Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-22-2017 1:04 PM
382 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kbertsche, LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 376 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Happy Birthday: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,815 Year: 27,421/21,208 Month: 1,334/1,714 Week: 177/365 Day: 19/62 Hour: 0/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Is creationism winning in Turkey & Korea?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2999
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 61 of 77 (665912)
06-19-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Portillo
06-19-2012 4:29 AM


Those were the "Back to Genesis" seminars, which Ken Ham developed and operated for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, the original creators of "creation science") when he came to the USA to work for the ICR in the late 1980's. He brought to the ICR a stronger evangelical spirit (via "Back to Genesis") and greater and more publically apparent intolerance of other creationists (as already noted here). It wasn't until he left the ICR in 1994 that he founded Answers in Genesis-USA.

But, yet again, Ken Ham's coming to America long after the fact has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of creationism in Australia; for all appearances, you seem to be trying to change the subject from that question. However, in the history of Answers in Genesis on Wikipedia, they note that it was founded in 1980 by two Australian creationist organizations, both of which were formed in the late 1970's, nearly a decade after the creation of "creation science" by the ICR. The history then goes into the legal battles between the Australian and US branches.

BTW, to bring us back on topic, there's this statement in the history of the ICR:

quote:
In 1985, the ICR helped Turkey’s education minister Vehbi Dinçerler, introduce creationism in Turkish high schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Portillo, posted 06-19-2012 4:29 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Portillo, posted 06-20-2012 7:02 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 62 of 77 (665949)
06-20-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by dwise1
06-19-2012 3:44 PM


I didnt say that Ken Ham created creationism, just that two of the worlds main creation orgs were founded in Australia. I agree that modern creation started with Henry Morris and John Whitcomb.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


Can thine heart endure or can thine hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with thee? I the Lord have spoken it and will do it. - Ezekial 22:14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by dwise1, posted 06-19-2012 3:44 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Mr. Factnet
Junior Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-26-2012


Message 63 of 77 (666409)
06-26-2012 6:05 PM


Hi. I’m the forum administrator at Factnet. We’ve recently been trying to stimulate an evolution vs. creationism discussion, with a few threads started in that direction. In my search of sources, I came across EvC Forum; and am very impressed. You guys have it all here, with no topic within the evolution/creationism debate left unexplored. I’m going to be doing a lot of reading here, because I find this website inspirational and motivating.

Having said that, I’ll mention that I’ve recently read Eugenie Scott’s book, "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction," copyright 2009, where she mentions Ken Ham and his work with the Institute for Creation Research; and "Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, copyright 2004 by Oxford University Press.

I apologize if I’m repeating what’s already been said here; but from what I’ve learned Ken Ham founded the Australian Creation Science Foundation in 1978, then came to work for the Institute for Creation Research in 1987; and eventually spun off Answers in Genesis which he co-founded with Carl Wieland, a young-Earth creationist. From what I understand, Ken Ham owns and operates Kentucky’s Creation Museum that promotes young-Earth creationism. What’s disturbing is that Ham’s daily radio program is heard on more than 800 stations in the United States (and dozens more overseas), and he’s probably the most influential creationist in the world.

Ken Ham has some strange beliefs, like telling us that geologic time is wrong because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. He wrote “Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../23/young-earth-not-issue

Ham even equates justification for racial discrimination to evolutionary theory in his book "One Blood." He plays the Hitler card by saying this kind of thinking “inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies.” Typical "reductio ad Hitlerum" tactic.

As a young-Earth creationist, Ken Ham believes that the Universe and everything in it was created by an invisible supernatural being less than ten thousand years ago, that Noah’s Flood happened around 4500 years ago, and that the animals carried aboard the Ark produced the biological diversity observed on Earth. He also believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Old-Earth creationists have called Ham “willfully ignorant of evidence for an old Earth,” and said he “deliberately misleads” his audiences on matters of both science and theology.”

http://www.oldearth.org/...daily/2005/20050912_ham_truth.htm

It’s difficult to comprehend such a mind-set as Ken Ham’s, or young-Earth creationists in general. All I can say is that I’m glad he and his ilk are not in control of science standards within our public schools.

If any of you would like to contribute to the discussion at Factnet, you would be welcome.

http://factnet.org/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?1367-Evolution


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by 1.61803, posted 06-26-2012 6:13 PM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-27-2012 12:25 AM Mr. Factnet has responded
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 06-27-2012 12:53 PM Mr. Factnet has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2725
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 64 of 77 (666411)
06-26-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mr. Factnet
06-26-2012 6:05 PM


The onus is on YEC to dispel the evidence that directly contradicts the premise of a Earth less than 4.5 billion years.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-26-2012 6:05 PM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3559
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 65 of 77 (666420)
06-27-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mr. Factnet
06-26-2012 6:05 PM


The "Origin of Species" that first made it to Nazi Germany
Ham even equates justification for racial discrimination to evolutionary theory in his book "One Blood." He plays the Hitler card by saying this kind of thinking “inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies.” Typical "reductio ad Hitlerum" tactic.

I tracked this down in one of my messages in a "Links and Information" topic:

quote:
"[W]hat reached Germany was not the English version of Origin of Species, it was a translation by German paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn that was a main source of German notions of Darwinian evolution, and those notions were a distortion of Darwin's views. Bronn had a substantially different conception of evolution than Darwin, and Bronn's translation apparently incorporated a good bit of his own conception rather than being a straight translation of Darwin. Bronn even added an extra chapter to OoS incorporate his own ideas."

See the above link for the source links of this quote.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Took the "the" out of "Origin of the Species" in subtitle.

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Took "s" out of "Origins" in subtitle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-26-2012 6:05 PM Mr. Factnet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-27-2012 10:34 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
Mr. Factnet
Junior Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-26-2012


Message 66 of 77 (666435)
06-27-2012 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Minnemooseus
06-27-2012 12:25 AM


Re: The "Origin of Species" that first made it to Nazi Germany
I didn’t know about the “German translation” of Darwin’s Origins, Minnemooseus. Thanks for the information.

I think people who have not spent the time to educate themselves are confused about the term “survival of the fittest.” It was actually Herbert Spencer who coined the term (in his book Principles of Biology published in 1864), and took it to a new level, saying that everything is the result of evolution. Not just animals and plants; but social structures and economic systems. Spencer thought that the term “survival of the fittest” was more general than Darwin’s “natural selection.” His ideas were so popular that people started using “survival of the fittest” even when describing Darwin’s theory.

Many people told Darwin that Spencer’s phrase was more direct and memorable than “natural selection,” which was, in their minds, harder to picture and grasp. So, Darwin reluctantly revised the fifth edition of the Origins of Species (published in 1869) to include the notion of survival of the fittest, and gave due credit to Spencer by writing “the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate and sometimes equally convenient.”

Critics of Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection tend to connect “survival of the fittest” to the “weeding out of the weak” as in Eugenics and will always eventually bring up Hitler; but those who actually know and have studied evolutionary biology realize that this is merely out-of-context quote mining and misinterpretation for political and religious reasons. A proper understanding of evolution would result in the knowledge that we’re talking about “descent with modification,” which Darwin used in proposing that Earth’s many species are descendants of ancestral species that were different from the present-day species. Another definition of evolution is “change in the genetic composition of a population from generation to generation.” Focusing on “survival of the fittest,” and trying to twist that into some sort of evil plan to get rid of those who are physically or mentally challenged is nothing but anti-scientific creationist rhetoric. Genuine scientists know that evolution is a fundamental organizing principle in biology, and that, as Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

http://factnet.org/vbforum/search.php?searchid=81710


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-27-2012 12:25 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13876
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 67 of 77 (666445)
06-27-2012 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mr. Factnet
06-26-2012 6:05 PM


Mr. Factnet writes:

He plays the Hitler card by saying this kind of thinking “inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies.”


I think Hitler was pretty thoroughly inspired already and didn't need much encouragement from Darwin.

If I recall correctly, he believed that Aryans were specially created by God but Jews and Gypsies - well, practically everybody else - evolved from apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-26-2012 6:05 PM Mr. Factnet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by 1.61803, posted 06-28-2012 4:30 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-28-2012 4:44 PM ringo has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2725
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 68 of 77 (666573)
06-28-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
06-27-2012 12:53 PM


They also took some inspiration from Nietzsche "will to power". Much of the intellectual elite Germans where bombarded by the propaganda of supremacy. One can only take so much Wagner before one snaps.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 06-27-2012 12:53 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Mr. Factnet
Junior Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-26-2012


Message 69 of 77 (666574)
06-28-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
06-27-2012 12:53 PM


I’ve read where Heinrich Himmler believed that Aryans had not “evolved from monkeys and apes like other races,” but had come down to earth from the heavens, where they had been preserved in ice from the beginning of time (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, copyright 2005, by Sam Harris).

I haven’t seen any sources that say Hitler believed this, though he considered the Jews to be “parasites,” “inferior,” and that Aryan states are based on the principles of work and cultural development.

Did Adolph Hitler ever address the topic of human evolution? I think that any attempt to discredit evolution through guilt by association with Hitler comes from creationist propaganda. They try to link Darwin with Hitler and blame Darwin for the Holocaust. The Discovery Institute has been particularly active in this rhetoric. They published “From Darwin to Hitler,” by Richard Weikart (a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute).

Blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming Jesus for the Inquisition, or Mohammed for 9/11. I doubt that anyone could find any influence of evolutionary thinking on Hitler. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural selection or biological evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 06-27-2012 12:53 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2012 4:33 AM Mr. Factnet has responded
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 06-29-2012 12:38 PM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 70 of 77 (666608)
06-29-2012 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Mr. Factnet
06-28-2012 4:44 PM


Did Adolph Hitler ever address the topic of human evolution?

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-28-2012 4:44 PM Mr. Factnet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Mr. Factnet, posted 07-01-2012 11:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 76 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-31-2012 8:44 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13876
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 71 of 77 (666665)
06-29-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Mr. Factnet
06-28-2012 4:44 PM


Mr. Factnet writes:

Did Adolph Hitler ever address the topic of human evolution?

I did a quick Google and found http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml.

quote:
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

From the URL, I thought for a minute that it was a creationst site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Mr. Factnet, posted 06-28-2012 4:44 PM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded

  
Mr. Factnet
Junior Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-26-2012


Message 72 of 77 (666992)
07-01-2012 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2012 4:33 AM


Unreliable Sources
Dr. Adequate -- From those quotes you posted by Hitler from Mein Kampf and Hitler’s Table Talk, it sounds like he was a creationist. Also in Hitler’s Table Talk, he says that God “hurls the masses of humanity on to the Earth, and he leaves it to each one to work out his own salvation.” Sounds Deist.

I’ve read where some experts have advised caution using Hitler’s Table Talk as a historical source. In The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Hector Avalos says, in the section “Atheism Was Not the Cause of the Holocaust (page 381),” that “as an academic historian, there are a least three problems with using this source:

(1) There are no extant manuscripts from Hitler’s own hand of this cource. We have no audio tapes to verify the transcripts. What we have are reputed copies which often have been filtered through Martin Bormann, Hitler’s adjutant. The fact that versions agree sufficiently to propose a common source does nto necessarily prove that this common source was Hitler himself.

(2) The versions are sometimes discrepant. Some passages are missing from the edition of Trevor-Roper relative to the edition of Picker. So it is difficult to tell what comes from Hitler and what comes from the editors.

(3) Trevor-Roper authenticated the Hitler Diaries, despite the fact that they later proved to be forgeries. Genoud is also a questionable character who may have been involved in forgery. And as Carrier has shown, both the Genoud and Trevor-Roper editions often egregiously mistranslate the original German.

In addition, a main intermediate in all known versions of Table Talk is Hitler’s personal secretary, Martin Bormann, who was known fort his anti-Christian views. So sometimes we may be reading Bormann’s thoughts rather than Hitler’s.”

So, as you can see, Hitler’s Table Talk may not be reliable as a historical source.

Mr. Factnet

http://factnet.org/

Edited by Mr. Factnet, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2012 4:33 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2012 12:44 AM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded
 Message 74 by caffeine, posted 07-02-2012 8:47 AM Mr. Factnet has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15972
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 73 of 77 (666995)
07-02-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mr. Factnet
07-01-2012 11:03 PM


Re: Unreliable Sources
You may be right; but when the Tabletalk concurs exactly with statements made in public speeches and in Mein Kampf, it's not unreasonable to think that we're getting Hitler's drift.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mr. Factnet, posted 07-01-2012 11:03 PM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 74 of 77 (667005)
07-02-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mr. Factnet
07-01-2012 11:03 PM


Re: Unreliable Sources
Albrecht Speer, who was present at many of Hitler's speeches, claimed that the book was a genuine reputation of Hitler's views. However, he also said that they were much abridged accounts containing only the highlights, which didn't give a clear view of the crushing tedium of Hitler's endless blathering, so it's possible he wasn't paying enough attention to know if details were correct.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mr. Factnet, posted 07-01-2012 11:03 PM Mr. Factnet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Mr. Factnet, posted 07-02-2012 10:28 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Mr. Factnet
Junior Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 06-26-2012


Message 75 of 77 (667013)
07-02-2012 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by caffeine
07-02-2012 8:47 AM


Re: Unreliable Sources
At any rate, we were talking about Ken Ham in relationship to creationism. As a young-earth creationist propagandist, Ham writes books aimed at children telling them that God created the Earth six thousand years ago; like his anti-evolution book Dinosaurs for Kids, and The Lie: Evolution (which opens with a drawing depicting evolution as the basis of pornography, abortion, homosexuality, and lawlessness). He links evolution to Nazism, drugs, and racism.

Ken Ham fills kids with lies about the fossil record and coaches them to talk back and disrespect their teachers. He tours the country indoctrinating young children to believe that biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are liars, that dinosaurs lived with humans, and that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Not to mention the “Creation Museum” in Kentucky, promoting young-Earth creationism, which Ken Ham owns and operates.

An article by Stephanie Simon in the February 11, 2006 issue of the Los Angeles Times describes Ham’s techniques:

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/11/nation/na-creation11

WAYNE, N.J. — Evangelist Ken Ham smiled at the 2,300 elementary students packed into pews, their faces rapt. With dinosaur puppets and silly cartoons, he was training them to reject much of geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology as a sinister tangle of lies.

"Boys and girls," Ham said. If a teacher so much as mentions evolution, or the Big Bang, or an era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, "you put your hand up and you say, 'Excuse me, were you there?' Can you remember that?"

The children roared their assent.

"Sometimes people will answer, 'No, but you weren't there either,' " Ham told them. "Then you say, 'No, I wasn't, but I know someone who was, and I have his book about the history of the world.' " He waved his Bible in the air.

"Who's the only one who's always been there?" Ham asked.

"God!" the boys and girls shouted.

"Who's the only one who knows everything?"

"God!"

"So who should you always trust, God or the scientists?"

The children answered with a thundering: "God!"

A former high-school biology teacher, Ham travels the nation training children as young as 5 to challenge science orthodoxy. He doesn't engage in the political and legal fights that have erupted over the teaching of evolution. His strategy is more subtle: He aims to give people who trust the biblical account of creation the confidence to defend their views -- aggressively.

He urges students to offer creationist critiques of their textbooks, parents to take on science museum docents, professionals to raise the subject with colleagues. If Ham has done his job well, his acolytes will ask enough pointed questions -- and set forth enough persuasive arguments -- to shake the doctrine of Darwin.

"We're going to arm you with Christian Patriot missiles," Ham, 54, recently told the 1,200 adults gathered at Calvary Temple here in northern New Jersey. It was a Friday night, the kickoff of a heavily advertised weekend conference sponsored by Ham's ministry, Answers in Genesis.

To a burst of applause, Ham exhorted: "Get out and change the world!"

Edited by Mr. Factnet, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by caffeine, posted 07-02-2012 8:47 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2012 11:18 AM Mr. Factnet has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017