Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,900 Year: 4,157/9,624 Month: 1,028/974 Week: 355/286 Day: 11/65 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 44 of 154 (414118)
08-02-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
08-02-2007 12:56 AM


The Answer! Maybe?
I think I have it. I've been thinking about this for a while now. Male clownfish will change genders if there is a shortage of females. The answer to our current shortage of creationists - especially those who know what the theory of evolution actually is - may have been staring us in the face in the OP too.
I was reminded by Admin's post 232, quoted via TD's post in the OP. Excuse me for quoting out of context, however.
Admin writes:
...evolutionists posing as creationists...
See where I'm going here? Surely a really skilled debator can take any position. I know Richard Dawkins is against it, as he says (on in preface page xiv of The Blind Watchmaker), but he's not the Pope of Evolution (contrary to some creationist claims).
quote:
A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe. I have never done this and I never shall. I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right. I remember being shocked when visiting a university debating society to debate with creationists. At dinner after the debate, I was placed next to a young woman who had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism. She clearly couldn't be a creationist, so I asked her to tell me honestly why she had done it. She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating skills, and found it more challenging to advocate a position in which she did not believe. Apparently it is common practice in university debating societies for speakers to simply be told on which side they are to speak. Their own beliefs don't come into it. [...] I resolved to decline future invitations from debating societies that encourage insincere advocacy on issues where scientific truth is at stake.
Having been a member of such a debate society (although creationism was not ever a topic), I have experience debating against the side that I believe. It is actually a little easier, I think, as you know the weaknesses of your own beliefs. And, it can be quite enlightening.
What are your thoughts?

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-02-2007 12:56 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 126 of 154 (414887)
08-06-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Straggler
08-04-2007 8:34 PM


Re: Seriously Though
Straggler writes:
Seriously though - I cannot think of another western democracy where the leader of the country could be a fundamentalist creationist!!
What is it about the U.S that makes this possible as compared to other comparable nations?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, as I never learnt a scrap of US history at school, as I'm on the other side of the pacific pond to it, but didn't all the Bible-thumpers in Europe flee persecution and head over to the New World? Isn't that why Europe is nice and secular and America is full of fundies? Isn't that what the Thanksgiving stuff about the Pilgrims is all about?

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 08-04-2007 8:34 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 8:45 PM Doddy has replied
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2007 9:45 PM Doddy has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 128 of 154 (414898)
08-06-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Chiroptera
08-06-2007 8:45 PM


Re: Seriously Though
Yeah, I sort of figured that.
However, isn't the 'Bible Belt' between the east and west? I thought that the western states, like Washington and California, weren't as 'fundie' as the south-easterly states. Thus, if your guess were true, and gun-toten' lead to religiousity, then I'd expect more fundies on the west side. Unless something worked to reverse the trend in those states.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Chiroptera, posted 08-06-2007 8:45 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5938 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 130 of 154 (414919)
08-06-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by bluegenes
08-06-2007 9:45 PM


Re: Seriously Though
bluegenes writes:
Relating that to your own country, isn't Queensland much more fundy than the rest of Australia?
Queensland isn't isolated, as from Port Douglas south there is a corridor of towns and cities that stretch down to Wollongong, and then across to Melbourne and then Adelaide. The only isolated major towns/cities aren't in Queensland: Broome, Alice Springs, Perth (+ surrounding towns) and Darwin. And the fundies don't like the last one!
I can't find any stats on it to back up my viewpoint that QLD isn't any more fundy. But, it is true that AiG sort of started here (Of course, AiG actually started (under that name) in the US, and only later 'recolonised' the Australian branch, before then pulling away. And the Australian branch was actually an amalgamation of two creationist organisations, Ken's was in Brisbane and John's was in Adelaide)
Creation Science Foundation - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
quote:
Creation Science Foundation Ltd (CSF) was the former name of Answers in Genesis in Australia. It was founded by Ken Ham and John Mackay, and was the main driving force of creation science in Australia throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. The organization's headquarters until the early 1990s were in a warehouse on the corner of Bradman and Bellrick Streets in Acacia Ridge in Brisbane, Queensland, and then moved to new offices in Overlord Place, Acacia Ridge”another suburb of Brisbane.
So I get to drive past their HQ every time I go straight from uni to work.
Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.
Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2007 9:45 PM bluegenes 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