|
Author
|
Topic: International Aspects of Creationism/ID
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5051 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
Message 16 of 79 (207979)
05-14-2005 7:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by Alasdair
05-13-2005 10:31 PM
|
|
Tell me then, please my man, what ARE the "real" reasons? I can do all of this without any links. This is a thread. I posted twice here. I do not use the word "rant". Are you ONLY? interested in what ICR said?? I am from East Orange. My Grandfather got his Phd using flies from Columbia. My mother wanted to leave US for Australia and start a Christian Mission with my Newark native father of the melting pot population abandoning my Grandmother's agnositicism of a lineage back to the Ward of revolutionary war days that was not incompatible with the teaching of Evolution TO TEACHERS that occurred in WESTERN NY in this family by leaving a Seventh Day Adventist farming family unable to deal with a death at child birth. I had said that things would have to CHANGE in US if the %skeptical was to no longer DOUBT evolution. I still hold to the position that if one can change ICR type minds then the rest of US will follow. You dont agree? Please if you refuse to mention me at all (which you did) why cant you say what you think the reasons really were. So you dont have a subjective confidence of what counts for a bacterial "species"? You think that placing a series of morphologies in a series explains the "transition"(Gould is well aware this is not suffient).ICR is concerned not as much with this kind of response but with a demonstration from a rock facie of the same, not one pieced together from different places. Abiogenesis is used to stifle questions by both evolutionists and creationsists because the philosophy of reductionism vs holism is a heterogenity but the failure occurrs in a homogeneity of objections that either you or I could write. from the GENERAL METHOD opcit p 186
quote:
"Since the old ideas have so much to do with the proper reception of the new, let us examine more closely the interaction between the two. If a new ideadrops into the mind, like a stone upon the surface of the water, it produces a commotion. It acts as a stimulus or wakener to the old ideas sleeping beneath the surface. It draws them up above the surface level; that is int consciousness. But what ideas are thus disturbed? There are thousands of these latent ideas, embyronic thoughts, beneath the surface. Those which possess sufficient kinship to this newcomer to hear his call, respond. For in the mind "birds of a feather flock together." Ideas and thoughts which resemble the new one answer, the others sleep on undisturbed. Or, to state it differently, certain thought-groups or complexes, which contain elements kindered to the new notion, are agitated and raised into conscious thought. They sem to respond to their names. The new idea may continue for some time to be a sort of telegraphic inquiry through the regions of the mind to find out where the kindred dwell. The distant relatives and strangers (the unrelatd or unserviceable ideas) soon discover that they have responded to the wrong call and drop back asleep again. But the real kindred wake up more and more. They come forward to inspect the new-comer and to examine his credentials. Soon he finds that he is surrounded by inquisitive friends and relatives. They threaten even to take possession of him. Up to this point the new idea has taken the lead, he has beeen the aggressor. But now is the time for the awakend kindreed ideas to assume control and lead the stranger captive, to bring him in among themselves and gvie him is appropriate place and importance. The old body of ideas, when once set in motion, is more powerfu than any single-handed stranger that happens to fall into their company. The outcome is that the stranger , who at first seemed to be producing a sensation, now discovers that strong arms ar about him and he is carried captive by vigorous friends. New ideas when first entering the mind are very strong, and , if they come through the senses, are especially rich in the color and vigor of life. They therefore absorb the attention at first and seem to monopolize the mental energies; but the older thought masses, when fully aroused, are better organized, more firmly rooted in habit, and posses much wider connections. They are almost certain, therefore , to apperceive the new idea; that is, to conquer and subdue it, to make it tributary to their power."
If you only want to "debate" within creation and evolution, I can oblige you elsewhere. I merely provided the link for balance. Please try to address what I, BSM, wrote. Even if only to ask a question. I regret that it appears that to be a "good evcer" one has to sound like one is "answering" another poster's questions. I wish that wasnt a general take home message but it appears that way. I did say at one place, "I dont know". You can take advantage of that dont forget. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-14-2005 09:21 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by Alasdair, posted 05-13-2005 10:31 PM | | Alasdair has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Alasdair, posted 05-14-2005 5:55 PM | | Brad McFall has replied |
|
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 17 of 79 (208026)
05-14-2005 9:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-13-2005 11:57 AM
|
|
quote:
Classic YEC Creationism is alive and well in Canada, the US, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Turkey and to some extent in Europe.
Just to correct the orangutan, YEC is not the preferred flavour in Islamic creationism in Turkey & the rest of the Muslim world. OEC/ID is. But yes, I have come across some Christian YECs in Indonesia.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by jar, posted 05-13-2005 11:57 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 18 of 79 (208046)
05-14-2005 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-13-2005 11:57 AM
|
|
jar writes: Classic YEC Creationism is alive and well in Canada, the US, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, Turkey and to some extent in Europe.
It is true that there are YEC organizations in Canada, but my impression is that they are pretty innocuous. Their main focus seems to be on "creation weekends" and the occaisional conference with people from AiG, etc. As far as I know, there is no threat to education. 
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by jar, posted 05-13-2005 11:57 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 495 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 19 of 79 (208112)
05-14-2005 4:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by ringo
05-14-2005 11:04 AM
|
|
Ringo writes: As far as I know, there is no threat to education.
That's what the French said about the danger, or the lack, of German occupation before they surrendered. The danger is always there. As long as there is religion, there is always the danger of ignorance dominating over education.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by ringo, posted 05-14-2005 11:04 AM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by Silent H, posted 05-14-2005 4:28 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied | | | Message 21 by ringo, posted 05-14-2005 4:54 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5838 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
As long as there is religion, there is always the danger of ignorance dominating over education. As much as I personally dislike religion, I think this is unfair. As long as there is hubris and a willingness to believe in the absolute truth (knowledge) of the "betterness" one's position, there will always be the danger of ignorance dominating over education. The atheist is just as open to such error, and the pious are not inherently more vulnerable.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 430 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Just to clarify, when I said "there is no threat to education", I meant that there have been no school boards trying to exclude evolution or include YEC/ID in the curriculum (to the best of my knowledge). A "threat" would be German troops massing on the border or a school board meeting with "evo vs creo" on the adgenda. We do need to keep an eye out for those warning signs (and I intend to look into the tax-exempt status of those YEC organisations, too).
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 22 of 79 (208122)
05-14-2005 4:58 PM
|
|
|
to no one in particular
What would histories greatest thinkers say about all this controvery, if they were suddenly alive today? Would they want to quickly read and catch up on all the facts of both sides, and attempt to wiegh the evidence? Or would they dig below the surface...to the philosophical undercurrents driving both sides? This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-14-2005 05:00 PM
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5004 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 23 of 79 (208124)
05-14-2005 5:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Limbo
05-14-2005 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: to no one in particular
What would histories greatest thinkers say about all this controvery, if they were suddenly alive today? I think I know which side Darwin would be on...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 4:58 PM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 5:37 PM | | mick has replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 24 of 79 (208131)
05-14-2005 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by mick
05-14-2005 5:04 PM
|
|
Re: to no one in particular
Is that the extent of your thoughts on the matter? C'mon, open up your mind.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 5:04 PM | | mick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 6:10 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 25 of 79 (208134)
05-14-2005 5:50 PM
|
|
|
A second thought experiment
Suppose you are accused of a crime that you know you didn't commit, and the evidence stands against you. Are you obliged to believe that you're guilty because the evidence stands against you?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 6:14 PM | | Limbo has replied |
|
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5768 days) Posts: 143 Joined: 05-13-2005
|
Hello again, Brad! To tell the truth, quite a bit of what you're saying is going right over my head...but I'll try and deal with it.
quote:
Tell me then, please my man, what ARE the "real" reasons?
I'd guess ignorance, from talking to my peers.
quote:
I do not use the word "rant".
Sorry about that, I just saw a lot of capital letters and exclamation marks and jumped to conclusions
[quote]I had said that things would have to CHANGE in US if the %skeptical was to no longer DOUBT evolution. I still hold to the position that if one can change ICR type minds then the rest of US will follow. You dont agree?[quote]
Oh, gotcha. Sorry. I agree completely that it'll do it for most of the US, but you'll always have fringe loonies.
quote:
You think that placing a series of morphologies in a series explains the "transition"(Gould is well aware this is not suffient).ICR is concerned not as much with this kind of response but with a demonstration from a rock facie of the same, not one pieced together from different places.
Why? And apart from evolution, what other explanation is there that if you arrange the fossils in order of age, they just happen to show an evolutionary sequence?
quote:
If you only want to "debate" within creation and evolution, I can oblige you elsewhere. I merely provided the link for balance. Please try to address what I, BSM, wrote. Even if only to ask a question. I regret that it appears that to be a "good evcer" one has to sound like one is "answering" another poster's questions. I wish that wasnt a general take home message but it appears that way. I did say at one place, "I dont know". You can take advantage of that dont forget.
I'll remember that, thanks
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5004 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 27 of 79 (208147)
05-14-2005 6:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Limbo
05-14-2005 5:37 PM
|
|
great thinkers on religion science and biology (new thread?? anybody interested?)
OK, which great thinkers do you have in mind? Many of them probably made statements on evolution, science and religion. Marx on religion:
Marx writes: Man makes religion, religion doesn't make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again Marx writes: Religious poverty is, in one, the expression of real poverty, and in another, a protest against real poverty. Religion is the sigh of a heavy laden creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people I imagine marx would see creationists as a bunch of misguided people who have despaired at improving their economic condition so turn to the afterlife instead. Perhaps he would not be concerned with the fact that the leaders of movements like ID tend to be right wingers. He thinks the power of those leaders comes from the disillusionment of the masses with capitalism. The cure is to make life better for workers, then they will abandon their dreams of a better afterlife because they have a good life right now.
Marx writes: Its [religion's] disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part Studying biology might help creationists, only insofar as they are able to improve their material conditions by doing so. However some later marxists had a slightly different view of Darwinism.
Pannekoek (1909) writes: That Marxism owes its importance and position only to the role it takes in the proletarian class struggle, is known to all. With Darwinism, however, things seem different to the superficial observer, for Darwinism deals with a new scientific truth which has to contend with religious prejudices and ignorance. Yet it is not hard to see that in reality Darwinism had to undergo the same experiences as Marxism. Darwinism is not a mere abstract theory which was adopted by the scientific world after discussing and testing it in a mere objective manner. No, immediately after Darwinism made its appearance, it had its enthusiastic advocates and passionate opponents; Darwin’s name, too, was either highly honored by people who understood something of his theory, or despised by people who knew nothing more of his theory than that man descended from the monkey, and who were surely unqualified to judge from a scientific standpoint the correctness or falsity of Darwin’s theory. Darwinism, too, played a role in the class-struggle, and it is owing to this role that it spread so rapidly and had enthusiastic advocates and venomous opponents. Darwinism served as a tool to the bourgeoisie in their struggle against the feudal class, against the nobility, clergy-rights and feudal lords. This was an entirely different struggle from the struggle now waged by the proletarians. The bourgeoisie was not an exploited class striving to abolish exploitation. Oh no. What the bourgeoisie wanted was to get rid of the old ruling powers standing in their way. The bourgeoisie themselves wanted to rule, basing their demands upon the fact that they were the most important class, the leaders of industry. What argument could the old class, the class that became nothing but useless parasites, bring forth against them? They leaned on tradition, on their ancient divine rights. These were their pillars. With the aid of religion the priests held the great mass in subjection and ready to oppose the demands of the bourgeoisie. It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in duty bound to undermine the divinity right of rulers. Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove that what the priests were teaching was false, the divine authority of these priests would crumble and the divine rights enjoyed by the feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.
I doubt that Pannekoek would have sided with right-wing creationists over Darwinism in the present day. but it's an interesting quote! What thinkers other than Marx would you like to consider? Do you think setting up a thread "Great thinkers on religion, science and biology" would be fun? Contributors could offer a short essay on the thinker of their choice, and others could comment or criticise. Best wishes, mick
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 5:37 PM | | Limbo has not replied |
|
mick
Member (Idle past 5004 days) Posts: 913 Joined: 02-17-2005
|
|
|
Message 28 of 79 (208150)
05-14-2005 6:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Limbo
05-14-2005 5:50 PM
|
|
Re: A second thought experiment
Your personal experience is generally better evidence than anything a prosecutor could provide you with. My fingerprints might have been on the knife, etc., but I KNOW that I didn't stab her. Anyway, I don't want to bring that stabbing up again. It's been analysed enough in the media. Of course if you have had a history of mental illness which involved false memories, etc, then perhaps you would be convinced of your guilt despite the fact you can't recall doing the crime. What does this have to do with ID? Mick
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 5:50 PM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 6:18 PM | | mick has replied |
|
Limbo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 29 of 79 (208157)
05-14-2005 6:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by mick
05-14-2005 6:14 PM
|
|
Re: A second thought experiment
quote:
Your personal experience is generally better evidence than anything a prosecutor could provide you with.
Remember that next time a Christian says their own spiritual experiences about God are better evidence than anything a scientist could provide them with.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 6:14 PM | | mick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2005 6:56 PM | | Limbo has not replied | | | Message 34 by mick, posted 05-14-2005 7:03 PM | | Limbo has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 79 (208176)
05-14-2005 6:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Limbo
05-14-2005 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: to no one in particular
they would most likely continue to think as they had before. those that predate christianity might be amused by it's presumptions, those that lived under it's more harsh hands (do I need to say galileo?) would not. and those from the enlightenment might wonder why it is still an issue. what do you think?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 4:58 PM | | Limbo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Limbo, posted 05-14-2005 6:54 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2