If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[Astrid]

Quite a lot in some areas. Send these guys a donation. They'll appreciate it.

Make a Donation — Funding Cancer Research | Cure Cancer

Noahs ark could use some funding

 

[Bradskii]

Noahs ark could use some funding

I think they need some financial help with the lawsuit they took against their insurers when the site was damaged by rain. Oh, the irony...

 

[J_B_]

Quite a lot in some areas.

I highlighted some potential areas of interest for me in the OP.

 

[Bradskii]

I highlighted some potential areas of interest for me in the OP.

Then send a cheque. Let us know the response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a clarification worth making, though the rest of your post doesn't relate to what I said. I don't conflate the two. Nor do I use the label "creationist" for myself. I used to, but I don't anymore because of the potential misunderstandings - though it doesn't seem to help that I don't call myself a creationist.

Regardless, my thought experiment involves an appeal to Christian public influencers. Some would be closer to accepting the idea than others.



I would think this is a universal dictum. Don't teach your kids false things.

Are you interested in building bridges or are you with @Occams Barber that my motives are just too suspect and it's not worth the risk? It is kind of an odd thing, isn't it? That I would approach a scientist and say, "I don't agree with you on all things about evolutionary science, but I'm going to fund your work and leave you the freedom to do it in the way you deem best. Just be aware of my position before you accept the funds."

You may wonder why would someone do that? It just boggles the mind ... or at least the minds in this forum.

This is the part of the forum where one discusses or debates to learn whose ideas are right and why. There are countless Christians that accept evolution. The few creation "scientists" out there tend to belong to organizations such as Answers in Genesis where they have to swear not to follow the scientific method.

It is the great lie of creationists that evolution goes against Christianity, the Bible etc. If anything I would say that creationists are against the Bible since they try to teach events that never happened as fact. When parents bring up their children this way they are always shocked when they leave the church because they found out the truth.

Evolution does not have to oppose Christianity. It only opposes interpretations of the Bible that are clearly wrong. Creationists make the mistake of trying to turn the Bible into a false idol.

I am glad to meet a Christian half way. I do not demand that they drop their belief in God nor am I going to take their belief up. But if they teach clearly false ideas I will oppose that.

 

[J_B_]

I am glad to meet a Christian half way. I do not demand that they drop their belief in God nor am I going to take their belief up. But if they teach clearly false ideas I will oppose that.

OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and religion should not mix, that leads to bad science and even worse theology.

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

 

[VirOptimus]

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

As science is a description of physical reality going against it is a losing position.

 

[Astrid]

As science is a description of physical reality going against it is a losing position.

As a rule the less one knows the easier it is to wina debate against science

 

[AV1611VET]

As science is a description of physical reality going against it is a losing position.

Science goes against science all the time.

One minute Pluto is our 9th planet, the next minute it isn't.

One minute Nebraska Man is a missing link, the next minute it isn't.

Science pwns itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a rule the less one knows the easier it is to win a debate against science

I take it that's how Pluto got to be our 9th planet.

Clyde Tombaugh didn't know about all those other TNOs out there.

Ditto for Nebraska Man.

Science didn't know it was the tooth of a peccary lying in the ground.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

One of the problems with this is that you did not word what you do correctly. It is not a matter of "Bible says'. It is a matter of what you think that the "Bible says". If one is very literalistic one should be a Flat Earther too by the standards that you list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take it that's how Pluto got to be our 9th planet.

Clyde Tombaugh didn't know about all those other TNOs out there.

Ditto for Nebraska Man.

Science didn't know it was the tooth of a peccary lying in the ground.

Incorrect about Nebraska Man. He was never well accepted by scientists. An amateur scientist made an error that was never well accepted and was corrected in a rather short time.

 

[AV1611VET]

If one is very literalistic one should be a Flat Earther too by the standards that you list.

It's telling that you said "very literalistic," and not just "literal," to make your point.

I have a feeling you know the difference.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science goes against science all the time.

One minute Pluto is our 9th planet, the next minute it isn't.

One minute Nebraska Man is a missing link, the next minute it isn't.

Science pwns itself.

That you dont understand science is only on you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ditto for Nebraska Man.

Science didn't know it was the tooth of a peccary lying in the ground.

Incorrect about Nebraska Man. He was never well accepted by scientists. An amateur scientist made an error that was never well accepted and was corrected in a rather short time.

I was careful how I worded that, because I knew what was coming.

So are you saying that while that tooth was lying there in the ground ... untouched ... science knew it was the tooth of a peccary?

And by "science," I mean those who saw that tooth lying there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's telling that you said "very literalistic," and not just "literal," to make your point.

I have a feeling you know the difference.

"Literalistic" describes a person's approach to the Bible. But it means essentially the same thing. The Bible only literally describes the Earth as Flat in word and deed. It is your assumption that it means round since that is a belief strongly supported by secular evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was careful how I worded that, because I knew what was coming.

So are you saying that while that tooth was lying there in the ground ... untouched ... science knew it was the tooth of a peccary?

And by "science," I mean those who saw that tooth lying there.

Once again, you abused the word "science" that is all. We know that it is a favorite tactic of yours. Meanwhile you heavily rely on science just to post here.

 

[AV1611VET]

That you dont understand science is only on you.

Speaking of understanding science, who was it that said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God?"

 

[AV1611VET]

"Literalistic" describes a person's approach to the Bible. But it means essentially the same thing.

Now you're backtracking.

Too late, chief.

You know exactly what the difference is, and where I stand on it.