|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussion of John MacKay's Views | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How can we present the challenge to the official creationist movement? We could nail it to the door of a Creation Museum, but that's so sixteenth century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Here's one online (via email) debate between Phillip Johnson and Philip Kitcher. I shall leave it to the reader to determine who won.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
John Mackay has cropped up in connection with the ongoing dispute between Ken Ham's AiG and the former Australian branch of that organisation (renamed CMI). Back in 1987, it appears that Mackay made lurid and unevidenced accusations against a widow named Margaret Buchanan who at that time was working as Ken Ham's personal secretary. Mrs Buchanan has since married Carl Wieland the head of CMI. Mackay was forced to resign and was even excommunicated by a Baptist church over this issue.
These claims and supporting documentation may be found at the CMI website Re: John Mackay. Edited by PaulK, : Correct a few typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
We want him to debate us here. This is not going to help.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I don't think that there's any real chance of him showing up. Big-name creationists have got extremely wary of showing up in online forums, especially ones which don't have a sympathetic management. The last example I know of in an even slightly open forum is Jonathan Sarfati's appearance on Theology Web - and even then he had the forum moderators protecting his anonymity (or attempting to) by banning any reference to his true identity.
And for all you know he might be more likely to show up to refute CMI's accusations than if we simply kept at him. Not that there's much chance either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I think it would be cool if we could organize a standing challange to any "published" creationist to come to an organized online debate.
It would be similar to the Hovind $10000 (or whatever) challange to "prove" evolution in that it would have the effect of seeming like a permanent pillar of failure. And if a creationist actually accepts the challange, all the better! A few things would have to be well defined. 1. What it means to be an acceptable opponent. I might use the concept of "published" as in "has written something significant about creationism". Not in the sense of peer-review.2. Define the venue, the access and limitations therof. 3. Define who on the "evo" side would be in the debate. As a commmunity we would need to find someone qualified outside of pick someone from out own ranks who probably is not just an educated layman like myself. {ABE}This sounded confusing. I mean that I am a bad choice. Someone like Mod or cavediver, or Equinox (glancing on the online list){/ABE} 4. Define the rules and expectations of the debate 5. Advertise on peer spaces on the web such as TO, AIC, etc. 6. Directly contact the major creationist organizations. An internet version of nailing the challange to the door of the creation museum Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Thanks for the link.
I actually think the "neo-creo" put the case they were trying to make surprisingly well in this example!! True they avoided the detailed issues and completely conceded ground on a true literal biblical interpretation..... but still. However the devil is in the detail and this was much more of a "state of the debate" with a related overview of the scientific issues sort of discussion. It would be great to see a detailed scientific discussion of specific evidence as per the Dr Adequate post within this thread or numerous recent examples of RAZ on the age of the Earth. Is there a creation scientist who will oblige?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5053 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I guess it must be back to Mackay. It is not clear to me that Johnson understands that without the synthetic view of Kant all comes back to "appearence" anyway. Dawkins can not be made to say what Phil wants him to be saying
quote:here, I think. Phil Johnson tried to say this to Will Provine as well. I told Ken Ham on the radio that I felt Phil got lost in the bug library at Cornell. Trying to link Crick and Dakwins here fails for me. Kitcher's next response is precisely what WIll retorted to Phil a decade ago. I dont see this debate having made any progress today, so back to the main topic again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.
If it could be widely publicised via creationist sites then it could really kick off. Without wanting to place the burden of responsibility on any particular potentially unwilling participant - I think that there are a number of candidates amongst the existing EvC ranks who could do the job more than adequately. In the unlikely event that a creationist "expert" comes forward we could have EvC debate candidtaes put themselves forward and then an "election" of some sort..........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4014 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
In case readers of EvC attribute some sort of standing to characters and orgs mentioned in this thread, let me state that, as a reasonably avid scanner of local newspapers, I have come across zero, nada, zip, whatever, mention of these 'authorities'which are supposedly based in Brisbane. We see no news concerning Creation Ministries International (Aust.), formerly Answers in Genesis (Aust.), formerly Creation Science Foundation, Ken Ham, John Mackay nor Margaret Buchanan. They are not consulted for rebuttals to newsworthy items, nor are upcoming events relating to their organisations mentioned. Yet, wacko groups like the Vietnamese Catholic church flogging 'weeping' Madonnas for sale, or similar scandals get full coverage.If you never visited EvC, or hunted the `net for far-out Christian beliefs, you wouldn`t know of their existence. Even the acrimonious split betwwen AIG (Aust.) and AIG (USA) is unknown in local news. Make of it what you will, but consider the named as little ducks in a big pond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
I know this is tempest-in-a-teapot serious, but...
PaulK writes: maid lurid I knew Maid Lurid. Maid Lurid was a friend of mine. Maid Lurid was capable of anything. My next cat will be Maid Lurid. Thank you all terribly much. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Make of it what you will, but consider the named as little ducks in a big pond. On behalf of Daffy, Donald, Howard, etc., I formally protest your comparison of those bird brains to the noble mallard. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4014 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Rightly so, Sub.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
subbie writes:
I find that debate completely useless in this issue. Why? Because if you're already on the side of science you will think Kitcher won and if you're already on the side of religion you will agree that Johnson won. Why? Because neither guy presented anything new, neither actually pointed out any specific, and neither had any clear advantage over the other. Here's one online (via email) debate between Phillip Johnson and Philip Kitcher. I shall leave it to the reader to determine who won. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes![/size]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Did they have some sort of pre-agreed rule against citing anything?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024