The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Speedwell]

If you look into the history of ID at first it was creationism in a cheap lab suit. It was invented due to the legal losses that made it illegal to teach creationism in U.S. schools. Since that time it has acquired a life of its own and there are several versions of it out there. None of them are justified by the scientific method.

ICR, AiG and other YEC groups have rejected it but misrepresentations about Information Theory and complexity found in ID seem to have leaked into their arguments.
Even so, it remains a creature of the Discovery Institute who see it as what they refer to as a "wedge" for a political agenda which I could not name or describe accurately without running afoul of the moderators of this forum.

 

[Radrook]

ICR, AiG and other YEC groups have rejected it but misrepresentations about Information Theory and complexity found in ID seem to have leaked into their arguments.
Even so, it remains a creature of the Discovery Institute who see it as what they refer to as a "wedge" for a political agenda which I could not name or describe accurately without running afoul of the moderators of this forum.

Promoting atheism in public schools is not an agenda?

The Atheist Agenda: What Atheist Organizations Plan for the World

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not into eternally repeating myself only to have the response of "I still cain't see!" constantly and unceremoniously deployed. If you can't see-then I guess you can't see. No problem here.

Your inability to back up your claims with actual evidence is noted.

 

[KCfromNC]

Promoting atheism in public schools is not an agenda?

The Discovery Institute doesn't promote atheism. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Promoting atheism in public schools is not an agenda?

The Atheist Agenda: What Atheist Organizations Plan for the World

What does that have to do with what he said?

 

[Speedwell]

What does that have to do with what he said?

It's a straw man, perhaps designed to distract us from the political agenda of the Discovery Institute, or to allow supporters of that agenda to justify it to themselves.

 

[quatona]

It's a straw man

Not really - rather, it´s the attempt at a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[Speedwell]

Not really - rather, it´s the attempt at a tu quoque fallacy.

Oh, right. I never thought of that--I suppose because I think we all have an agenda of some kind or other I don't see having one as a bad thing unless it is evil and ugly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Promoting atheism in public schools is not an agenda?

The Atheist Agenda: What Atheist Organizations Plan for the World

Your source is dishonest. Why do you keep using bogus sources? If you had a proper and reasonable point don't you think that you could find a source that was not so poor?

For example they mistakenly call the Freedom From Religion Foundation "militant" when all that they want to do is to make sure that the U.S. constitution is followed. They even get their agenda correct:

""The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism."

What is militant about that?

They then begin to lie about the FFRF:

"Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!"

Filing lawsuits is the last thing that they do. When a government group of some sort is breaking the law the first thing they do is to write a polite letter informing them of that fact. If nothing is done several more polite letters will follow It is not until after several warnings and exactly what laws are being broken are pointed out that they even threaten to file a lawsuit. When nothing is done they follow through. In many cases various government agencies respond to the polite letters. No lawsuits are necessary.

How is asking people to obey the law and then reluctantly suing them when they don't "militant"?

ETA: I have to include the rest of the list of the "terrible" things that the FFRF does. Are any of these actions "militant"?

• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

Seriously it looks like that site was written by a poe.

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously it looks like that site was written by a poe.

No, the guy is real. The thing is, if you actually believe that stuff then the political program of the Discovery Institute starts to seem like a good idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the guy is real. The thing is, if you actually believe that stuff then the political program of the Discovery Institute starts to seem like a good idea.

I agree that it is real, but sadly it could have been written by a poe. I have a brother that is almost the opposite of me. He is a Seventh Day Adventist, and a rather serious one. But he too does not like religion in school. His version of Christianity is slightly different from other versions and he can see that he would not want his kids taught Christianity that is different from his even more than he would not want his kids taught science.

The mixing of religion and government is simply a bad idea. That is all that FFRF is against.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Promoting atheism in public schools is not an agenda?

The Atheist Agenda: What Atheist Organizations Plan for the World

Tu quoque is a fallacy, not an argument.

Oops! gazumped by quatona. Must learn to read ahead...

 

[Radrook]

What does that have to do with what he said?

I was responding to the accusation that creationists have an agenda as if having an agenda is a vice.

 

[Speedwell]

I was responding to the accusation that creationists have an agenda as if having an agenda is a vice.

No, I was referring in particular the political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

 

[Radrook]

Tu quoque is a fallacy, not an argument.

Oops! gazumped by quatona. Must learn to read ahead...

I misunderstood what was being referred to.

 

[Radrook]

No, I was referring in particular the political agenda of the Discovery Institute.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was responding to the accusation that creationists have an agenda as if having an agenda is a vice.

Speedwell already beat me an answer.

 

[Radrook]

The Holy Spirit works on the hearts of those who want to know the Truth.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Slander is the most commonly used tool of Satan.

I agree, from a spiritual standpoint a receptive heart is definitely essential in order for certain enlightenment to occur via the help of holy spirit. Also, if the heart is callously unreceptive due to a strong aversion to all that might indicate an ID then the chances of being swayed in any manner via evidence or logic becomes very unlikely. So both factors contribute very significantly to the perpetually proclaimed inabilities to see or understand or else the stubborn refusals to acknowledge that there is any understanding whatsoever even at the most logically fundamental levels of human thought.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree, from a spiritual standpoint a receptive heart is definitely essential in order for certain enlightenment to occur via the help of holy spirit. Also, if the heart is callously unreceptive due to a strong aversion to all that might indicate an ID then the chances of being swayed in any manner via evidence or logic becomes very unlikely. So both factors contribute very significantly to the perpetually proclaimed inabilities to see or understand or else the stubborn refusals to acknowledge that there is any understanding whatsoever even at the most logically fundamental levels of human thought.

I think objections to ID are rather more mundane than the character of one's interaction with the Holy Spirit.

1. ID denies God's immanence in His creation, reducing Him to maintenance mechanic status, called in through the back door occasionally to tinker with a process which He should have been able to create to work properly in the first place.

2. ID is promoted with carefully crafted misinformation about mathematical complexity and Information Theory.

3. ID is the creature of the Discovery Institute, a group of militant Calvinists who proclaim it as the "wedge" which will enable their political agenda.

 

[Radrook]

Your source is dishonest. Why do you keep using bogus sources? If you had a proper and reasonable point don't you think that you could find a source that was not so poor?

For example they mistakenly call the Freedom From Religion Foundation "militant" when all that they want to do is to make sure that the U.S. constitution is followed. They even get their agenda correct:

""The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism."

What is militant about that?

They then begin to lie about the FFRF:

"Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!"

Filing lawsuits is the last thing that they do. When a government group of some sort is breaking the law the first thing they do is to write a polite letter informing them of that fact. If nothing is done several more polite letters will follow It is not until after several warnings and exactly what laws are being broken are pointed out that they even threaten to file a lawsuit. When nothing is done they follow through. In many cases various government agencies respond to the polite letters. No lawsuits are necessary.

How is asking people to obey the law and then reluctantly suing them when they don't "militant"?

ETA: I have to include the rest of the list of the "terrible" things that the FFRF does. Are any of these actions "militant"?

• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

Seriously it looks like that site was written by a poe.

As the dictionary definition proves, the word certainly does accurately encompass the activities you just enumerated.

Militant

adjective

1.

vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause:

the definition of militant