Summations Only

What is the source for his deity?The doctrine of Deism says deity created the worlds, set laws in motion, but does not involve himself in the affairs of mankind. Deism rejects all Revelation and miracles. In other words, Deism says the deity is not seen in reality. The absence of deity in reality corresponds to Atheism, which says the same.The Biblical Theos is involved with reality from cover to cover.Deism has one motive: to evade the eternal existence of matter. Atheism believes matter has had eternal existence because no deity exists to have caused its existence.Ray

It does? That's news to me, and I'm an atheist.Welcome to EvC.

Hello Percy - a 3 1/2 year bump, as forewarned by me in the "Creationist Shortage" thread. Sorry it took longer to get to than I thought, I've been busy with life. I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design. Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design. There’s always the chance that Intelligent Design could show some type of evidence of the actions of whatever Deity they believe in. Their total disregard of it logically indicates that they probably show no real belief in any type of religion.Also, creationists are aware that conflicts, such as the creation/evolution conflict, are almost always a disagreement between TWO opposing forces. It’s a rare conflict that has three or more equally opposing forces. I’ve never seen the creation/evolution controversy labeled as the creation/deist/evolution controversy, for example.In the rare conflicts that do involve three or more, I can’t imagine any that have two extremes, along with one or more central ones that don’t heavily favor one extreme or the other. We all know which side Deism and/or theistic evolution favors. Looking at the Dover transcripts, (or searching the internet) I can’t find any details about exactly what he and his wife teach/taught in Bible class and Bible camp. This famous quote of his (from the Dover case) is easy to find;

quote:

---

They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church, or that I run the music at the second service, or that my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the school board, which is a public entity and not a religious one.

---

Maybe they do know him better than he thinks! Because the Bible warns them about his type. Anyway, just before he said that, he said this;

quote:

---

I sat in a meeting when [school board member] Alan Bonsell told me he didn't agree with evolution because of his religious background. He may not have been aware of it, because I was teaching evolution as well, because natural selection was part of the curriculum for the environmental course that I had to teach.

---

It would be interesting to know if his teachings in school are compatible with his teachings in Bible class, or if he teaches conflicting things depending on where he is. Considering the common practice of accusing scientists who promote the study of Intelligent Design of being religious frauds, you should be able to understand how many creationists just may consider Bryan Rehm to be an atheist fraud. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism - that’s been the standard scientific talking point for many decades now, but repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more true. Just because countless man hours over the past 150 years have shown more and more scientific detail in biological change over time, it doesn’t magically erase the atheism that originated, promoted, and continues to promote the enthusiasm that the subject of evolution inspires. Without the atheism, it wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time — what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.

It may not be a demonization as much as it is a search for the truth. What is the difference in the beliefs of how the world works, between a Deist and an Atheist? Why is it important for Deists to (in one way) separate themselves from atheists? If you’re really looking for understanding in how creationists think, I think that’s an important question for you to answer. I’m not bumping this thread to attempt to sway anyone’s worldview, or start a flame war. I’m just going to try to better help you understand why the creationists at Dover, and sometimes forums like these, react to all evolutionists the way they do. It’s a logical reaction. There is, and always has been, a movement to weaken the hold of religion in U.S. society. Evolution is the weapon atheists use, and the deists and the catholic scientists and the Francis Collinses always seem to do little more than step aside and wink and nod. Probably because their own religions are too weak to be weakened any more.

Probably largely as a response to being on the receiving end of derogatory and inapplicable labels made to them by atheists. How many times does the term flat earther get a mention on these forums? And that’s the No True Scottsman fallacy isn’t it? Creationists are accused of that one all the time it seems. Suppose Aunt Jane is a vegetarian. We know because she tells us so. Yet she makes no secret of the fact that she chows down on a 12 oz steak every night for dinner. If I say she isn’t a true vegetarian, am I committing a fallacy? Sometimes logical fallacies aren’t very logical. If Aunt Jane wants to get on the public payroll and teach classes about her unique successes with a new kind of vegetarianism, all the while teaching delicious new ways to cook steak, chances are the taxpaying public in her area would have something to say about hiring her for that position, and they would have that right.Labels, including self proclaimed ones, aren’t automatic truth, and in certain circumstances others have a right to make determinations about how true or false they are.We saw the reference to the duck test in message 183, though that poster probably didn’t give any thought to the fact that it works more than one way.Duck test - WikipediaIt is a reasonable logic test, at least equal to, if not far beyond many of the logical fallacies that have been dreamed up in liberal universities to distract attention when a liberal/atheist is having trouble in a debate. Creationists tend to remember the Biblical phrase by their fruits shall ye know them. So when Deists and other religious evolutionists look and behave like atheists, they share a large part of the blame when some other members of society determine them to be no different than atheists in their political views, including a desire to weaken the hold of traditional religion.

You already said you don't know what he teaches in Bible class, but you know he's one of "that type." That's pitiful and pitiable both, Marc.

And yet the fruits of creationism do not make a particularly edifying spectacle. If we are to know people like Gish and Hovind and Chick by their fruits, then they don't seem particularly Christian.As for you ... well, unless you have a note from your doctor saying that you only have one cheek, I think you could get a little more obedient to Jesus.As you say yourself: So, those are the fruits of creationism, are they? A malicious desire to avenge an injury to your pride? That's not what Jesus actually advocated is it? And yet you "tend to remember the Biblical phrase by their fruits shall ye know them", and you adjudge yourself a true Christian.Well, you're not quacking like one, are you? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.Have you ever wondered why so many of these fallacies have Latin names? Hint: it's not because they were dreamed up in liberal universities for the benefit of liberal atheists.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Surely the whole not-being-at-all-true thing makes it something less than logical?

People have been saying that two twos are four for years, and that hasn't gotten any more true either. It doesn't magically erase the flocks of flying pigs circling overhead either. OK, that may be even funnier than your rantings about logical fallacies. Perhaps you don't find the history of life interesting, but why suppose that everyone else would naturally your brutish philistinism concerning this subject?And if the sole interest of this fascinating subject was (as per your fantasy) contingent on its imaginary historical relationship with atheism, then why would it fascinate non-stupid theists as well?

I don't think that is even true.It is not the concept that people object to.The objection

• is to the dishonest claim that ID is science, when thus far we have seen only philosophy;
• is to the dishonest political maneuvering, trying to get religion into the science class by misrepresenting what ID is;
• is to the dishonest "teach the controversy" nonsense, when there is no scientific controversy.

I don't have a problem with that, and I suspect that most scientists would not have a problem with that. But don't claim it is science, unless and until you have a substantial body of scientific ID research to back that up. If they ever do come up with genuine credible evidence, scientists will take notice.

Well, I'm not sure about that. After all, there are religious people, even Christians, who have never bothered to read the Book of Mormon. Now perhaps you'd think "anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight" in the possibility of a fresh divine revelation. And Christians in particular, on being informed that there's another gospel of Jesus Christ, should surely be all agog to look into it. And yet for some reason the general reaction even from supposedly devout theists --- even from supposedly devout Christians --- has largely been "meh".

Since you believe deists are just atheists by another name, this deist/atheist is so interested in intelligent design that he dedicated an entire forum of his discussion board to it. Your messages are full of statements that reflect extreme unfamiliarity with the very people you're debating with. Your opinions never seem influenced by your experience, or even the dictionary for that matter.I feel about intelligent design the same way I feel about life on Mars. I'm extremely interested in both, but I await evidence.--Percy

Wait, I've not finished mocking you yet. This post is a gold-mine. Why don't you try applying this criterion to the members of whatever church you belong to? After the service is over, pick a few of your fellow-congregants at random and ask them to name one book by William Dembski or to summarize one argument of Michael Behe.I think you'll be surprised at how many of them are "the most militant of atheists" who "show no real belief in any type of religion". Presumably they're just there for the free bread and wine, I can't think why else they'd show up.

The scientific community would take notice of ID if it were at all scientific. Rather, ID is a political/social/religious movement, not scientific; a major founder and leader is a lawyer. Instead of doing scientific research, the ID movement, spearheaded by the Discovery Institute, has dedicated itself to a long-term plan for social change whose goal is to reshape both society and science itself by requiring science to incorporate the supernatural -- I started a topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), asking for some kind of ID plan for how such a science was supposed to work and in a total of 396 messages no suitable answer could be given. Instead of conducting scientific research, their efforts go into trying to affect public opinion, befitting a purely social/political movement, but not a scientific one. And then in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), in which the courts found that "creation science" is sectarian religion, the creationists shifted their decades-long game of "Hide the Bible" into a new game of "Hide the Creationism" by adopting ID as a new front with which to deceive the public and the courts. And in addition to all that, ID is firmly based on the false theology of The God of the Gaps which teaches that proof of God is in the gaps of our scientific knowledge, which is a primary source of the false idea that advances in science attack and disprove God, thus feeding the false belief, that you have advocated vehemently, that there is a war between science and religion -- any such war is purely in the minds of mistaken extremists on religion's side. BTW, God of the Gaps thinking is endemic among creationists.If ID wants to be accepted by the scientific community, then it needs to do science! No, the world is not black-and-white, despite the fundamentalist that you and Dan Barker (pre-salvation) shared. Not only is the world mostly gray, but there are many more than just two "polarities". Hopefully, one day the scales will fall from your eyes too and you will no longer be blind.Also, there is no "creation/evolution controversy" nor "creation/evolution conflict", except purely of creationist manufacture. And the reason for such a false fabrication is the fundamentalist theologies that form the basis of creationism that insists that certain contrary-to-fact (and hence false) claims must be true or else there is no Scripture and God either does not exist or is not worthy of worship and you should all become atheists. Which is, of course, why so many of your children, raised on those false teachings, are becoming atheists. Your own stupid fault, not that of science. Well, of course you are extremely concerned as you need to be! After having raised your (pl) children on a pack of lies that will be exposed as soon as they learn any science, it is very much in your interest that they never learn any science! You realize full well that they must all be kept in abject ignorance their entire lives. Their very souls depend on it!But wouldn't a far better idea be to stop lying to your children? Teach your children the scientific truth from the start, along with an actual harmonization of their theology with reality instead of the massive denial of reality and pack of lies that you now teach. If you were to do that, then you would never have anything to fear from science. But as long as you continue to teach your children lies, including the Grand Lie that their very faith depends on those lies, then you must forever fear science. How pitiful! And stupid!Also, as you want to paint the Rehms as "atheists", please tell us exactly what an atheist is! Give us a definitive definition of "atheist," so that we can determine whether the Rehms are atheists.Is somebody who believes in a god or gods other than YHWH (AKA "Yodh-Hah-Vav-Hah", AKA "the Tetragrammaton") an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.Is somebody who believes in YHWH, but is not a Christian, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.Is somebody who is a Christian, but is not of your particular sect, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.Not every Christian believes nor teaches fundamentalist and creationist lies. Does that make them atheists? But True Christianity should be in harmony with reality, shouldn't it? (If you disagree, then explain why!) Since your sect is in conflict with reality every which way it turns, wouldn't that make your sect the "atheists"?Define your terms! And yet, as I have solidly established, it is fundamentalism and its reliance on "creation science" that that is the cause of atheism. Not evolution, which does not conflict in any way with Divine Creation. Not science, which does not conflict in any way with Divine Creation. But rather fundamentalism and "creation science" which teach lies about how the world must be in order for God to exist. Stop teaching lies! What part of that is so impossible to understand?

quote:

---

I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design.

---

Which just proves the point that ID is religion and not science.ID started out as an attack on scientific education in high schools, in the name of religious indoctrination. And according to you, when scientists object to that they are attacked as enemies of religion.Well, there you are.

quote:

---

Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design. There’s always the chance that Intelligent Design could show some type of evidence of the actions of whatever Deity they believe in. Their total disregard of it logically indicates that they probably show no real belief in any type of religion.

---

There is a huge difference between showing "some interest" and uncritical acceptance. At best ID was a fringe idea that had to work for acceptance - and came up short. Add to that the whole business of trying to get into schools before ID even could have been accepted as mainstream science (it's a long process) and I can see scientists being just a little upset at the presumption of the ID movement.

quote:

---

Also, creationists are aware that conflicts, such as the creation/evolution conflict, are almost always a disagreement between TWO opposing forces. It’s a rare conflict that has three or more equally opposing forces. I’ve never seen the creation/evolution controversy labeled as the creation/deist/evolution controversy, for example.

---

Which means that Creationists have a very simplistic view of the world.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to know if his teachings in school are compatible with his teachings in Bible class, or if he teaches conflicting things depending on where he is. Considering the common practice of accusing scientists who promote the study of Intelligent Design of being religious frauds, you should be able to understand how many creationists just may consider Bryan Rehm to be an atheist fraud.

---

Of course high school teachers aren't meant to promote their personal religious beliefs in class. There's no conflict between teaching the curriculum in schools and religious beliefs in privately-run Bible classes. That's the way it is MEANT to work.But of course I understand - it seems to be normal for creationists to hate and slander anyone who directs any criticism of them or people considered to be on their side.

quote:

---

Without the atheism, it wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time — what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.

---

Of course this is complete nonsense. Lots of kids are fascinated by dinosaurs and fossils without understanding actual evolutionary theory. Science is all about understanding the wonderful universe we live in and a lot of people ARE interested in that without considering the religious implications. If you want a specific topic of great interest, consider human origins - evolution has told us a lot about that. Many people are interested in knowledge - the truth is more to us than an excuse to reject the authority of creationists, no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise.Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tags