Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 1 of 79 (663581)
05-24-2012 2:05 PM


Libby Anne recently wrote a "Why I am an atheist" essay over at Pharyngula. In it, she discusses how she argued against evolution but finally conceded that the evidence was on the side of evolution:
quote:
And then I went to college, where my young earth creationist views were challenged. I responded by fighting back. I argued with both students and professors, sure that I had some sort of truth they were missing. I brought out every argument I had, and went back to my creationist resources for more. As time went by, though, I found my arguments effectively refuted by arguments and information I had never been exposed to before. To my utter shock, it seemed that the evidence actually fell on the side of evolution and against young earth creationism. After nearly a year of fighting, I conceded defeat.
What happened next is fascinating, at least to me. Two creationists felt the need to comment: Dr. Georgia Purdom and Ken Ham from AiG. When I read their responses my jaw just hit the floor. They just don't get it, as Libby Anne was quick to point out. Quite frankly, they would have been better served not saying anything at all. In an attempt to explain why Libby Anne left the faith they have given away the farm, IMHO. Here are just a few excerpts from Dr. Purdom and Mr. Ham:
quote:
Libby seems to have things backwards. It’s not that we know the Bible is true because young earth creationism is true, but rather because the Bible is true we can believe what God said in Genesis about the time frame in which He created. Although she read AiG resources, attended AiG conferences, and came to the Creation Museum, I have to wonder how much she really understood what she was reading and hearing. The very idea of God creating in six literal days, 6,000 years ago, and the global flood comes from Scripture (and of course the scientific evidence confirms it)!--Georgia Purdom
So the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true, and Libby should have remembered that. Oh, and the evidence backs it up. Why not just say that the Earth is young because that is what the evidence says? I think Dr. Purdom is revealing more than she may want to with this statement.
Also, if you read Libby's response it is more than apparent that she did know her stuff, perhaps even better that Dr. Purdom does. It's not that Libby did not understand the arguments, it's that the arguments are WRONG. Creationists just can't understand that.
quote:
As we train our children, we need to do much more than just expose them to resources like those produced by AiG; we need to make sure they understand them correctly and are taught to be able to answer questions logically. . .
We can undermine a lot of what we have done if we send our children to the wrong institution (e.g., a compromising Christian college or even a theologically conservative one that does not teach them why they believe what they doand how to logically defend the Christian faith and so on).
--Ken Ham
Both Dr. Purdom and Ken Ham seem to agree on this point. The solution for creationism failing in the face of criticism is MORE INDOCTRINATION. As Libby Anne puts it:
quote:
And the solution Ken Ham and Dr. Purdom make? Double down. That’s pretty much it. Teach the same things, just more. Oh, and isolate yourself and your children from other points of view — oh the dangers of the state college or compromised Christian college!
Creationists, is this really the new strategy? When it becomes apparent that creationist arguments can not stand up to criticism is it really the right move to protect creationism from any type of criticism? Is this why creationists are fighting so hard to get evolution out of the classroom?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-24-2012 9:15 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 5 by nwr, posted 05-25-2012 4:01 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 4:56 PM Taq has replied
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM Taq has replied
 Message 17 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 8:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 3 of 79 (663583)
05-25-2012 12:12 PM


I changed the title and have attempted to make the post more conducive to discussion. If it is still not up to snuff that's fine, just let me know and I will reformat for the Links and Info forum.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 10 of 79 (663630)
05-25-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NoNukes
05-25-2012 4:56 PM


I read him as saying the following:
That the Bible is true is a given. So what the Bible says is right. The evidence, when interpreted correctly also supports the Bible, but it is possible to become confused.
Then why even look at the evidence? Why does AiG spend so much time discussing the evidence? If you already believe that you are right and can not be wrong, then why do you need evidence? From Libby's blog:
quote:
In other words, if evidence didn’t matter, shouldn’t Answers in Genesis just stick to the Bible says it, so you should just believe it? But that’s not what they do. Instead they wave around evidence that supposedly disproves evolution and speak of creationism as though it confirms the Bible.
AiG really does point to evidence as justification for a belief in creationism. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, at least in my view.
Perhaps the above seems little different from your take. But it does not require that the Dr. Dino and Dr. Purdom are lying or trying to isolate. They are trying to innoculate, but they honestly do see their vision of the Bible as the absolute truth.
I am going to have to disagree on that one. Dr. Purdom included a link to this book. In it, they tell parents which christian schools teach evolution and which do not. Clearly, this is a guide of where to send your kids so their beliefs won't be challenged. Also, Ken Ham says the following:
quote:
We can undermine a lot of what we have done if we send our children to the wrong institution (e.g., a compromising Christian college or even a theologically conservative one that does not teach them why they believe what they doand how to logically defend the Christian faith and so on).
Shouldn't christian students going to college already know why they believe as they do? The undermining that Ken Ham is talking about is exposing kids to the evidence, which will happen in secular and "compromised" christian schools.
Their cries that Libby did not "understand" creationism are hollow. Deep down, the real mistake that Libby made was exposing herself to an environment that challenged her beliefs.
I really don't see anything new about the strategy.
I agree. It is more of the same. They are "doubling down" as Libby put it. However, I am seeing a new move towards isolation. AiG may be pitching more towards the home school crowd than toward the general evangelistic population.
What I find morbidly fascinating is the futility of their strategy. It's as if they are trying to break through a 5 foot thick wall of concrete by running full blast into it. When they come to, their new strategy is to try and run even faster. Never does it dawn on them that it just isn't working. When faced with someone who was clearly let down by their arguments their only response is to make those same arguments, but with extra feeling this time.
Frankly, the only way they can "win" is to never play. That seems to be their strategy. If creationism is never challenged then people will go on believing it. That is why they are pushing their followers towards christian colleges that they approve of, and I would assume they would be pushing them away from careers in the sciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2012 4:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by dwise1, posted 05-26-2012 5:48 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 05-26-2012 8:54 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 48 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 7:40 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 12 of 79 (663632)
05-25-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-25-2012 4:45 PM


Is there any likelihood that something like the 'Creation Museum' could be built in Australia?
Didn't Willie Sutton say something about "That's where the money is"?
I really don't see anything wrong with that. It was apparent from the start that the museum was not going to survive on grants or donations, so they needed money from admissions. To do that you need to build it where your target audience is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 4:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 05-25-2012 6:00 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(3)
Message 56 of 79 (664163)
05-29-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
05-25-2012 8:41 PM


That's not what they said. Just a different kind of education, one that realizes that science is just another imperfect human endeavor, that it's not the only source of knowledge. That there's no defined line where science stops and atheism starts.
It is religious indoctrination, plain and simple. Here is what Dr. Purdom said:
quote:
As I read her plea to parents and the instruction of their children, I couldn’t help but think of my daughter Elizabeth. However, for me Libby’s words had the opposite effect of what she desired. I realized that I can expose Elizabeth to all the creation and biblical apologetics in the world, but if she doesn’t actually understand it then it is useless. She needs more than simply exposure to these things.
Sitting down and teach creation and biblical apologetics to your kids is religious indoctrination, plain and simple. What is Dr. Purdom's reaction to apologetics completely failing when it is exposed to evidence? Teach it harder. Oh, and make sure your kids do not go to a university where they teach evolution. Why? Because creationism can not withstand exposure to evidence.
As to the connection between atheism and science, the only reason you are saying that is because the evidence contradicts your beliefs. Sorry, but reality is reality. What this thread is about is the reaction of creationists to this fact, that creationism completely fails when exposed to evidence. That is what is most fascinating to me.
There’s really nothing new about it. To maintain one’s position, to double down is no different than what evolutionists did when Darwin’s Black Box came out, is it?
Yes, it is different. DBB did not falsify evolution. All it did was illustrate Behe's incredulity. If you want to start a thread on IC systems I would be happy to discuss it with you.
Is it different from the move made as evolution is protected from the criticism that ID makes of evolution? Have creationists tried to use the court system to protect something from criticism?
ID supporters are welcome to do research and present that research at scientific conferences, but they never really seem willing to do so. Instead, they make spurious and non-scientific arguments to school boards and internet forums. They don't do science.
What they are not allowed to do is push religious indoctrination in public science classrooms. You have heard of that court ruling that came out of Dover, PA, haven't you? You are aware of the Lemon Test?
They’re trying to get atheism out of the classroom — the kind that converted Libby.
It wasn't atheism that converted her. It was the evidence. Here are Libby's own words:
quote:
In the end, I didn’t give up. Rather, I realized I had been wrong. There’s a big difference there. And once I saw that creationism didn’t actually hold water, and that evolution was supported by the evidence, I had the intellectual honesty to change my mind. Why? Because that’s what you do when you realize you were wrong.
Atheism isn't a threat to creationism. Reality is. That's why AiG is telling parents not to let their kids go to schools where they teach the evidence.
Telling creationist there is no God is not a serious threat to creationism. Showing them that creationists like Ken Ham have been lying to them about the facts of reality, and having Ken Ham tell them that if Genesis is not literally true then there is no God? That does seem to be a threat to creationism.
Is he a phony, Is Libby a phony? Who knows?
I am taking everyone at their word. Frankly, Ham and Purdom would have been better off saying nothing. What they have said reveals more about creationism than they might like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 05-25-2012 8:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 57 of 79 (664164)
05-29-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by foreveryoung
05-28-2012 11:01 PM


Dating by radiometric means has never been totally convincing to me. The geological timing of the flood is one of the things that got changed quite a bit for me. I kept pushing it back further and further because the evidence showed the impossibility of it for the specified time periods. One example was dinosaurs and their nests and their eggs all fossilized in one spot. Common sense told me that a world wide flood could not possibly sweep them up and redeposit them in that neat an order. Igneous dikes that cut through layers of sedimentary strata, sedimentary strata that was tilted and then had other sedimentary strata layered on top of it, convinced me that one year long global flood could not possibly have caused such all of those formations in the span of one year. There are many problems with it , but one of them is that an igneous intrusion would not go partially through layers of soggy wet mud and then suddenly stop and then form a horizontal sill. It would burst all the way to the top and form a flood basalt. (not flood as in water). It is obvious that there is evolution going on in the fossil record and evolution going on today. I could accept that and accept the genesis story, but it would require not accepting a darwinian explanation for it. That is still where I stand today. Regardless of what you have seen in the past six months of me, my creationist stance has gone through a myriad of changes over the past 4 years. I cannot think of every instance right now but every night I spent in the sleeper of my truck before I went back to college, was spent pondering these things in my head, arguing over them like I do here, and researching creationist material and researching sites like talk origins and just plain old wikipedia and branching off from there. It all paid off academically though, 28 credit hours into college and all solid A's and 2 A minuses.
Glenn Morton has a wonderful essay. He was, at one time, a contributer to ICR and was a creationist. Then he started working in geology and had to deal with reality. He quickly found that creationism was just wrong, exactly what Libby found. Even more, he talked to some of his acquaintances from ICR who had also gone into geology. Here is what happened:
quote:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Just like Libby found, creationism crumples when it hits up against reality. People who base their faith on creationism have serious issues. This isn't because of atheism. It is because of reality, and being told that if creationism is not true then neither is the Bible.
What is AiG's response to this? Teach it harder, and please, oh please, do not look at the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by foreveryoung, posted 05-28-2012 11:01 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 77 of 79 (826788)
01-09-2018 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
01-04-2018 10:48 PM


Re: Look Before You Leap
Phat writes:
No, that a Leap of faith is a good idea. You evidently concluded that it was not, hence you never took the leap.
Even Christians look both ways before crossing the street. Says a lot about their faith in drivers and where they are going in the afterlife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 01-04-2018 10:48 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024