|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
About as good as a Masters of Science from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School. When the accredidation visitation committee was there, they witnessed the biochemistry class in session. It used the same textbook as a leading university class would, but the instructor was leading the class through the book, page by page, telling them what to cross out because "We don't believe that."
BJU is known for "spring cleaning", as the student body calls it. They take your money and then towards the end of the semester or even when you're just a couple weeks from graduating, they expel you for having committed serious offenses, such as watching "Glee": http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-782503 One response on that CNN page about Chris Peterman's expulsion was from a graduate of BJU:
quote: Edited by dwise1, : added quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
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.
Taq writes: Is this why creationists are fighting so hard to get evolution out of the classroom? marc900 writes: They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom — the kind that converted Libby. You can say this all you like; in practice, creationists are trying to get evolution out of classrooms. Claiming that evolution and atheism are synonymous does not make it so.
Is Libby being honest, is Miller a phony? They're both being honest, they just hold different opinions, as they are entitled to do. Now of course Ken Ham is entitled to his own opinions as well, but he is not entitled to his own facts. Since many of the claims made by AiG are counter-factual, he is not entitled to call them educative. That's why people are calling it indoctrination, not because Ham's opinions are wrong, but because his "facts" are in fact falsehoods. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Claiming that evolution and atheism are synonymous does not make it so. Absolutely ! My mother for one, would be very surprised if it were true - she has a first class honours degree in biochemistry from London University and attends church every Sunday
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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: http://nogod.tribe.net/...ce339d-7976-42cd-8f2b-1ff38246e495 "...this view of God is also worthless" - jar's messages make that very clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
Scientists agree. The question is: Why do creationists want to call creationism science?
Creationists realize that science isn’t the only source of knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
"...this view of God is also worthless" - jar's messages make that very clear. 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? Or is this just another example of you misrepresenting my position and posts?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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: 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:
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
If science is so riddled with atheism, I would think you'd want to divorce yourself from science as much as possible. Yet organizations like AiG seem to want their followers to think they have the Real Science™. Why not just stick with The Truth™?
ringo writes:
To balance the current atheism that is in science.
Why do creationists want to call creationism science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 3978 days) Posts: 340 Joined:
|
marc9000 writes: For one thing, creationists recognize the profoundness of the differences of humans from animals. ...but, but, but... humans ARE animals, and anyone in their right mind will recognise that the similarities between humans and the other animals far outweigh the differences. The rest of that paragraph is so full of misconceptions of reality as to be classified as twaddle. I see a whole lot more nonsense following that, but to address it point-by-point would be quite unnecessary given that there are already existing threads that adequately refute your suppositions:
1)the lack of transitional fossils that evolutionists desperately wish they had - see RAZD's thread Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process 2)the order and obvious purpose we see in countless different natural systems of the world, from biology to astronomy - Teleology comes up in threads all the time. Explanations that involve teleology are avoided in science and for good reason.
3) the lack of scientific ability to naturalistically explain the origins of life - There are numerous threads on abiogenesis, at least two of which were started by yourself. You obviously didn't read those threads, or just chose not to accept the very viable possibilities for abiogenesis that were presented to you therein.
marc9000 writes: 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. I find it ironic that you try to insult atheism by comparing it to religion. Atheists don't go nearly as far as religious people to "force their view" on others. Proselytising is a much more religious thing. Atheists, when they are forceful, tend to be so in response to action by religious organisations that threaten to introduce this week's flavour of mumbo-jumbo into the classroom. You seem to ascribe to atheists the very worldview that more aptly describes the religious mind, i.e. "It's right and you shouldn't even question it". It is the very act of questioning things that tends to lead one away from theism, even if not always as far away as to qualify as atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
To balance the current atheism that is in science. Yeah, let's balance the imaginary with the false!
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. There isn't anything in science like ID. There isn't anything in science remotely like ID. And marc, there never will be anything in science like ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Then why did you make the statement that you did?
And of course, Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. That's pretty basic material. I suppose you can point to some of my actions to support your position?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024