RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: A new creation-hybridisation of ID and creationism< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:33   

Well, theres this organisation called "truth in science", which is basically founded by the usual suspects, young earth creationists who came into a bit of money.  They are intent on lying to schoolchildren.  
So we, meaning various of us in the BCSE and Just science, would like to put a spanner in the works.  

Anyway, they have this website with lots of essays and rubbish on biology, and I thought I woudl bring up this horse one:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/

Now, I can see that baraminologists are creationists, and the essay carefully skirts around that issue, treating baraminology papers as real ones.  

That is just the beggining of their calumny, unfortunately I lack years of knowledge of biology and genetics sufficient to point out some holes.  Anyone got any recent references that are especially relevant to the evolution of horse like animals from their less horse like ancestors?

The talkorigins essay is definitely a good start, I'm just asking if there is more up to date information available.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,04:42   

[insert expletives here]
I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago.  Contrast this:

Quote
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


With:
Quote
Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc.  Argh!  Lenny, you are so right.  
This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy....

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:06   

I wouldn't advocate wasting your time.  Any references to science will be promptly ignored or regarded as a predictable attack and no amount of discussion/argument will deter them from their primary belief that God created the universe et al.  This is were people have to be expected to learn the difference between religion and science and if they don't want to you can not make them.  It's an exercise in futility on the same par with the continuing monotony of the discussions with Dave.  Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,14:08   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,19:06)
I wouldn't advocate wasting your time.  Any references to science will be promptly ignored or regarded as a predictable attack and no amount of discussion/argument will deter them from their primary belief that God created the universe et al.  This is were people have to be expected to learn the difference between religion and science and if they don't want to you can not make them.  It's an exercise in futility on the same par with the continuing monotony of the discussions with Dave.  Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point?

The point is preventing them from teaching their crap in schools as "science".

They can preach whatever they want in church.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,15:56   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,19:06)
Dave's beliefs will never be changed by any on these boards and his versions of evidence will also never be accepted here.  So with that being said, what's the point?

It's FUN!!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,16:59   

I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,17:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,22:59)
I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?

I heard this on a radio show a while back:

"You have to constantly hit idiocy and stupidity in the face.  Otherwise, idiocy and stupidity think they are alright."

It's not a matter of the level of discussion, it's about revealing the facts in light of the idiocy (or stupidity).

Preach, pray, shout, dance, but don't mess with the facts.

Plus.... it's FUN

  
Aerik



Posts: 1
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,19:25   

HI! New to this forum.

Yes, I've known about "Truth In Science" for some time. It has been showing up in the contextual ads of pandasthumb.org, skepticality.com, and scienceblogs.com for some time now.

We're talking alot about how they're skirting issues about their obvious creationism.  How come nobody's compared it to "Of Pandas and People" yet?  It's purty much the same situation.

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,20:16   

Quote
I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?


actually, the current concern is the outreach to the UK these folks are pulling.

they've sent double-discs of their drivel to every school district in the UK, and the idea of bringing it to everyone's attention is to alert the school districts to these folks shenanigans (yes, get your brooms!;).

so it's not a waste of time at all.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2006,22:13   

OOps, I should have specified that we are talking about the UK here.  I was getting a little excited yesterday at their sheer brazeness and forgot to specify that.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,02:50   

Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 18 2006,09:42)
[insert expletives here]
I've done some googling, and found that the essay i referred to above is basically an edited version that the numpty produced several years ago.  Contrast this:

Quote
The evidence of fossils, along with the study of horse embryos, indicates that the horse series is a genuine record of biological change over time. Evolutionary scientists point to this as evidence of Darwinian evolution. However, non-evolutionary scientists say that this simply records changes within the horse basic type and that there is little evidence to suggest that horses developed from a non-horse ancestor. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionary and non-evolutionary theories it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


With:
Quote
Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.


All they've done is remove overt references to the flood etc.  Argh!  Lenny, you are so right.  
This will make writing a letter to the Times about errors in their website rather easy....

OK.  So, if the world is only 6000 years old and horses have gone through all these changes "in kind" then why have we not noticed horses (and other animals) changing so rapidly and so much?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,03:49   

Guthrie, I'm not sure how it works over there so I do not know of your level of distress but I do know how it works over here and it is a non-issue.  There's no scientific evidence for a 6,000 year old world and to even entertain the argument is like walking into the asylum and sitting down for a game of checkers.  Now by all accounts Europe is much more secularized than the US so I would assume you would have no problem with this issue either but I may be wrong.  You can throw examples like horses in their face but it makes no difference whatso ever because the belief is built on faith.  In order to believe a 6,000 year old Earth you'd have to deny almost all science disciplines for the last 200 years and when you do that, as these people have, then there's just no reason to have a conversation about science because you're speaking two different languages.  It has nothing to do with idiocy or stupidity; it's a decision that faith trumps reason and I know that's a generally aborrent attitude around here but that is the choice of a minority and there's nothing that can be done to change it.  I would submit that there should be no effort to try because these people are happy and harmless so why waste the time.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,04:41   

Quote
 I would submit that there should be no effort to try because these people are happy and harmless so why waste the time.


god, you're simply an idiot, aren't you?

it isn't just YEC's supporting that site, the disco institute is heavily invested as well, and is one of the ones who provided the sponsored discs that were sent out.

whether these people are "happy" or not is hardly the point, they certainly are NOT harmless.

why don't you leave your little cave once in a while and get some fresh air, eh?

you might actually catch something of what's really happening out there, rather than your fantasies of it.

yeesh.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,05:39   

Up to a point, yes skeptic, they are fairly harmless.  But the point is that they are trying to smuggle non science into schools, as part of the usual wedge strategy.  Sure, they are talking mince, as usual, but, like with the last few places in the USA that tried to get ID into the school curriculum, they have to be smacked down.  I recall that many of the school boards in question have been changed, by people voting out the ID'ists.  This is the kind of issue that really isnt that big to begin with but takes a fair bit of effort to make sure it doesnt grow and to reverse the attempts by the creationists.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:03   

the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,12:44   

Quote
the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here.
Skeptic, I think you're delusional.

First, for thinking there's a "chasm" between YEC and ID. I don't know what planet you live on, but here in Ohio, "ID" is a fancy word for saying "There's a bunch of PhDs cranking out a bunch of sciency-sounding  sophistry that says that we YECers are basically right".  The folks coming to the school board to defend the "ID" position are mostly YECers - to the extent that they can even see a distinction between the two. (Many cannot).

Second, for thinking that the whole anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-intellectual movement is not all of a piece, and not a serious threat to education. Either you haven't been following events in Ohio, Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Michigan, and several other places, or you are, in fact, delusional.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,15:07   

skeptic,
It's not the person that's stupid or idiotic, it's the ideas that are put forward.  I can say "That's stupid!" to my doctor as well as to a creationist.  I'm not disparaging the person directly.  If a YEC argument says the earth is 6000 years old then "That's stupid AND idiotic." and the person should seek help to correct his/her/its misinformation.

It's not against the law to be ignorant, just annoying to many others.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,19:04   

Thats something I will have to ponder as I have never really been much concerned with the ignorance of others and it certainly doesn't annoy me.  Maybe I just don't have the free time to worry about such things.  Also, I'd like to see a show of hands from all those who believe ID will ever be taught in the public schools.  If you raised your hand then you live in a much different world than I and barring the chance that both these worlds exist simultaneously then one of us must be delusional.  Its not for me to decide who because I honestly don't care.  And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,19:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 19 2006,17:03)
the chasm between YEC and ID is immense and as we've seen how ID has fared, YEC has no chance.  Ichy, if you feel the need to create crisis to entertain yourself, feel free.  Personally, I think you're nearly delusional, there is no REAL threat here.

you are an amazing dolt.

why don't you go tell the folks scrambling for cash in the Dover School district about how this is all a "non-issue", eh?

why do you even think it managed to become a federal court case to begin with?

what exactly is your malfunction???

my god, but you have your head wedged.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2006,21:56   

And the reason I called the thread what I did was to draw some attention to the way the Truthiness in science people are mostly YEC's, yet have adopted much of the language of ID people, such as Wells books, and also talk happily about the flagellum etc etc.  
Now, if I could find some leading light in the ID movement slagging them off for stealing their ideas to promote their own agenda, I guess I wouldnt be so bothered.  So far, I have yet to see that.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,00:51   

And they have a new/ old anti-evolutionist about whome I can find nothing on talk origins:
Felix Konotey-Ahulu, MD.
The evidence is here:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/142/65

Mostly its just a rant about how Darwinism cant explain anything, and I suspect its been totally blown out the water by modern genetics, but it needs someone who actually knows something about sickle cell anemia to deal with it.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,01:04   

To be honest I didn't put much thought into that page because it just seemed to be saying: 'if a piece of evidence doesn't prove by itself that all life descended from a single cell than it doesn't count as evidence for evolutiuon'.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,01:17   

What!  You mean like most of the rest of the spin and half truths on Truthiness in science' website?  
I'm shocked!
not.

I guess I'm still working on short snappy ways of bringing it home to the public how little in the way of substance there is behind their ramblings.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,03:57   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,01:04)
Thats something I will have to ponder as I have never really been much concerned with the ignorance of others and it certainly doesn't annoy me.  Maybe I just don't have the free time to worry about such things.  Also, I'd like to see a show of hands from all those who believe ID will ever be taught in the public schools.  If you raised your hand then you live in a much different world than I and barring the chance that both these worlds exist simultaneously then one of us must be delusional.  Its not for me to decide who because I honestly don't care.  And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick.

skeptic,
I'm going to be critical here.

Do you always type in stream-of-consiousness?  I'm trying to piece together those bits of your reply that apply to my comments and others comments, BUT without any references, quotes, or distinct seperation of phrases the whole response seems to be so much mumbling on your part.

As for the bolded portion I think you are thinking in too broad a catagory for my statement about ignorance.  Let me put it into an analogy.
****
I'm almost positive you have in the past been concerned about the ignorance of your co-workers as it relates to getting your job done at some point in your career.  By this I mean that you know some facts/procedure/insight that are needed to get your job done but should be known by everyone involved in this job family.  If someone you work with expresses ignorance with these facts/procedures/insights then you have to take time and effort to correct the ignorance expressed.  This is what I find annoying because this co-worker should have come equiped with enough knowledge and training to already understand the facts/procedures/insights in their job.  It may be the company training program that failed them instead of the person not thinking.  It doesn't matter, it's still annoying (to me at least).

I use the same thinking when faced with knowledge that most high-schoolers should understand (age of earth, genetics, basic physics, etc.).  If someone displays ignorance of this knowledge then it's annoying that EITHER the system failed to teach them OR that someone chose not to learn the facts.  I will try and correct them with the facts so they can learn and understand.

The "idiocy and stupidity" come into play when someone ignores the factual evidence that contradicts the ignorance expressed.  I'm not referring to someone incapable to understand the concepts, but more to an AFDave who has the capacity to absorb the factual evidence but chooses not to.

Mike PSS

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,04:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,00:04)
And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.  Just because certain individuals cling to both theories doesn't bring them any closer together.  It is equivilant to throwing something (in this case two somethings) against the wall to see what will stick.


I see. United by nothing more than a hatred of evolution, they'll glom onto any theory that says it contradicts Darwinism. 6,000 year old earth, 4.5 billion year old earth, no evolution ever, yes evolution, common descent, no common descent, what's the difference? Best not to talk about it. Just as long as it's not 'Darwinism', that's all that matters.

If there's such a massive chasm between ID and creationism, then why was it possible to convert a Creationism textbook to an Intelligent Design textbook by simply doing a global search-and-replace of 'creation' with 'design'? I can't imagine ANY other instance of two 'totally different' scientific theories where you can convert one to the other merely by switching a few crucial words.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,05:00   

In this particular case, the DI has approved of "Truth in Science", and TiS use the example of the bacterial flagellum in one of their lesson plans.  The people behind it are mostly solid young earth creationists, which can be established easily enough by looking them up online.  
Moreover as I pointed out above, the essay on the evolution of the horse is a creationist essay with references to the flood removed.  

Now, of course not all ID and creationists will go along with each other; nevertheless, the fact remains that due to their lack of scientific theory, they can rub along ok because they do not make the kind of hard and fast distinctions necessary to have a workable hypothesis.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1706
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:08   

Quote
Palaeontological and embryological data indicate that the horse series is a genuine phylogeny, but it does not constitute an example of megaevolution since the morphological change documented is within the taxonomic rank of family. It is possible for creationists to interpret this morphological change as within-kind diversification after the Flood. Since the magnitude and type of change represented by the horse series can be accommodated by both evolutionist and creationist models it cannot, therefore, distinguish between them. At best, in terms of the origins debate, the horse series is neutral data.

Whenever I read something like the quote above, I am always gobsmacked by the mindset that can blithely call on  vastly faster evolution than evolutionary biologists can imagine (all of horse evolution in 6000 years), while equally blithely dismissing evolutionary change as irrelevant.  They are proposing that evolutionary change can go from a dog-sized animal with four toes per foot and teeth that are very different from horse teeth to a horse-sized animal with one toe per foot and with major dental changes, but they can't accept going from a chimp/human ancestor to humans over 3 million years. Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals.

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:22   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2006,14:08)
Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals.

Somehow being formed from dirt (Genesis 2:7) makes us more noble?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:48   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 20 2006,13:22)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2006,14:08)
Anything is okay as long as it doesn't involve hunams evolving from animals.

Somehow being formed from dirt (Genesis 2:7) makes us more noble?

Yeah! Besides, if we're formed out of dirt, how come we still have dirt?? :angry:

(I have single-handedly disproved Genesis! :p)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,08:53   

If everything from Eohippus to the modern horse (and also, presumably, donkeys and zebras) are the same basic kind, which one was on the ark?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,09:01   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 20 2006,13:53)
If everything from Eohippus to the modern horse (and also, presumably, donkeys and zebras) are the same basic kind, which one was on the ark?

I think that falls into the category of 'pathetic level of detail'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:36   

From the link:

Look familiar??  ;)

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,10:50   

INdeed it does.  Of course, their only explanation about the similarity of cells and stuff across species is that the creator used different modules.  How exactly they did this, and how to tell the different modules apart, is not clear.

Then theres the fact that they are parasitic upon real scientists.  They dont go out and dig up fossils to find more families or kinds.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,13:03   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,00:04)
And finally, there is a huge difference between ID and YEC.

Reaaaaalllllyyyyyyy.


Gee, when Discovery Institute listed, as one of its "governing goals" for ID:

"Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation"


would you mind telling me (1) what's this "traditional doctrine of creation" that ID wanted to "defend", (2) why it wanted to "defend" it, and (3) where were all these humingous differences between it and ID.

And when you finish with that, you can explain to me why well over half of the witnesses who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt to defend teaching ID in schools, were young-earth creationists.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,13:07   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 18 2006,21:59)
I fail to see the fun and YEC will never be taught in public schools so again, what's the point?

Well, since there's no point, there wouldn't seem to be much reason for you to hang around here, then.  Right?

Bye.  (waving as you ride off into the horizon)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,13:45   

Quote (guthrie @ Oct. 20 2006,02:56)
And the reason I called the thread what I did was to draw some attention to the way the Truthiness in science people are mostly YEC's, yet have adopted much of the language of ID people, such as Wells books, and also talk happily about the flagellum etc etc.  
Now, if I could find some leading light in the ID movement slagging them off for stealing their ideas to promote their own agenda, I guess I wouldnt be so bothered.  So far, I have yet to see that.

Nor will you.  On UD, on the day before ID got cremated in Dover, Dumbski cheered up the faithful by declaring that even if the IDers lost, they could always go overseas and take their, uh, scientific campign there.

Dumbski was as good as his word.  Of course, since ID is, in the US, as dead as the proverbial doornail, he doesn't have much *choice* in the matter, does he.  It's either the UK or oblivion.

Hence, he will latch on to the anti-evolutioners in the UK, he will, kiss their holy little asses, he will refrain from any impolite conversations about anything that divides the Big Tent, and he will attempt to ride their coattails to holy victory (then claim credit for the whole thing).

And he will get clobbered even worse there than he did in the US.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,15:27   

Lenny, while technically you are correct, the real issue has, and will continue to be, the damage these idiots cause in their crusade.

ID, as you well know since you paste out the entire wedge strategy every other day or so, is a lot more than a simple-minded harmless ideology.

It causes REAL damage to REAL people, and if the UK chooses to crack down on this shit hard and fast, they might not have to deal with the repercussions we have here in the US.

there's real money behind these folks (again, as you keep pointing out), and money can cause damage.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,16:36   

Oh, I think there's nothing at all "harmless" about it.

Thankfully, though, it is dead here.

And whatever I can do to help the Brits kill it there, I'm game.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,18:25   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Oct. 20 2006,08:57)
skeptic,
I'm going to be critical here.

Do you always type in stream-of-consiousness?  I'm trying to piece together those bits of your reply that apply to my comments and others comments, BUT without any references, quotes, or distinct seperation of phrases the whole response seems to be so much mumbling on your part.

Mike, I will apologize for this style because I use it constantly for two reasons, 1) it is my natural style, and 2) I'm typically responding to multiple posts at once and I don't have the time or the inclination to quote all those instances, sorry.  I understand the difficulty this may sometimes cause and I apologize for the inconvenience.

Now, moving on, for all those who think ID and YEC have something in common let's look at this a little more closely:

ID generally accepts most scientific concepts as we know them while YEC does not.

ID only real statement is the complexity of life implies a Designer, YEC says that designer is the God of the Bible and the only relevant science text is the Old Testament.

YEC makes statements about the moral and spirtual aspect of man while ID does not.

ID, to date, has been rejected in every serious attempt to elevate it to science status while no one is even foolish enough to attempt that with YEC.

As a footnote, DI refers to creationism which is a very broad term.  At last estimates, nearly 90% of US residents believe in God so they must embrace some sort of creationism, by definiton.

Ichy and Lenny, there's no need for the chicken little hysteria, the sky is not falling.  You guys may want to try a new schtick.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,19:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,23:25)
Ichy and Lenny, there's no need for the chicken little hysteria, the sky is not falling.

Well, you're right about that.  After all, in a few weeks, the Republicrats will have their head handed to them, and without the political support of the Republicrats, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle.

ID is dead.  Dead, dead, dead.

It is no longer any threat of any sort.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,19:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 20 2006,23:25)
[
Now, moving on, for all those who think ID and YEC have something in common let's look at this a little more closely:

OK, let's.

From Walter Lammerts, the co-founder of the Creation Research Society, 1975:  "Our aim is a rather audacious one, namely, the complete re-evaluation of science from the theistic viewpoint."


From the DI's Wedge Document, 1989:  "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


Yeah, I can, uh, really see the big difference there . . . .


[ID only real statement is the complexity of life implies a Designer, YEC says that designer is the God of the Bible and the only relevant science text is the Old Testament.]


Let's see:

From William Dembski: "Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

From Phillip Johnson:  ""Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

From the Wedge Document:  "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."


By golly, Skeptic, you're right --- certainly no mention of God or the Bible anywhere by ID . . . .  (snicker)  (giggle)


Oh, I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, so I'll ask again:

*ahem*

What is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI says it wants churches to defend, why does it want them to defend it, and where are these humungous differences between ID and creationism?

Take your time, Skeptic.  


Next time, I'll ask you why the authors and editors of "Pandas and People" wrote four drafts of their book using the word "creationism" and then suddenly in 1987 changed all the "creationism" references to "intelligent design theory", without changing anything else in the book -- if, as you want us to believe, the two have utterly absolutely completely totally unalterably nothing at all whatsoever to do with each other in any way shape or form.

I'll be polite and not ask you about the Supreme Court decision in 1987 that, um, might have prompted that rather sudden change.

I look forward to your not answering my simple questions.  Again.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2006,20:06   

By the way, Skeptic, why, again, were over half the witnesses who testified at the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt on behalf of ID, young-earth creationists . . . ?

Oh, and regarding attempts to teach YEC, you, uh, *do* know that the 1981 Maclean v Arkansas court case and the 1987 Edwards V Aguillard court case both revolved around that very thing --- and both of them ruled teaching YEC to be illegal.  You *do* know that, right?  Right?

So, Skeptic, if it's, uh, illegal to teach, there's no surprise that nobody today is trying to have it taught, right?

Instead, ID "theory" first appeared when some creationist authors wrote a book about "creationism" and then changed all the references to "creationism" into "intelligent design theory" instead.

I'm sure that it's just an innocent coincidence that this happened within weeks of the Supreme Court case that made it illegal to teach "creationism" in public schools.  I'm sure that it was NOT just a dishonest attempt by the fundies to get around the outlawing of "creationism" by keeping the same arguments (ya know, Skeptic, the very same arguments that all those ID supporters testified to in Kansas), and simply changing the name from "creationism" to "intelligent design".  It's just an innocent coincidence that every argument offered by the IDers is a rehashed version of standard creationist boilerplate put out by ICR thirty years ago.  It's just happenstance that every "criticism of evolution" put out by the IDers was first printed decades ago by the creation 'scientists'.  After all, ID and creationism have nothing at all whatsoever to do with each other, right, Skeptic?  

(snicker)  (giggle)

No WONDER nobody takes you seriously.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2006,01:14   

Come on skeptic give us the good oil on ID.

Tell us all what ID REALLY is. (snicker)

BTW anything will do ....since like a definition for gawd any definition and all definitions are equally valid from the Talibans' to the teapot's.

Is that why you omit to chastise the pedlars YEC ignorance?

Hope they will go away to save your little delusion from further embarrassment?

Anything to do with the "big tent" love in for the survival of superstition?

As I said before skeptic THAT IS not skepticism of  the revelation of nature  to mankind by the reasoning mind but a cynical ploy to cover your faith based ass by the acceptance of ignorance, which you know to be the only cause by which most religion survives.

Obscurantism as opposed to enlightenment, the very fuel by which the purveyors of the "One True Word of the Intelligent Designer" fill up on, on Sunday.

So enlighten us...what is ID?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
  42 replies since Oct. 18 2006,04:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]