What is an Articulate Informed Creationist

While they fell short of the ideal, I'd suggest that Tranquility Base and TrueCreation came far closer than any of the current crop.

It should be pointed out that Behe is not now a creationist, and very, very few of his published papers have anything to do with evolution which is not his real field of expertise.

So far as I can tell IaJ and to a lesser extent Rob offer little in the way of real argument. When IaJ manages to post something that might be relevant (rarely) it is phrased in his own personal jargon. So far as I can puzzle it out he's just stuck on the old creationist idea of "kinds" and has nothing new to offer. Losing him would be no loss because he literally has nothing of value to say. We wouldn't lose ANY serious arguments - or even a significant possibility of seeing serious arguments - if he was banned right this minute.Rob might be more of a loss. If he can only get over his obsession with his own pet errors and concentrate on producing relevant posts we might see him contribute something.The creationist admins aren't doing a great job either. Buz was supposed to be helping IaJ but he hasn't done much. Ray needs policing and none of the Creationist mods are doing it. NJ could do with more mod oversight himself. Buz probably would, too if he had a signficant thread going.

A real argument should be more than unsupported assertions that are - at best - extremely unclear - and at worst incomprehensible. If IaJ could actually use reason and logic instead of claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is not (generally a 180 degree reversal of reality) then we'd have progress.

You're not familiar with Ray's output then. For instance you've forgotten the long thread on Pyramidology and the spinoff thread dealing with the Pyramid meridian.Ray has been bested because he either cannot or does not think. The post you approve of is just another example of his abusive attitude.ICANT does not seem to be too hot on science either. I only dipped into the singularity discussion but his obvious misreading of Hawking was clear. But he's miles better than Ray. But then practically every creationist currently on the board is miles better than Ray.Buz, if you're going to accuse others of bias your implicit endorsement of Ray completely undermines your case.

To be fair to AiG - or rather CMG - they did publish an article on bad arguments that creationists should not use and did name Kent Hovind as somone who used them. They did miss other bad arguments and their criticism was far too mild, but it was there.On the other hand Iano reacted very badly when Jar expressed the hope that Hovind would get jail for his crimes. Apparently hoping that a creationist crook gets the sentence he deserves is far worse than gross tax evasion - or taking drugs and hiring a male prostitute for gay sex.

If you want to be very broad you could count the attacks made on Hugh Ross. But they are due to his endorsement of an Old Earth and his critique of Humphrey's "Starlight and Time". So far as I can tell doctrinal agreement seems to be more important to them than anything else.I don't see much crticism of creationists from creationists at all. None of the Creatinists on this group seem to even protest Ray's abuse of the Bible to assert that all evolutionists are liars. Apparently slandering anyone who disagrees with you is much more important than the Word of God.

Of course this has to include views other than creationism. Many Christians who are well-informed on scripture reject creationism.Creationism has nothing to do with knowledge of scripture and everything to do with doctrines ABOUT scripture.

From NJ in the Behe thread

quote:

---

...I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case. Now that somebody wants ID to have the same privileges that evolution had, its no dice.

---

To anyone who knows about the case this is just complete nonsense.Tennessee passed a law (The Butler Act) that made the teaching of evolution illegal.Scopes had broken that law and agreed to be a test case.Scopes LOST, as he needed to do because the aim was to get the law declared unconstitutional (which it was). And that meant it had to be taken to appeal to a higher court which had the power to make such a declaration. (And that didn't happen, so really the ACLU lost the legal battle but after that nobody bothered to really enforce the law until it was taken off the books).So where did NJ get his idea that the case was about getting "special privileges" for evolution ? Is it a guess based on ID propaganda ? Or is it simply that he wants to pretend that the opposition is doing the same things that the ID movement is up to ? It certainly didn't come from any remotely accurate account of events.Why do creationists say things like this, rather than actually finding out the facts ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.