seek what is best, react with forgiveness and understanding as well as a good dose of the truth be a part of the solution and bring some good into the world.

It is your choice, but I am opting for the latter.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. I'm thinking about this response. It was rather disarming. As was Dr. GH's =)

I don't see any way back to the cross. I see only a Jack Chick comic book culture in my city and surrounding cities. I see this:

The people here do not have the power to make my life miserable. They can't kick me out, tell my friends not to speak to me, or interfere with my ability to move in good standing to another fellowship

I don't have the energy, nor do I think Jesus, if he exists, particular cares if I plug myself back into that. But thanks for your testimony and perspective. It always helps to hear others' stories.

oxmixmudd

September 17th 2009, 10:54 AM

Thanks, Jim. I'm thinking about this response. It was rather disarming. As was Dr. GH's =)

Well hey - being able to thank me for that response says something very positive about you Pai.

I don't see any way back to the cross. I see only a Jack Chick comic book culture in my city and surrounding cities. I see this:

OK - that clarifies one aspect of this. Am I correct then in saying that while you are concerned about certain levels of hypocrisy or muddled thinking within conservative Christianity, you don't actually see the Christian faith as viable for yourself at this time, nor do you think that even if these issues were corrected you would try to return to the faith.

That was actually what I wanted to find out from you when I asked you why you were still a deist.

As for the Jack Chick culture - I understand what you mean. But for me it doesn't matter if anyone else follows Christ - I believe in Him. That doesn't mean I would appear to you or others as any better than those in the 'jack chick' culture, but it does mean that even if these guys try to kick me out of a SS class, or a church, or whatever, what I believe to be true about Christ will not be affected. We all screw up one way or another trying to follow Christ. So I can't be too hard on them - though I will work for and hope for something better, both for them and for myself.

I don't have the energy, nor do I think Jesus, if he exists, particular cares if I plug myself back into that. But thanks for your testimony and perspective. It always helps to hear others' stories.

Well - to a certain extent I agree with you. But there is a 'church' that He does care if you plug yourself back into. But its not the fake facade deal - its the real deal. And sometimes it takes work to find it, and it always takes a lot of work to be it. But I am not unsympathetic to your position and situation - and it does anger me that the Hams and whatevers of the world produce an environment that has lead you where you are. But I tend to believe responses from a position of anger must be filtered to produce meaningful results. "Be angry, yet sin not" Paul admonishes us.

Jim

Pai Geacademe

September 17th 2009, 08:27 PM

Pai, You are clearly new to this and "on fire" for the truth. Ken Miller is a smart guy, but he is far from the "only one" to confront his Christian brethren. As I mentioned, read some of the books I recommended. They were written (mostly) by Christians for Christians. Obviously, Rabbi Slifkin is not a Christian. As for a "much longer creationist bibliography," I have been reading and responding to creationists for well over a decade, and my creationist bibliographic list is rather long (and growing).

I first was drawn into this when I was the curator for anthropology, and director of education for a natural history museum. I had the thought that if I could understand the creationist perspective well enough, I could understand how to explain to them how science worked, and why we know that evolutionary biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics all were coherent and supporting a unified perspective. I can read pretty fast. But, there is still something missing. Creationists are neither interested, nor moved by reality. Facts that conflict with their false understanding of reality are simply ignored.

Go figure that out.

And as for your jibe, "It is rich to hear an atheist tell an ex-Christian how to re-join the fold, though. I like your sense of humor."

Like a creationist you make several errors of fact and logic in a few words. 1) I am not an atheist, 2) it is your position that Christians must confront Christians- I agreed, 3) I don't care if you recover a faith I consider dubious, 4) I was not being humorous.

This is why you should be quiet until you have learned more and developed something worth paying attention to among adults. I was brought up deeply influenced by Quaker traditions and practices. Children were not allowed to speak at meeting, and young adults were respectfully cautious. Most adults understood that listening was in fact the greatest lesson, and in silence one is most likely to hear God. (Quakers refer to the "inner light" rather than the "voice of God" but I want to use the familiar phrase).

Hey GH. I appreciate this considerate response. It has me thinking.

USIncognito

September 24th 2009, 05:35 AM

Jorge

September 24th 2009, 07:04 AM

I’m not talking about Jorge or Calminium or any other creationist troll. Their flawed perceptions can be traced back to a well-established religious pedagogy – i.e., the “conditioner.” The trickle-down would prevent Jorges and Calminiums from ever becoming victims of the false dichotomy.

In other words, go after Pavlov, not his dogs.

******************************************************************************************

After having read a number of your posts (I wanted to educate myself before speaking),
I could sort'a, kind'a accept what you say above IF I had gotten the impression that you
knew what the hell you were talking about. However, after my 'education' it was clear
to me that you're just another pompous air bag that thinks he knows something based
solely on the volume of hot gasses emitted.

But then, what else should one expect? I mean, a Deist for crying out loud. Deists,
like many others, enjoy making God in their image. From that point forward there
can only be one direction -- down! Have yourself a good day, PG.

Jorge

Faid

September 24th 2009, 07:14 AM

Seriously jorge, do you have anything of substance to add to this forum? Because if you just want to get rid of your angst, there's always 4chan.

Jorge

September 24th 2009, 09:39 AM

Seriously jorge, do you have anything of substance to add to this forum? Because if you just want to get rid of your angst, there's always 4chan.

You wouldn't know "substance" if it bit you on the rear end twice!
To wit : for people like you the following IS "substance" (since you never object to it) :

I’m not talking about Jorge or Calminium or any other creationist troll. Their flawed perceptions
can be traced back to a well-established religious pedagogy – i.e., the “conditioner.” The
trickle-down would prevent Jorges and Calminiums from ever becoming victims of the false
dichotomy.

In other words, go after Pavlov, not his dogs.

Your rabid bias oozes from your pores, Faid. Get a clue ... get a brain ... get a life!

Jorge

rogue06

September 24th 2009, 10:11 AM

Faid

September 24th 2009, 10:12 AM

You wouldn't know "substance" if it bit you on the rear end twice!
To wit : for people like you the following IS "substance" (since you never object to it) :

I’m not talking about Jorge or Calminium or any other creationist troll. Their flawed perceptions
can be traced back to a well-established religious pedagogy – i.e., the “conditioner.” The
trickle-down would prevent Jorges and Calminiums from ever becoming victims of the false
dichotomy.

In other words, go after Pavlov, not his dogs.

Your rabid bias oozes from your pores, Faid. Get a clue ... get a brain ... get a life!

JorgeSeriously jorge, do you have anything of substance to add to this forum? Because if you just want to get rid of your angst, there's always 4chan.

Tiggy

September 24th 2009, 10:16 AM

Seriously jorge, do you have anything of substance to add to this forum? Because if you just want to get rid of your angst, there's always 4chan.
C'mon man, don't scare him away! Jorge's drive-by cluckings :chicken: are so regular I use them to set my watch. :tongue:

- T

oxmixmudd

September 24th 2009, 10:50 AM

C'mon man, don't scare him away! Jorge's drive-by cluckings :chicken: are so regular I use them to set my watch. :tongue:

- T

I don't think one can scare Jorge away - but Faid is right. Jorge no longer seems to have any motivation to do anything other than tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong and deceived. He used to at least try to come up with something. As I look back over my conversations with him, he clearly has digressed.

He says its because he has given up on 'me', but in reality he has given up (for all practical purposes) on the idea his POV can be supported scientifically. Now if he would just admit that ...

JIm

Jorge

September 24th 2009, 11:01 AM

I don't think one can scare Jorge away - but Faid is right. Jorge no longer seems to have any motivation to do anything other than tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong and deceived. He used to at least try to come up with something. As I look back over my conversations with him, he clearly has digressed.

He says its because he has given up on 'me', but in reality he has given up (for all practical purposes) on the idea his POV can be supported scientifically. Now if he would just admit that ...

JIm

********************************************************************************

Recently I received a warning from one of the Moderators regarding my use of the
characterizations 'liar' and 'dishonest'. I presented my case and that was that.

The above post presents yet another example of why I'm wholly justified in using
those characterizations. O-Mudd, you have simply GOT to stop fibbing via
distortions and omissions!

I do remind myself that since you feel it's okay to distort God's Word, then distorting
history and Jorge's words should be the proverbial 'walk in the park' for you. IOW,
your actions come as no surprise to me ... no surprise at all.

Jorge

Faid

September 24th 2009, 11:50 AM

Faid

September 24th 2009, 11:56 AM

I don't think one can scare Jorge away - but Faid is right. Jorge no longer seems to have any motivation to do anything other than tell everyone who disagrees with him that they are wrong and deceived. He used to at least try to come up with something. As I look back over my conversations with him, he clearly has digressed.

He says its because he has given up on 'me', but in reality he has given up (for all practical purposes) on the idea his POV can be supported scientifically. Now if he would just admit that ...

JImJorge has not "given up on us". As any casual reading of his various posts shows, he is always there, always eager to address our posts, and even comment about our posts to others, As long as he can simply insult us without addressing anything specific. But the moment we ask him to provide actual arguments, beside "it's BS" and "garbage", the very moment we press him to answer questions and engage in actual discussion, he suddenly remembers he has us on "Ignore!" and scrams.

To have a person displaying such behavior, constantly accuse us of dishonesty, is the epitome of irony. But it can also be quite funny. :smile:

Dr.GH

September 24th 2009, 01:00 PM

IMHO it is much ado about nothing. (Ray Comort's edition of "The Origin") Some of the hysterical reactions I've seen on certain blogs has been ridiculous.

There is certainly nothing new in his attacks. It does provide the opportunity to smack down a few common creationist lies and misrepresentations..

Jorge

September 24th 2009, 01:26 PM

No it doesn't, and you're not. Are you seriously calling Jim a liar here? Is he being factually truthful? NO! What, then, would you call it?Isn't what he described your exact behavior about any scientific issue, even the ones you bring up yourself with one-shot threads? No it is not. The posts are there for all to see - I have nothing to hide. I provided sufficient explanations, from my end, for all that happened. Hasn't it been that way ever since your (self-induced) pwnage about meteor craters, and your failure to own up to your promises for providing answers? No it is not. The posts are there for all to see - I have nothing to hide. I provided sufficient explanations, from my end, for all that happened.

Contemptuous disregard of what I wrote is no honest basis for subsequent vilifications and falsehoods.

Answer this post if you wish but do not expect me to waste any more time here on you.

Not that I expect you to answer.

*******************************************************

Answers are inserted above.

Jorge

oxmixmudd

September 24th 2009, 02:18 PM

********************************************************************************

Recently I received a warning from one of the Moderators regarding my use of the
characterizations 'liar' and 'dishonest'. I presented my case and that was that.

The above post presents yet another example of why I'm wholly justified in using
those characterizations. O-Mudd, you have simply GOT to stop fibbing via
distortions and omissions!

I do remind myself that since you feel it's okay to distort God's Word, then distorting
history and Jorge's words should be the proverbial 'walk in the park' for you. IOW,
your actions come as no surprise to me ... no surprise at all.

Jorge

point out one lie. I said "no longer" is willing to do any more than tell everyone they are wrong and deceived. Is my lie the fact I said 'everyone' instead of a list of specific names? Can you show me a recent post where you have actually engaged the data or science that I have discussed? Your most recent thread where we all pointed out "P" and "not P" is a wonderful example. Do you have any response in that thread to the issues raised other than to tell us we are wrong and/or deceived? Do you? Did you ever even show you understood the difference between proving P vs. not P?

I would really like to know how you 'justified' yourself to the moderators, but my guess is it is a technicality. You are calling us liars based on the used of hyperbole to describe the characteristics of your posts. IOW, the very same 'colorful language' you expect us to accept becomes a 'lie' when we engage in it. Since any form of exaggeration is technically a 'lie' of one sort or another, technically you can slip through unmoderated.

It is all very petty.

But I will point out that when one accuses another of lying in a post, one is expected to show why. Just saying my post above is an example, in my opinion, should not suffice. You should be required to, in the post, point out why. Pointing out why would be the equivalent of answering my question above. What did I say that was a lie? Can you point to a recent (I said no longer) example where you have addressed a serious post of mine in a serious manner - addressing the content of my post? I don't remember any. I certainly asked you 2 or 3 times to offer some serious response to the 'not P'/'P' distinction in your thread where you specifically accuse comments by me of representing a double standard of proof. I point out why you are wrong with a specific description . You never produce any discussion of my answer, but you do tell me how bad I am several times.

Jim

Faid

September 24th 2009, 06:17 PM

*******************************************************

Answers are inserted above.

JorgeYour answers ring false to anyone reading them.

You most certainly DO behave that way, ever since your meteor crater fail. Where are your "posts that are there for all to see" that actually try to actually defend (and not merely assert) your silly claims about hummingbirds, or your accusations of double speak? Where are your "sufficient explanations, from your end, for all that happened", when your response to our criticism was just insults and proclamations of "ignoring us"? If you have "nothing to hide", can you provide ONE CASE in your latest threads where you actually engaged in conversation about any of your scientific claims? ONE?. A "sufficient explanation" jorge, is one that can withstand and refute criticism. Not one that's just thrown there, followed by ignoring and/or handwaving all the arguments against it.

In other words, such behavior only makes you "dishonest". Whether you like it or not. People are judged by their actions, jorge.

Now, feel free to "ignore" this post as well.

oxmixmudd

September 24th 2009, 07:02 PM

Your answers ring false to anyone reading them.

You most certainly DO behave that way, ever since your meteor crater fail. Where are your "posts that are there for all to see" that actually try to actually defend (and not merely assert) your silly claims about hummingbirds, or your accusations of double speak? Where are your "sufficient explanations, from your end, for all that happened", when your response to our criticism was just insults and proclamations of "ignoring us"? If you have "nothing to hide", can you provide ONE CASE in your latest threads where you actually engaged in conversation about any of your scientific claims? ONE?. A "sufficient explanation" jorge, is one that can withstand and refute criticism. Not one that's just thrown there, followed by ignoring and/or handwaving all the arguments against it.

In other words, such behavior only makes you "dishonest". Whether you like it or not. People are judged by their actions, jorge.

Now, feel free to "ignore" this post as well.

You know, it is kind of odd. When I think a certain POV is supported by scientific evidence, I am happy to repeat in as many different ways as possible, and spend pretty much as much time as required to help someone who doesn't understand why. (I do get frustrated if they ignore the evidence I present) Yet Jorge claims his view are supported by scientific evidence, yet he only rarely presents actual data in an attempt to back up the same. And when he does, it is always some hair brained idea that can't last 2 minutes in the hands of an undergraduate science major (like stars can't form naturally, or comets don't fall into the sun, or that many (espeically those that would be truly catastrophic to life on the planet) meteor craters are really the result of big volcanic steam explosions).

How can that be true if YEC can be supported by the evidence? Yet Jorge makes this claim over and over again. I wonder how he can claim he is being truthful when he says this in light of the above. How can he truly be convinced science supports YEC when he always runs from the opportunities he has to defend that conclusion?

Jim

Dr.GH

September 24th 2009, 07:38 PM

If I could get back to Comfort specifically, I just learned on another forum that he's released his own version of Origin with a 50 page introduction "debunking" it that he wants 100,000 copies distributed to colleges nationwide. There's a number of blogs and videos in response to his critique, but I'd prefer to see it on something like the TO Archive or a site of that sort.

Anyone have any suggestions?

I wrote an item about Ray Comfort's nonsense posted to my examiner.com page. (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-18086-LA-Science-Education-Examiner~y2009m9d23-The-strangest-thing-about-teaching-science)

The "Living Waters" aka "The Way of the Master" "debunking" has nothing new- just a rehash of decades of long refuted creationist bunkum.

Jorge

September 24th 2009, 07:44 PM

point out one lie. I said "no longer" is willing to do any more than tell everyone they are wrong and deceived. Is my lie the fact I said 'everyone' instead of a list of specific names? Can you show me a recent post where you have actually engaged the data or science that I have discussed? Your most recent thread where we all pointed out "P" and "not P" is a wonderful example. Do you have any response in that thread to the issues raised other than to tell us we are wrong and/or deceived? Do you? Did you ever even show you understood the difference between proving P vs. not P?

I would really like to know how you 'justified' yourself to the moderators, but my guess is it is a technicality. You are calling us liars based on the used of hyperbole to describe the characteristics of your posts. IOW, the very same 'colorful language' you expect us to accept becomes a 'lie' when we engage in it. Since any form of exaggeration is technically a 'lie' of one sort or another, technically you can slip through unmoderated.

It is all very petty.

But I will point out that when one accuses another of lying in a post, one is expected to show why. Just saying my post above is an example, in my opinion, should not suffice. You should be required to, in the post, point out why. Pointing out why would be the equivalent of answering my question above. What did I say that was a lie? Can you point to a recent (I said no longer) example where you have addressed a serious post of mine in a serious manner - addressing the content of my post? I don't remember any. I certainly asked you 2 or 3 times to offer some serious response to the 'not P'/'P' distinction in your thread where you specifically accuse comments by me of representing a double standard of proof. I point out why you are wrong with a specific description . You never produce any discussion of my answer, but you do tell me how bad I am several times.

Jim

********************************************************

I am way past being tired of responding to these types of posts.

In that post, I could not help but think of Clinton-like behavior where extreme lawyer-like
tactics and language are used such as trying to split hairs between "no longer", "everyone"
and similar things.

The bottom line is simple and I have given it to you umpteen times before : you are totally
unwilling to listen, much less accept, anything that challenges or opposes what you have
chosen to believe. You distort and misrepresent the position of people like myself and
that is the reason why I gave up on you. It is impossible to have a worthwhile discussion
with people that practice such things regularly.

The most recent example of these distortions / misrepresentations is here :

And when he does, it is always some hair brained idea that can't last 2 minutes in the hands
of an undergraduate science major (like stars can't form naturally, or comets don't fall into the
sun, or that many (espeically [sic] those that would be truly catastrophic to life on the planet)
meteor craters are really the result of big volcanic steam explosions).

(You forgot, "no interstellar travel unless something straight out of science fiction emerges").

Furthermore, you are so tunnel-visioned and rabidly prejudiced against Biblical Creationism
that you do not practice true listening to what is being said.

In any event, do us both a favor and simply stay away. Thanks!

Jorge

MrManNo1

September 24th 2009, 08:18 PM

I am way past being tired of responding to these types of posts.

Have you considered the possibility of not acting that way, then? You think that those of us familiar with your attitude aren't tired of it, as well? It's aggravating typing up a thought-out response only to have it ignored because you've "already discussed that", or we're just "being deceptive", or that we're "distorting the truth" or "compromising." Jorge, I pointed out in another topic (twice...both were, unsurprisingly, ignored) that many of the things you claim we do are things that you, in fact, do. Your projection of your attitude onto the lot of us is insulting and, quite frankly, exceptionally rude when we're only trying to teach people to the best of humankind's ability (note that I didn't say "our" ability...it's because you and many other YECs are guilty of teaching falsehoods just as much as, if not more than, the rest of us). Jorge, you are certainly old enough to take a good look at yourself and your behavior. Perhaps the time to do so is now.

oxmixmudd

September 24th 2009, 08:25 PM

********************************************************

I am way past being tired of responding to these types of posts.

In that post, I could not help but think of Clinton-like behavior where extreme lawyer-like
tactics and language are used such as trying to split hairs between "no longer", "everyone"
and similar things.

The bottom line is simple and I have given it to you umpteen times before : you are totally
unwilling to listen, much less accept, anything that challenges or opposes what you have
chosen to believe. You distort and misrepresent the position of people like myself and
that is the reason why I gave up on you. It is impossible to have a worthwhile discussion
with people that practice such things regularly.

The most recent example of these distortions / misrepresentations is here :

And when he does, it is always some hair brained idea that can't last 2 minutes in the hands
of an undergraduate science major (like stars can't form naturally, or comets don't fall into the
sun, or that many (espeically [sic] those that would be truly catastrophic to life on the planet)
meteor craters are really the result of big volcanic steam explosions).

(You forgot, "no interstellar travel unless something straight out of science fiction emerges").

No I didn't. The issue for interstellar travel you raised where not simple to solve, they just had solutions with our current understanding of physics. As I said in that thread - your problem in that thread is that you were over the top claiming they couldn't be solved w/o sci fi science as yet undiscovered.

But the other stuff was just crazy all the way around.

Furthermore, you are so tunnel-visioned and rabidly prejudiced against Biblical Creationism
that you do not practice true listening to what is being said.

That's just a bunch of hooey. I listen. Quite well. And far better than you do. The issue is straight up that you can't present evidence that can stand examination. And I offer you - again - the opportunity to prove me wrong on that point. All you have to do is come up with a scientific case for a young earth that is based on actual data and the correct application of science. Should be simple enough - if such a thing exists. I certainly would have no doubt I could do the same in defense of an old Earth.

In any event, do us both a favor and simply stay away. Thanks!

Jorge

Can't. You keep saying things that simply aren't true as regards the evidence for the age of the Earth and Universe, the veracity of the data supporting the Theory of Evolution, and the legitimacy of interpretations of Genesis that differ from your own.

Jim