Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 16 of 79 (663649)
05-25-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
05-24-2012 2:05 PM


Both Dr. Purdom and Ken Ham seem to agree on this point. The solution for creationism failing in the face of criticism is MORE INDOCTRINATION.
That's not what they said. Just a different kind of education, one that realizes that science is just another imperfect human endeavor, that it's not the only source of knowledge. That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.
As Libby Anne puts it:
quote:
And the solution Ken Ham and Dr. Purdom make? Double down. That’s pretty much it. Teach the same things, just more. Oh, and isolate yourself and your children from other points of view — oh the dangers of the state college or compromised Christian college!
Creationists, is this really the new strategy?
There’s really nothing new about it. To maintain one’s position, to double down is no different than what evolutionists did when Darwin’s Black Box came out, is it?
When it becomes apparent that creationist arguments can not stand up to criticism is it really the right move to protect creationism from any type of criticism?
Is it different from the move made as evolution is protected from the criticism that ID makes of evolution? Have creationists tried to use the court system to protect something from criticism?
Is this why creationists are fighting so hard to get evolution out of the classroom?
They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom — the kind that converted Libby. It seems strange that Libby says this;
quote:
I turned again to questions of religion and realized that my faith had simply slipped away. It was gone. And you know what? I was still there. Life had gone on, and it had not lost its meaning and purpose. I still saw beauty, I still valued love, and I still had goals and dreams. And so, I closed the door on the first two decades of my life and stepped forward into the unknown, excited for what would come next.
And Kenneth Miller said this (Finding Darwin’s God, page 258)
quote:
only those who embrace the scientific reality of evolution are adequately prepared to give God the credit and power He truly deserves. By recognizing the continuing force of evolution, a religious person acknowledges that God is every bit as creative in the present as He was in the past.
Is Libby being honest, is Miller a phony?
Here’s someone who did the reverse of Libby, only he wasn’t a young student like her, he’s a PhD in biology.
VegasSlot77: Daftar Situs Agen Judi Slot Online Gacor Terpercaya 2022
Is he a phony, Is Libby a phony? Who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 2:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 05-25-2012 9:05 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 05-25-2012 9:10 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 23 by ReverendDG, posted 05-25-2012 9:20 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 10:21 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2012 4:19 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 2:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 18 of 79 (663651)
05-25-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
05-25-2012 8:46 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
The result is that the children abandon Creationism in droves and many, many end up as atheists.
Of course it is not necessary; the choices are not Creationist or Atheist; but that's the dichotomy that folk like Ken Hamm create.
People like Libby, Richard Dawkins, and countless others in science education seem to create that dichotomy also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 8:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 8:57 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 21 by ReverendDG, posted 05-25-2012 9:09 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 34 of 79 (664020)
05-28-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coyote
05-25-2012 9:05 PM


Re: On isolation...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 05-25-2012 9:05 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 43 by Briterican, posted 05-28-2012 5:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 35 of 79 (664021)
05-28-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
05-26-2012 1:18 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
But we all know marc does not consider you a christian.
A very astute observation! Just like I know that not all atheists here consider him a Christian either. (See how I give atheists credit where credit is due?) I’d say he doesn’t entertain his fellow atheists here nearly as much as he thinks he does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 05-26-2012 1:18 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 05-28-2012 6:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 36 of 79 (664022)
05-28-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ReverendDG
05-25-2012 9:09 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
marc9000 writes:
People like Libby, Richard Dawkins, and countless others in science education seem to create that dichotomy also.
they do? could you show me somewhere anyone in science has said you either have to be an atheist or creationist nothing else?
How about William Provine;
quote:
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works thought the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
-Academe January 1987 pp.51-52
http://nogod.tribe.net/...ce339d-7976-42cd-8f2b-1ff38246e495
"...this view of God is also worthless" - jar's messages make that very clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ReverendDG, posted 05-25-2012 9:09 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 39 of 79 (664025)
05-28-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Granny Magda
05-26-2012 4:19 PM


marc9000 writes:
That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.
No, there's not. That's because they are two entirely different subjects, quite distinct from each other. They are not on a continuum.
The laughable claim that evolution and atheism don’t have a thing to do with each other is probably the most prominent philosophical claim in all of science that really gets the attention of the vast majority of people who have little or no interest in the creation-evolution controversy. It begs the question — if the scientific community lies about this, what else do they lie about? This recent level of arousal of suspicion, which is a good thing, can be credited to the Intelligent Design movement. As William Dembski concisely puts it;
quote:
Critics of Intelligent Design resort to a classic defense mechanism: they project onto intelligent design the very thing that intelligent design unmasks in their own views, namely, that Darwinism, especially as it has been taken up by today’s intellectual elite, has itself become a project in theology. (The Design Revolution, page 46)
The science that was in Darwin’s Black Box clashed with that atheist theology, and the resulting firestorm of criticism of that book made it clear. The only thing that the intellectual elite could do was make rules for something to become science, and try to keep those rules just out of the reach of intelligent design. And, whether they realized it at the time or not, much of their atheist philosophy also couldn’t measure up to their rules. Testability, is probably their one rule that causes them the most trouble, because some things about Darwinism, (and its associated science of abiogenesis) can’t actually be tested. One example of many concerns the fossil record that is embraced by the scientific community. As Dr Colin Patterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, puts it;
quote:
Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But SUCH STORIES ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE, FOR THERE IS NO WAY OF PUTTING THEM TO THE TEST. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . .’
Those Fossils Are a Problem | Answers in Genesis
Quoted from Answers in Genesis from an evolutionist, important bolded and capitalized words provided by me at no extra cost.
If Answers in Genesis were to close tomorrow, If the Discovery Institute were to close tomorrow, if there would never be another court case involving intelligent design, if intelligent design were to completely cease to exist tomorrow, the one thing it has accomplished will stand for generations, that is, making clear, and inspiring questions, about the fact that many of the intellectual elites in today’s atheist scientific community don’t actually have the intellectual justification to do many of the jobs they attempt to dowith tax money. They’re in control today, but will they be tomorrow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Granny Magda, posted 05-26-2012 4:19 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Granny Magda, posted 05-29-2012 1:53 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 40 of 79 (664026)
05-28-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
05-28-2012 5:17 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
And I suppose you can provide a link to where I say that I hold the same views as William Provine or agree with his assertion?
I'VE SEEN YOU MOCK THE SPIRIT OF GOD BY CALLING HIM A "SHE". I've seen you claim that Christ "wasn't much of a Christian", I've seen you claim Christ isn't necessary for salvation, I've seen you agree with rabid atheists on just about everything. I don't expect you to agree with Provine, I'd expect anyone to look at the actions of "Christians" like you and make their own judgements about what he says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 6:08 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 05-28-2012 7:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 41 of 79 (664027)
05-28-2012 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ringo
05-28-2012 5:17 PM


Re: On isolation...
marc9000 writes:
Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge.
Scientists agree. The question is: Why do creationists want to call creationism science?
To balance the current atheism that is in science. If you wonder what that atheism is, check out anything in science that doesn't measure up to the rules that have been established for intelligent design. Abiogenesis, the SETI Institute, or anything in Darwinism that is untestable, yet speculated on and proclaimed as science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 05-28-2012 5:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 5:54 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 01-04-2018 10:56 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2018 12:22 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024