[_ Old Earth _] Darwinists go ape over new education bill

[lordkalvan]

Given that many churches enjoy tax-free status and are thus effectively subsidised by tax-payers, would it be reasonable for a law to be introduced requiring such churches to ensure a balanced presentation of all sides of the argument when, for example, young Earth creationism is put forward as an equally (or even more) plausible explanation for the history of the planet and the development of life upon it than the natural explanations of science? Perhaps Professors Dawkins or Myers, or one of the prominent Christian evolutionists listed on this website

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/05/christian-evolution-resource-list.php

could be enlisted to give lectures?

Only sort-of joking :wink: .

 

[Guest]

Given that many churches enjoy tax-free status and are thus effectively subsidised by tax-payers, would it be reasonable for a law to be introduced requiring such churches to ensure a balanced presentation of all sides of the argument when, for example, young Earth creationism is put forward as an equally (or even more) plausible explanation for the history of the planet and the development of life upon it than the natural explanations of science? Perhaps Professors Dawkins or Myers, or one of the prominent Christian evolutionists listed on this website

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/05/christian-evolution-resource-list.php

could be enlisted to give lectures?

Only sort-of joking :wink: .

Wow... That sir, is epic win. I salute you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Given that many churches enjoy tax-free status and are thus effectively subsidised by tax-payers, would it be reasonable for a law to be introduced requiring such churches to ensure a balanced presentation of all sides of the argument when....

Wow... That sir, is epic win. I salute you.

Thanks. I doubt many here will agree with you! For my part, I would be particularly interested in seeing such legislation directed towards Sunday schools to ensure the children - Won't someone think of the children! - are properly taught 'both sides of the controversy'.

 

[BobRyan]

Given that many churches enjoy tax-free status and are thus effectively subsidised by tax-payers, would it be reasonable for a law to be introduced requiring such churches to ensure a balanced presentation of all sides of the argument when, for example, young Earth creationism is put forward as an equally (or even more) plausible explanation for the history of the planet and the development of life upon it than the natural explanations of science? Perhaps Professors Dawkins or Myers, or one of the prominent Christian evolutionists listed on this website

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/05/christian-evolution-resource-list.php

could be enlisted to give lectures?

Only sort-of joking :wink: .

good joke -- horribly flawed logic.

But then this is what we expect from a system of "anti-knowledge" that is given that lable by its OWN supporters!

1. Churches are not subsidized by the government rather they are the ones providing government services TO the community in the form of food, shelter, grief counselling, marriage counselling, advanced private school education etc.

Though I do appreciate the agnostic/atheist view you take of the church - the obvious point "remains".

2. Churches are teaching the faith based position of YEC just like atheist darwinists preach the junk-science faith of atheist darwinism. The argument has never been to go to atheist darwinist gatherings and make them teach another doctrine other than the ones they already preach.

The issue is to GET religion OUT of academia which means no more atheist darwinism and not YEC.

ID yes -- atheist darwinist dogma -- no.

Let each of the respective relgious groups - atheist darwinists,,, Bible believing Christians continue with their own doctrinal messages -- but they can do so outside of public science classes because those classe should always be allowed to "FOLLOW THE DATA WHERE IT LEADS even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of ID that does not pander to the doctrines dictates and dogma of atheist darwinism".

Now see? That was not so hard to get and it makes much more sense to the unbiased objective reader.

Your idea of forcing atheist darwinist doctrine into Christian church shows a flawed understanding of both.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Hmmm, I think I touched a nerve there, Bob. Was I wrong about the tax-free status many churches enjoy, then?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I have a question Bob. What are your beliefs on these:

1. Approx age of the universe
2. Approx age of the earth
3. Man created fully formed, evolved guided by super natural being, or unguided by super natural being.
4.size of the universe approx

I thought I remembered you being in favor of the young earth and no evo view, but I am confused now because you seem to be behind ID. Just wanted to clarify your position.

Thanks

 

[Rick W]

You sure are in an inquisitive mood VaultZero4Me.
I have one:
What is a moderator from "Ethical Atheist" doing on a Christian site?

 

[lordkalvan]

You sure are in an inquisitive mood VaultZero4Me.
I have one:
What is a moderator from "Ethical Atheist" doing on a Christian site?

Posing an alternative viewpoint? There are many fundamentalist Christians and Christians of many other denominations on supposedly 'atheist' sites - RDF, IIDB, TR and RnR, for example - putting their points of view forward. Are we incapable of listening to and comprehending those whose understanding and beliefs fail to reinforce our own?

 

[Rick W]

Are we incapable of listening to and comprehending those whose understanding and beliefs fail to reinforce our own?

That goes both ways lordkalvan.
Statement of Faith

 

[BobRyan]

I have a question Bob. What are your beliefs on these:

1. Approx age of the universe

Don't know -- might not be millions of years though.

2. Approx age of the earth

Don't know (if speaking about earth rocks) could be the same age as the Universe.

3. Man created fully formed, evolved guided by super natural being, or unguided by super natural being.

Genesis is right -- 7 evenings and mornings "SIX days you shall labor.. for IN SIX days the LORD MADE..." Ex 20:8-11.

All life on earth "originated" 6000 years ago in 6 evenings and mornings. The sun and moon also were functioning shining moving orbiting at once on day 4.

4.size of the universe approx

Current "estimates" 78-94 BLY - but that is not the size of the visible universe and it is just an estimate. Earlier estimates THIS DECADE were about twice that.

I thought I remembered you being in favor of the young earth and no evo view,

That is correct.

but I am confused now because you seem to be behind ID. Just wanted to clarify your position.

Thanks

I have stated repeatedly that ID IS NOT YEC creationism. Some of the coolaid that atheist toss out is that they are the same thing -- but that is just because to atheist darwinism ID is as threatening as the YEC position -- they "fear it all".

What is facinating is the way darwinist then take the fears of those promoting atheist darwinism and then pretend that the YEC guys are claiming that ID IS YEC.

It is not!

But is MERELY "ADMITTIG" to Design in a case where they find it... it is one study -- one example at a time. Showing scientifically that "rocks can not do this given enough time mass and access to an energy source". My EM wave form argument shows how that same practice gave us scanning radios.

ID is not compatible with some forms of atheism -- but it is also not the YEC argument either.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm, I think I touched a nerve there, Bob. Was I wrong about the tax-free status many churches enjoy, then?

Just a logical fallacy to argue that the community services provided through churches -- that are also provided by government should be taxed.

Also a fallacy to argue that the atheist darwinist doctrines of evolutionism should be forced into churches.

But you do argue good atheism... good agnosticism probably.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

any time he posts just ask him to show us where the data for ID leads. Show us some of the theories.

He usually ignores you or goes to a new thread at that point. Though once he went on a vague ramble about Electromag waves, without ever fully explaining it. Just vague allusions.

once??!!! I think I have about 50 posts on that so far.

Read.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW -- I notice that our Darwinist devotees are trying to steer this thread off topic -- and that is always a clue that "the OP topic" is a good one!

Back we go!

Theory of evolution is not a belief, it is a fact,

Hmm the very kind of "just accept this as some kind of REVEALED TRUTH" argument that Patterson condemned among Darwinists.

Of course it is "backed up by mountaints of junk-science hoaxes and frauds" so maybe that is a good reason for "ignoring the facts and accepting the doctrines of darwinism anyway".

As for the non-science anti-knowledge embedded in the "story telling" we call Darwinism... here is a well respected Atheist Darwinist ADDRESSING that point.

(Watch other Atheists Darwinist devotees RUN from that point!)

Evolution AS FAITH

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

[quote:ec9fd]
Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge [/u], apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

[/quote:ec9fd]

(BTW I really do appreaciate Patterson's term above... "evolutionISM")

No wonder Louisianna decided to "ALLOW" criticism of such a junk-science religion "without obligatory dark-ages style reprisal".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

come to think of it -- this all sorta reminds me of that famous Times Educational Supplement that Dawkins tried to get "censored" because it was not the "all-darwinism-all-the-time" complimentary argument in pablum form that he preferred.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Hmmm, I think I touched a nerve there, Bob. Was I wrong about the tax-free status many churches enjoy, then?

Just a logical fallacy to argue that the community services provided through churches -- that are also provided by government should be taxed.

Is this a roundabout way of agreeing, then, that many churches do in fact enjoy tax free status?

Also a fallacy to argue that the atheist darwinist doctrines of evolutionism should be forced into churches.

In what way do you define it as a fallacy. Do you regard it as a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy, for instance? Verbal fallacy or material fallacy? By the way, why do you persist in the unsupported contention that '[D]arwinist doctrines of evolutionism' are 'atheist'? That some, many or even most of those who accept the theory of evolution as widely supported by multiple lines of evidence is not proof that evolutionary theory says anything about the existence of God. That there are many Christians, Christian ministers and Christian scientists who agree that evolutionary theory stands aside from the question of God's existence suggests that your continued identification as 'atheist' is simply a Goebbels-style propaganda device designed to persuade the unthinking that, if something is said over and over enough times, then it must be so.

But you do argue good atheism... good agnosticism probably.

I can't work out whether this is meant as a compliment or not.

 

[lordkalvan]

come to think of it -- this all sorta reminds me of that famous Times Educational Supplement that Dawkins tried to get "censored" because it was not the "all-darwinism-all-the-time" complimentary argument in pablum form that he preferred.

Do you have a reference or, better yet, a link to this as it is an incident of which I am unaware and would be interested in following up? Thanks.

 

[BobRyan]

Richard Milton's article is out on a number of sources -- an easy one to find it is this one.

http://www.lauralee.com/milton2.htm

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Richard Milton's article is out on a number of sources -- an easy one to find it is this one.

http://www.lauralee.com/milton2.htm

Bob

Thanks for that link. However, it refers to the alleged censorship issue only in passing, i.e. in Richard Milton's letter to Auriol Stevens. Do you have references that provide more detail of the incident; Auriol Stevens' reply to Richard Milton's letter would be interesting as would anything on the context of Richard Dawkins' reaction to the article. Everything I have been able to find so far sheds no more light on the issue than Richard Milton's letter.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

You sure are in an inquisitive mood VaultZero4Me.
I have one:
What is a moderator from "Ethical Atheist" doing on a Christian site?

My question to Bob is to clarify his position in debates regarding evolution so that I may understand his stance on the issues at hand. My question is relevant to the discussion.

Unless youre in the camp that evolution some how = atheism, you inquisition is entirely irrelevant to this thread.

To answer your question, I enjoy conversation with Christians and non-christians alike, and if you look over my threads, you will not find any hidden agenda that you posed questions seems to suggest. In fact I commonly post in threads that have nothing to do with Christianity, because I enjoy the conversation of many on this particular site.

Also, you can search my threads here and find numerous occasions that I pointed out that I am a non-believer. In fact, I did it on my very first post to this site.

I grew up in a Christian home, study the bible quite regularly, and am very well versed on theology imo. I like studying and understanding religion. That is the reason I am here, as well as enjoying many of your posters.

I also may point out that your very question, and the manner it was posed would be the type that you pointed out early in the TOS should be a pm. Or am I wrong in that assumption?

If you would like to know the other sites in addition to ethicalatheist.com I post on http://www.nonconforums.com (a site dedicated to great, constructive conversations between the whole range of believers and non believers), http://www.techguys.com (computer help), http://www.audiforums.com (for car help), forums.worldofwarcraft.com (I am a bit of a video game nerd)

Thats all of the ones I can think of right now, but feel free to ask me anything about those as well.

btw, I am only a mod on ethicalatheist.com because we had a run of pornographic spam bot attacks, and the websites software was out of date. They made many of the regular posters there mods so we could delete the dozens of posts that were being spammed per hour, until the actual moderators could find a resolution. I am not a moderator in the true sense, as I am not actually affiliated with the site other than a poster.

Now, with that being said, since this question is coming from a moderator on this board, I am inclined to ask if there is a problem with me posting here. If you meant to suggest that I have no business posting here than I wish for you say it in a more specified manner, otherwise I will continue to post. You can pm me or we can just continue this conversation on the board.

 

[BobRyan]

Richard Milton's article is out on a number of sources -- an easy one to find it is this one.

http://www.lauralee.com/milton2.htm

Bob

Thanks for that link. However, it refers to the alleged censorship issue only in passing, i.e. in Richard Milton's letter to Auriol Stevens. Do you have references that provide more detail of the incident; Auriol Stevens' reply to Richard Milton's letter would be interesting as would anything on the context of Richard Dawkins' reaction to the article. Everything I have been able to find so far sheds no more light on the issue than Richard Milton's letter.

I agree that we are just getting the information from the victim.

Who else should we be asking?

Bob