An Army of One

quote:

---

I have never heard of a "Gish Gallop", but if I had to slap a label to their argument and methods of reasoning, this phrase would fit like a glove.

---

It's named for Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the inventors of "creation science" in the wake of Epperson vs Arkansas (1968), which led to the demise of the 1920's "monkey laws." He was one of the leading creationist debators, the 1970's debate circuit having been their primary venue for attacking evolution and drumming up support for their "balanced-treatment laws".Gish was famous for firing off a series of "problems for evolution" that his opponent could not respond to. One main reason why his opponent could not respond was the format of the debate (which had to be exactly how the creationist wanted it or it would not happen). The opponent had 20 minutes to respond. It would take longer than that to respond to any single one of Gish's "problems for evolution"; eg, if Gish fired off 10 "problems" in one minute (he could do more than just 10) and each needed 30 minutes to respond to properly to demonstrate what was wrong with each claim, then the opponent would need five hours to respond in. But he was only allowed 20 minutes.Another reason was that most of their opponents in the 70's didn't know anything about the creation science claims and so were caught completely by surprise. So they went back and did their homework and turned the tide around 1980.Good luck. Just be glad your brother wasn't sucked in by Chuck Smith or his son. Even my friends at Saddleback complain that Calvary is too legalistic.PS
When they present you with a claim, do take it seriously and at face value. Then ask them about it. Try to discuss it with them, as was suggested to you earlier in this thread. I've found that there's nothing that a creationist hates more than to discuss their own claims and have to support them.PPS
No, evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. A lot of things aren't. Including the Republican Party. Including the Baptist Church. Including Protestantism.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As I mentioned earlier, my brother came directly home from a Rick Warren sermon, and immediately used the false dilemma(sp); you're either an evolutionist or a Xian. There can be no middle ground.

---

Try to get them to define "evolutionist". You might even try to get them to define "Xian" -- which given your brother's announcement that he was no longer a Catholic but a Christian, thus implying that Catholics are not, then that might divide them.I have observed creation science advocates constantly use the term, "evolutionist", but when I asked them they would refuse to define it. They would spout a long list of things that "evolutionists" believe (eg, "man to molecules", atheists, we got here by pure chance) and they would denounce others for being "evolutionists", but they refused to provide any kind of test to determine whether a given individual is an "evolutionist" or not.They're creating a scapegoat enemy with that term. Get a definition from them, then apply it to show that it doesn't work. In the way that I've seen it applied, it seems to apply to anyone who accepts the idea of evolution. If that is the case, then show them Christians who do accept the idea of evolution and yet are not atheists, not by a long shot. My page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/creationists.html lists a few (but not Bill Morgan, one of the most unscrupulously lying creationists I have ever had the displeasure of encountering) and provides links to their pages; eg:1. Glenn Morton was a YEC working as a field geologist until he could no longer ignore the rock-hard evidence that creation science had taught him did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. Creation science drove him to the verge of atheism, but he did arrive at a scientifically-accurate way to harmonize science and his Christian faith. Morton's site not only examines the geological evidence (he still works as a geologist), but also carries testimonials of others who had been through much the same trials as he had been; some of them are on my quotes page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html2. Steve Schimmrich is no longer active in the debate, giving higher priority to raising his family and to his career. But as a PhD Geology candidate he was very active and most highly critical of creation science claims. And he was and is an evangelical Christian and accepts evolution and an old earth.3. Carl Drews is (or was; it's been a few years and he did have a very bad experience) a devout Christian leaning towards the fundamentalist camp. However, he had learned early on that science, including evolution, does not conflict with religion and so he is more dedicated to the truth. His first brush with creation science (Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?"; the original version, not the Kent Hovind version currently in circulation) revealed it to be based on lies, so he had nothing more to do with it. Until his pastor required him to attend their class based on Answers in Genesis videos. He again saw lie after lie being told and tried to bring it to the church's attention. When his pastor effectively told him that they were comfortable with "lying for the Lord", he left that church. He leans towards theistic evolution, which is the name of his site.4. Dr. Allan Harvey is a physist, a practicing scientist, and an active Christian. And, it turns out, an old friend of Carl Drews'. He has written a number of essays exploring problems that creation science creates, including how it jeopardizes its followers' faith, drives non-believers away from ever being able to consider Christ, and promotes the false theology of the God of the Gaps.5. Ed used to be YEC, until he had an epiphany and followed it up with examination of creation science claims and discovered how false they were. The advice he received from his pastor was to not ask questions lest he lose his faith like others they knew. But he realized that if those others had been taught the truth from the beginning, then they would have never lost their faith.Not on that list, but linked-to on my links page (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/links.html), is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. He is a practicing Catholic, is a self-professed creationist (in the classic sense), accepts evolution and actively teaches it and writes about it, has been a long-time active opponent of creation science, and was acknowledged by the Institute for Creation Research as one of the ablest debating opponents that they had encountered.I had tried to reorganize my site, but have been drawn away these past years by pressing issues in my life. The best place to start would be on the pre-beta of the new version of my index page. My main position is that the truth and truthfulness matters, creation science as it is has destroyed the faith of many of its followers, and creation science's use of lies and deception only serves to discredit Christianity (eg, by the multitude of evil fruit it supplies for the Matthew 7:20 test).And my links page should provide you some leads to more information and testimonials.I am almost surprised at how you describe Rick Warren, though I have admittedly never heard him. In one Christian forum (which I stumbled into trying to figure out Baptist attitudes towards partner dancing), they were railing against him loudly for being too worldly and for his purpose-driven-life ministry being unbiblical. And my friends there seem fairly normal (circa 1970, I had to endure the "Jesus Freak" movement that brought Chuck Smith to prominance, so I can attest to how not-normal that made those converts), though they may be exceptions. They're under the Singles Ministry, one had had to fight the church administration for years to get social dancing classes and events for the singles (though the classes have now moved off-campus and the singles dance events are now much rarer), and apparently many of the singles I've socialized with are more casually religious and less fixated on doctrine (eg, their doctrine teaches that I, as a non-theist, am not suitable a relationship with one of them and I respect that, but I have also been assured that that does not matter to most of the women there). Saddleback is a mega-church broken up into several separate ministries and so I'm sure that each ministry has its own unique personality.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It might be interesting to ask your family about their attitude toward "lying for the Lord". I would hope that they don't accept it.

---

Because of my site, I have received a number of hate rants, all of which ignore what I have actually written and accuse me of saying and believing things which I don't. Part of my response is to ask them what the Bible and Christian doctrine say about using lies and deception to serve God. For the past 5 or 6 years I have also asked creation-science advocates in other discussions the same thing. I have never received any answer to that question. And yet I do believe it to be central to the issue.I would like to make a suggestion. Don't make the claim yourself that creation science is based on lies and deceptions, as that would put them on the defensive. Rather, truthfully inform them that you have read that claim being made by others. Then inform them that you are yourself concerned with the truth and with truthfulness and about any false claims being made. So you now raise the question, mainly to see where they stand on it and so that you can lay down some ground rules for future discussion.If I were to be doing it, I would want the questions to go something like:1. What does the Bible and Christian doctrine (including Catholic, of course) say about using lies and deception to serve God?2. If a creationist discovers that one of his claims is false, what does he need to do about it? Should he continue to use it, knowing it to be false? (deliberate intentional lying) Should he quietly drop it and not inform anyone he had told it to previously? (lying by omission) If he sees another using it, should he inform that person of the claim's falsehood, or remain silent and allow others to continue to be deceived by it?3. What are the effects of using false claims to serve God? Not only what Judgement would be passed upon the transgressor, but also what are the practical effects on others, especially when they learn that they had been lied to in matters of religion (in the testimonies of atheists, that is a very common reason for becoming an atheist).At least that's the direction that my questions would go in.Also, when they cite the consequences of accepting evolution, including that false dichotomy you mentioned (which is embodied in the "Two Model Approach", which is at the core of creation science), ask them where that comes from. I have had several creationists over the years claim that if evolution turns out to be true, then Christianity is a complete lie and they should throw their Bibles in the trash and become hedonistic atheists. They have also made the same claim should the Bible ever be found to contain even a single error -- basis for this being the belief that the Bible is the literal Word of God and therefore must be inerrant. Ask where that comes from. Those same creationists had claimed that they only follow the Bible, so I asked them to show me where in the Bible that it says such things. They immediately had something else to do and rushed off. One fundamentalist friend at work, one who actually thinks, did answer me: the Bible doesn't say such things.They must learn to differentiate between Revelation (the Word of God) and Theology (the Word of Man, trying fallibly to interpret and understand Revelation). If Revelation were found to be wrong on any point, then that would present a problem. But if Theology is found to be wrong on some point, particularly on some detail, then that doesn't mean that Revelation is wrong, but rather that fallible human interpretation got something wrong. The remedy is not to scrap Revelation, but rather to try to correct our interpretation of it, or else at least scrap that one detail found to be wrong.Good luck. Don't let it split the family, but don't let them bully you into submission either. Stand for Truth. You're not attacking their faith, but rather insisting that they remain true to their God.Edited by dwise1, : Finally remembered that word!Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.