A different kind of education, eh? Things like magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?
No, AIG doesn’t actually promote those things, it’s about worldviews. I’m not sure atheists recognize the word worldview, because they don’t seem to like their opinions to be on the same plane as others, they want to be superior, they want to be right enough to force their opinions on society, similar to the religion of Islam today, or the Christianity of Europe 200 years ago.
But back to the topic: AIG and all the others have to isolate their folks either through indoctrination or other means because their teachings can't stand the light of day.
Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge. I’ve mentioned it before once or twice at EvC and haven’t had much of any reaction to it, so I’ll try go into more detail than I have before;
The light of day involves more than science. For one thing, creationists recognize the profoundness of the differences of humans from animals. Though some breeds of animals can be considered more intelligent than others, the differences (or comparisons of it) are many levels below humans. Humans have an enormous depth of emotion, and written history, all the way to its very beginning, shows that humans have always had it. Unless one has been programmed by an atheist/evolutionist education to believe that humans used to be just like animals, and gradually became aware of themselves
while animals stayed exactly the same, it’s not hard for common sense logic to tell us that humans have always been able to plan ahead, solve problems, and re-arrange matter to benefit himself in ways far above what animals have ever been able to do. Central to Christianity is the belief that humans are a special creation. Light of day observations, (that don’t have anything to do with magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore etc.) tend to verify it.
I could write many more paragraphs about what creationists see in the light of day, 1)the lack of transitional fossils that evolutionists desperately wish they had, 2)the order and obvious purpose we see in countless different natural systems of the world, from biology to astronomy,3) the lack of scientific ability to naturalistically explain the origins of life, 4)how well the behavior guidelines found in the Bible (money management, relations to others etc.) actually work. Richard Dawkins, on the first page of ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ says Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. If they give that appearance, then that doesn’t have anything to do with magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore etc. It’s logical observances in the light of day.
Then there is the other kind of light of day, the clear observances of very mysterious behavior of evolutionists. This thread has many examples. The opening post linked a testimony of someone who was transformed from a Christian to an atheist,
by evolution. Very soon after, the standard evolutionist talking point pops up, that evolution and atheism don’t have a thing to do with each other! Let’s see, they’re both about naturalism, they both oppose creation and Intelligent Design, they both agree perfectly with other (sometimes controversial) sciences like astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc. Science/evolution is the only intellectual fulfillment atheism has, what atheist wouldn’t fully support evolution? Atheism and evolution compliment each other, support each other, and in the case of prominent people who support one or the other, they will almost always be passionate about the other. Yet the majority of them will immediately say, if challenged, that they don’t have a thing to do with each other. It’s just something that’s been said over and over enough times to be automatically accepted by the news media and the scientific community. But this kind of political correctness isn’t in the light of day, it’s in the darkness of a very narrow worldview. William Provine, an atheist, goes a long way in making it all understandable;
quote:
I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest.
-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 69
It all makes sense how threads like this get started and where they go - the testimony of a religious student becoming an atheist because of a science education makes a statement that most in the scientific community favor, yet if a discussion ensues, if the atheism involved in science education gets brought up, then the desperate backpeddling that happens is easily explained by the few prominent atheists like William Provine who are actually honest.
And see signature, below...
quote:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I heartily agree with your signature. With a minor word change, more truth can be found; Atheistic belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
