|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2009 : 10:42:10
|
Well, since I'm looking at that stuff (Top 10 Myths about Creation)in the first place, let's have a look at some of the "myths" that they dispell:
Myth #9
The truth is, despite their protests, "intelligent design" IS creationism, they're just more cagey about it, is all.
AIG says: | The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. |
.
Have those characters never heard of the Wedge Document?
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art |
Maybe they should also read this for what Dean Kenyon says at the top of page 3 there, about scientific creationism being one of the intellectual antecedents of the intelligent design movement.
Myth #5
They claim to love science?
Bullshit. They have a LOT of problems with anthropology, paleontology, geology, physics, etc. They excuse it by saying that | ...creationists do attack ideas and frameworks that deny God's authority and place as Creator |
Problem is, is that pretty much does set them up against most of modern science, because science doesn't start by bootlicking any god.
Look at how they view the Mars rover project...
Read this and tell me if they would ever come up with the idea to do the LHC on their own, or if instead they view it as a waste of time.
Never mind the fact that they lie about the big bang having to be taken "on faith"...
This article, besides misquoting Dawkins, shows their anti-science mindset right here:
| We would argue that no bit of evidence--no scientific discovery--is going to make Weinberg change his mind*; after all, there are plenty of unanswered questions in secular science that require divine intervention (e.g., origin of the universe, origin of life, origin of genetic information, origin of language and morality), but atheists hold on to their faith that science will provide them with a way around the God conclusion. If Weinberg doesn't see enough to believe in God now, then he never will (from a logical standpoint). |
*Let's ignore the fact that these people complain about "no evidence" will change Weinberg's mind while on the other hand, AIG is the people with an statement of faith which says that:
| By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. |
Think about it...if one thinks that "unanswered questions" need a divine intervention to explain, what are the chances that they'd ever go on to figure it out, as opposed to saying "goddidit" and just remaining ignorant?
An example I can think of right off the bat is Marvin Lubenow's Bones of Contention, where he goes off topic at one point and talks about solar neutrinos... also shown here if you scroll down a bit about how there weren't near as many of them as scientists predicted. He claims that it's because the sun wasn't as old as people thought, and he complains that he got picked on for that. Turns out, though, that secular science found the answer.
If we had just accepted his view, we'd have remained ignorant.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 12/01/2009 10:55:36
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 11:28:50 [Permalink]
|
re ID=creationism, AiG writes:
Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.
Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation.
Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either. |
AiG's main problem is that they consider a literal interpretation of their own bile (me writing bile instead of bible here was a simple spelling mistake. I thought I'd leave it in, however, because it sort of amused me) to be the only form of creationism possible. While there is no one true definition of the word, I think one can easily make the claim that ID is creationism. After all, something intelligent has to create all that wonderful specified complexity. It seems that ID even claims that something intelligent had to create the universe. How, then, can anyone claim that ID is not creationsm? Oh, I know, AiG is playing a word game.
This would seem to bolster AiG's claim that ID is not a trojan horse to get creationism into schools. Bollocks - as the ignored mentioned, there is the Wedge document. Also, anyone thinking that IDists are rational people only interested in ID for it's "science" should visit uncommon descent - the major meeting place for ID supporters on the net. Just about any discussion over there ends up discussing theology. ID supporters are overwhelmingly creationists.
Note: some nitpicking IDists might claim that ID is merely the art of design detection and it's conclusions then merely implies that something intelligent had to create everything. Again, word games. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
AIG's "myths of creation"
