Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8819 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-21-2018 1:30 PM
329 online now:
Coyote, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, xongsmith (8 members, 321 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 825,983 Year: 806/29,783 Month: 806/1,849 Week: 14/324 Day: 14/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate
marc9000
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


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.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/parker.htm

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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29916
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(4)
Message 17 of 79 (663650)
05-25-2012 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
05-24-2012 2:05 PM


Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
Folk like AIG, like Ken Hamm and Georgia Purdom, folk like ICR, are the best recruiters that Atheism could possible have or even imagine. Their whole indoctrination program is designed to cause folk to deconvert from Christianity and it is amazingly effective.

They say that if the Genesis six day creation just 6000 years ago is NOT true then God is a liar.

So as soon as a child gets exposed to the real world, to reality, then find out that the Universe was not created in just six days 6000 years ago and so according to Ken Hamm, God is a liar.

They learn that the Biblical flood myths are just stories and so again, God must be a liar.

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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 2:05 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:52 PM jar has responded

  
marc9000
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 906
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29916
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 19 of 79 (663653)
05-25-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
Not at all.

As a Christian I can find few areas where I would disagree with Dawkins.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:52 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 05-26-2012 1:18 PM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6052
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.8


(5)
Message 20 of 79 (663655)
05-25-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


On isolation...
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.

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?

Thanks, I'll stick with science. At least science has a reliable method for separating reality from the nonsense above.

That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.

There's no defined line where peanuts stop and quartz crystals start either. Two different things entirely.

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.

And see signature, below...


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 4:58 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


(3)
Message 21 of 79 (663656)
05-25-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
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?

or is that your perception because you believe that and are projecting?
i've never seen dawkins say you have to be either a creationist or an atheist, i have seen him harshly criticize christians who don't do anything to condemn their extreme members though.

heck i find some of the things dawkins says wrong, and i'm an atheist, i don't find "memes" to be that persuasive as a concept for instance.

creationists do on the other hand create that false dichotomy, mostly i've found because they believe in a war between darkness and light.
they are the light, us evil atheists are the darkness. and we are at war.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:52 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:10 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 22 of 79 (663657)
05-25-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


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?

Yes, it's quite different. Scientists responded to the arguments Behe made and showed why he was wrong. They didn't simply repeat the same errors over and over again.

Is it different from the move made as evolution is protected from the criticism that ID makes of evolution?

Evolution isn't protected from criticism. You might have heard of a book Michael Behe wrote, called Darwin's Black Box.

Creationism has been eliminated from public schools, but that's because it's religion, not because it criticizes evolution. And if you think that the main place that science is challenged is high school, you're sadly out of touch.

Have creationists tried to use the court system to protect something from criticism?

No, they've gone to school boards and legislatures to get something promoted in science class that is obviously not science.

Those who have gone to court have done so, not to protect the Theory of Evolution, but to keep religion out of public schools. You might notice that not one single lawsuit has been filed to keep creationism out of private schools. Why do you think that is?

They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom – the kind that converted Libby.

No, it's science that converted Libby. If you don't want science to drive your children away from religion, then don't hold religious beliefs that science shows are wrong.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 1762 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


(1)
Message 23 of 79 (663658)
05-25-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


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.

yeah indoctrination in how to refuse to understand science and lie.
just because you can magic up another term for it, doesn't make it any less indoctrination meant to create a wall between the followers brain and the truth.

.. that science is just another imperfect human endeavor, that it's not the only source of knowledge.

see this is what i'm talking about, this is the type of thinking they are trying to indoctrinate into people, seems that includes you... this idea that in order to matter, be useful, or have correct answers it must reach impossible heights in order to matter, to useful or to have correct answers.

with that thinking that is only one thing, and science isn't attempting to usurp it, but the priests of creationism claim science is attempting to.

considering atheism is only one thing and it has nothing to do with science i don't know why you even make the absurd claim that science and it are connected in any way.
sure you can point to what science has found and draw the conclusion that your atheism is justified but so can everyone else for their own beliefs.

i guess i can assume that you think that unless science talks about god, it rejects god right? since that seems to be the only way creationists can think about science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3064
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 24 of 79 (663686)
05-26-2012 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
05-25-2012 5:40 PM


The creationists are trying to isolate their members? No, that is what they used to have. Now with the Internet and the World Wide Web, they are no longer able to isolate their members. Sure, they want to regain that level of control, but in all honesty, they've lost it.

AiG really does point to evidence as justification for a belief in creationism. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, at least in my view.

I worked two summers in Germany, 1973 and 1974.

One year, a German co-worker offered me an assessment of Operation Barbarosa, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. He said that up to the point, Hitler had been spreading his propaganda about German capabilities being so high and their equipage being so high, that he had worked himself into a corner. Even though the Germans were nowhere near ready for a protracted confrontation with the Soviets, his entire propaganda machinery kept proclaiming that they were more than ready. So he had to move, even though he was not actually ready to.

After that summer, my Russian History professor offered another interpretation: the continental European mind has no concept of actual distances. On the Continent, you can cross an entire nation within one single day or far less. With Blitzkrieg, you can overrun an entire nation (eg, Poland) within a single day or so. But then the Wehrmacht set out against the Soviet Union. And day after day after week after week after month they ground their way through the steppes of Russia, arriving at the top of the nex hill only to see yet another expanse of steppe leading to the top of the next hill only to see yet another expanse of steppe ... . Similarly, a European with friends in different parts of the USA cannot understand why friends situated 3,000 miles distant cannot just quickly pop over for a quick visit, just like in Europe.

Similarly, creationist propaganda says that it has mountains of evidence. What evidence? They never present it.

In 1985, I attended a creationist debate in Long Beach, Calif. The opposite sides were Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) vs Dr. Frank Awbrey and Dr. Bill Thwaites of San Diego State University. Before the debate, I had been discussing at work with a creationist, who also attended the same debate in Long Beach. Part of the discussion at work had pertained to Dr. Duane Gish's bogus claims about the bombadier beetle. When I connected with my work-place friend at that debate, almost every creationist table proudly displayed their books on the bombadier beetle, already proven to be bogus, and to him a glaring example of a creationist failing.

At the end of that debate, I had extra grist to grind, especially regarding the ICR's false moondust claims. But I especially remember my friend leaving that debate muttering the same thing over and over again: "We have mountains of evidence for creation. Why didn't they present any of it? We have mountains of evidence ..."
I didn't see him until a few years later. At that point, he was completely and totally disenchanted with creationists.

Also, creationists are themselves entrapped by their own lies. By their own propaganda, as described by my German co-worker.

Of course, we all know that the only reason why creationists oppose the teaching of evolution in the schools is because of their religious beliefs. But in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968), et al., that purely religious opposition to evolution is no longer valid. So they lie about their opposition to evolution as being "scientific", even though everybody, and finally the federal courts circa 1987, knew that was just an enormous lie.

{the entire idea of having to shield Christian children from reality}

I agree that it is absolutely and positively ridiculous.

If Christian truths are indeed true, then they should have nothing to fear from reality.

But reality shows that those "Christian truths" are all bogus and false.

The Christian response is to try to protect their so-called "truths" to be protected from reality.

The response by those who are actually interested in the truth is, "What the f***?" The response by those who care nothing for the truth, but rather are blindly beholding to dogma, is to ignore that there is any question.

The real problem is that the genie is out of the bottle.

The creationist community, the fundamentalist community, used to be limited and isolated. But no longer. The Worldwide Web has eliminated that. Those fundamentalist students whom you used to be able to limit? No longer! They can now go out and converse with others. Oh, sure, those first communications are ... weird. Creationists first communicating with normals? But once the genie is out of the bottle, there's no stopping it! OK, too many creationists are unable to handle it, but I don't know what we can do for them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 5:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10217
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 25 of 79 (663740)
05-26-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
05-25-2012 5:40 PM


Then why even look at the evidence? Why does AiG spend so much time discussing the evidence? If you already believe that you are right and can not be wrong, then why do you need evidence? From Libby's blog:

....

AiG really does point to evidence as justification for a belief in creationism. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, at least in my view.

It is necessary to deal with the evidence, because the alternative is to believe that the external world is complete lie. The real world cannot be avoided by staying in church 24/7. AiG's position is that the Bible does conform to the evidence, but that secular sources distort the evidence.

I am going to have to disagree on that one. Dr. Purdom included a link to this book. In it, they tell parents which christian schools teach evolution and which do not. Clearly, this is a guide of where to send your kids so their beliefs won't be challenged. Also, Ken Ham says the following:

I don't see the contradiction. Creationists believe that evolution is perpetrated by liars and that it is not true science. Why would they want those lies taught to their children in a way that makes them seem plausible? Creation Scientists would not believe or agree that biology books accurately portraying the evidence. That's our description of the textbooks.

I am not questioning your description of what Creationists do. But I do question your description of their mindset.

Perhaps Ham ultimately is a dissembling and his motives are dishonest, but I don't believe you can demonstrate it using the evidence you've given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 05-25-2012 5:40 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15997
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(4)
Message 26 of 79 (663749)
05-26-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


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.

What else is there? Tarot cards? Pendulum dowsing? Believing a story about a talking snake without a shred of evidence for it? In what sense would the latter be "knowledge"? Would it also be "knowledge" if someone believed the Norse myths without evidence for them?

That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.

If true, that would be an excellent argument for atheism.

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?

Actually, by and large they ignored his trivial mistakes, though one or two bestirred themselves to point 'em out.

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?

No, nor have evolutionists. They have, however, used the court system to prevent children from being illegally taught religiously-motivated crap. Creationists are free to criticize all they like, just not to spend taxpayers' money on teaching nonsense to children.

Here’s someone who did the reverse of Libby, only he wasn’t a young student like her, he’s a PhD in biology.

http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/parker.htm

Is he a phony

Well, he's either a phoney or a fool. Consider this:

One concerns the word "paraconformity". In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb.

It is surely not beyond his ability to look up the word "paraconformity". It has nothing to do with "fossil systems out of order".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15997
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 27 of 79 (663751)
05-26-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-25-2012 4:45 PM


Didn't Willie Sutton say something about "That's where the money is"?

No, he didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 4:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 10:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29916
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 28 of 79 (663753)
05-26-2012 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 10:26 AM


Well, I bet he wished he'd said that.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 10:26 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 29 of 79 (663757)
05-26-2012 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
05-25-2012 8:57 PM


Re: Folk like AIG are the best recruiters Atheism could possibly find.
But we all know marc does not consider you a christian.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 8:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-26-2012 1:28 PM Theodoric has acknowledged this reply
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 05-28-2012 5:00 PM Theodoric has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29916
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


(2)
Message 30 of 79 (663758)
05-26-2012 1:28 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.
And of course just like the nonsense of a young earth or that the Biblical Flood ever happened he would be factually wrong about that too.

I mean, come on; does anyone seriously think that an education at Liberty University or Bob Jones could be comparable to one from Harvard or Yale or Bard or Columbia?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 05-26-2012 3:10 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018