Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So deep down, Republicans actually really love Obama?

I doubt it.

I'm a Republican, and I have no idea where or what he eats; nor do I care; nor do I even talk about him ... at all ... anywhere.

Politics ain't my thing.

Split Rock · Dec 4, 2012

verysincere said:
I'm curious: Have any of you with years of experience on these forums EVER read any posts from a Young Earth Creationist who presented the scientific evidence honestly and refrained from deceptive quote-mining?

In my own experience (which included years within the YEC movement as a speaker/debater during the 1970's), the ONLY leading Young Earth Creationism proponent which I can honestly say carefully avoided such ethical lapses within the articles and public presentations I personally observed has been Dr. Todd Wood of Bryan College (and the origins institute which he directs there.)

As a Bible-affirming Christian myself, it saddens me deeply to not have more laudable examples to cite. (And I'm NOT saying that Dr. Wood is the world's only honest YEC. Not at all. I'm simply making an observation about prominent YEC LEADERS with whom I'm directly familiar. Also, I'm NOT saying that I've never observed Dr. Wood repeating a false statement from "creation science". I'm saying that in my opinion any false statements he's repeated have been sincere statements on his part because he THINKS the statements are factually true. I've never observed anything on his part which would lead me to believe that he KNOWINGLY promulgates false information. I wish I could say that for all of my YEC colleagues from the 1960's and 1970's----but I WILL say that for the most part YEC leaders in those days were FAR LESS PRONE to deliberate dishonesty in comparison to today's veritable propaganda machines which at least APPEAR to have little regard for ethics. Yes, regardless of one's personal conclusions about the Theory of Evolution, statements such as "There is zero evidence for the theory of evolution" is a lie, pure and simple.)

Another example of an honest professional creationist is Dr. Kurt Wise. He admits that the evidence leads to an old earth and common descent, but that his understanding of scripture demands he rejects these conclusions. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

verysincere · Dec 4, 2012

Loudmouth said:
All good points. I guess my main approach is to give YEC's the chance to be presented the evidence. If they continue to ignore the evidence and keep presenting false claims after being shown that they are false then we have moved into a whole new area of dishonesty.

But as you point out, lying and not caring if you speak the truth are very close to the same thing.

I find it fascinating how Dr. Todd Wood gets a LOT of "hate mail" from other Young Earth Creationists because he has the audacity to admonish them to STOP repeating lies like "There's no evidence for evolution." I also find it amazing how there is such a reluctance among his YEC colleagues to join his "role model" status. Nobody wants to risk upsetting the big money players like Ken Ham----or even by denouncing the foolishness of Ray Banana-Man Comfort or Chuck Peanut-Butter-Jar-Debunks-Evolution Missler! (In fact, even Dr. Wood won't go so far as to admonish those individuals to quit making the YEC world look like a circus side show.)

And I've befriended a great many atheists and agnostics who normally would not be prone to chat and even discuss Biblical topics with a retired Evangelical Bible professor----but because they know that I don't tolerate (or try to justify) various "creation science" nonsense, we have often discussed spiritual things and personal views of God's existence. I would suggest that I'm in a much better position to facilitate the Great Commission among academics than the YECs who continually spew their contempt for any and all who fail to agree with their every Bible interpretation. (Yes, I question whether the obsessions which many YEC leaders have on "creation science is vital and has eternal stakes" harmonizes with the Apostle Paul's "I preach only the cross of Jesus Christ." and "no other Gospel.")

RainbowDashIsBestPony · Dec 4, 2012

CabVet said:
Yes, his willingness to blatantly lie to advance his religious ideas.

I don't get how someone can hold a belief when they have to knowingly lie to justify it.

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

RainbowDashIsBestPony said:
I don't get how someone can hold a belief when they have to knowingly lie to justify it.

Would you change your mind if these guys died for what they believed?

Mr. Pedantic · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Would you change your mind if these guys died for what they believed?

No. What does that have to do with anything at all?

Split Rock · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Would you change your mind if these guys died for what they believed?

Do you mean like the 911 terrorists?

46AND2 · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
There's something about him that seems to fascinate you though, isn't there?

Yes, I'm fascinated by car accidents, too. What does that have to do with anything?

RainbowDashIsBestPony · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Would you change your mind if these guys died for what they believed?

If they were willing to die for their beliefs, they would tell the truth. If they wanted to stay alive, they would lie about what faith they hold, not about the reasons for their actual faith.

This is all assuming that they are in reasonable danger of dying for their beliefs, which they aren't. Your statement is both illogical and irrelevant.

Loudmouth · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Would you change your mind if these guys died for what they believed?

Galileo had his sentence commuted to a lifetime under house arrest by denying the truth of the Earth moving about the Sun. Does that mean that Galileo was wrong? Does this mean that the Sun actually does move about the Earth?

verysincere · Dec 4, 2012

RainbowDashIsBestPony said:
I don't get how someone can hold a belief when they have to knowingly lie to justify it.

Even before the contrary scriptural and scientific evidence against Young Earth Creationist overwhelmed me, it was the DISHONESTY I saw within the movement in the 1960's and 1970's that led to my exit. (And the integrity problems were not nearly as severe then as now.)

{My original remarks named the famous Young Earth Creationists associated with each anecdote. But the YEC world is a litigious one so I decided it wise to show caution. The names wouldn't make my points any stronger and those who didn't witness the events would deny they happened in ANY case. Believe me, as an Evangelical Christian, these memories haunt me and I feel personally responsible for helping to promote what were the beginnings of the modern "creation science" movement in America. Sadly, I share culpability in helping to create an "atmosphere" which eventually gave rise to Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and others. So when I point fingers at guilty people, I confess my own guilt in this.)

I'll never forget the looks I used to get from my YEC colleagues when I would ask them, "If we have the truth, why do we have to keep lying?" Examples of such dishonesty:

1) I once asked Dr. X, "During a similar debate just weeks ago you admitted that you had the facts wrong about the Bombardier Beetle.You even promised to correct it in the next edition of your book. Yet, in today's debate you used the same flawed argument---probably because you knew that this audience would be unlikely to know of the prior correction and you find the illustration a "crowd pleaser." [And by the way, when Gish released his next edition of the book, none of the corrections were made.]

2) Why are you "generous" with the bogus illustrations when we are speaking at a Bible conference where we don't have to worry about a knowledgeable person exposing the error in an embarrassing way----but when it is an event with actual scientists present (especially when televised), the "pseudo-science lie list" is kept in your pocket?

3) "We all know that the 'I was chatting with an evolutionary biologist on my flight, and he said that....." anecdotes impress layperson audiences but they are just plain LIES. No university science professor would make the kinds of silly statements you put in their mouths and they CERTAINLY wouldn't misuse basic scientific terms nor use an anecdote that was already a half century outdated when you first found it in some old textbook from the 1920s.

4) "Equivocation fallacies are not just rhetorical devices. When we encourage people to use them as if they are actual arguments based upon evidence, they are LIES."

5) "Dishonest quote-mining may be considered just the rough-and-tumble looseness with the facts of political campaigns, but it is NOT in harmony with the 9th Commandment and Jesus' emphasis upon TRUTH. We as Christians should hold ourselves to a HIGHER standard---instead of saying "everybody plays this game of selective information". I used to get INCENSED at the dishonest use of Darwin's eye illustration----giving people the impression that Darwin thought the eye's complexity meant that it couldn't have evolved."

6) Confusing the debunking of the old "spontaneous generation" tales (e.g., maggots are spawned by raw meat as it rots) with ABIOGENESIS is not only lying, it insults our audience. We all know that Louis Pasteur did not somehow rule out scientists ever figuring out the processes behind the first living cells. (And to claim that some "scientific conclusion" of centuries ago handcuffs modern scientists as to what they can and can't explain/discover treats our audiences like they are mental midgets incapable of seeing through our dishonesty.)

Loudmouth · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
I doubt it.

Then your argument fails.

We care about science education. What we have is a religious movement that is trying to take away science education. That is what we are fascinated and concerned about.

On a purely human level, men such as Kent Hovind do fascinate me. How does someone make a living telling known lies? How does that work? How do you keep the illusion going? An equally fascinating person along the same lines is Bernie Madoff who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history. At one point, he actually had himself convinced that he was doing good. He was completely self deluded by his own sales pitch. Amazing.

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

Mr. Pedantic said:
No. What does that have to do with anything at all?

Wow ... that's quite a statement.

They say no one dies for something they know is a lie.

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

Split Rock said:
Do you mean like the 911 terrorists?

If the 911 terrorists knew that Islam was a lie, there would not have been a 911.

Split Rock · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
If the 911 terrorists knew that Islam was a lie, there would not have been a 911.

But the fact they believed in Islam strongly enough to die, does not make Islam correct... does it?

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Galileo had his sentence commuted to a lifetime under house arrest by denying the truth of the Earth moving about the Sun. Does that mean that Galileo was wrong? Does this mean that the Sun actually does move about the Earth?

Someone dying for something that wasn't true is proof that they believed it to be true.

Whether something is actually true or not doesn't matter.

What matters is the fact that they thought it was true.

Therefore, it wasn't a lie; since a lie is an untruth, told with the intent to deceive.

AV1611VET · Dec 4, 2012

Split Rock said:
But the fact they believed in Islam strongly enough to die, does not make Islam correct... does it?

It doesn't make them liars, either.

Loudmouth · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Someone dying for something that wasn't true is proof that they believed it to be true.

Or they preferred death over admitting that they were wrong.

Split Rock · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Someone dying for something that wasn't true is proof that they believed it to be true.

Whether something is actually true or not doesn't matter.

What matters is the fact that they thought it was true.

Therefore, it wasn't a lie; since a lie is an untruth, told with the intent to deceive.

But is it a lie if someone knowingly deceives another into believing the lie is true?

Split Rock · Dec 4, 2012

AV1611VET said:
It doesn't make them liars, either.

Are scientists liars then... as many creationists here claim they are?

Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

Exegete/Linguist

RainbowDashIsBestPony

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Conflation of Blathers

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

RainbowDashIsBestPony

Guest

Contributor

Exegete/Linguist

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency