The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Nerin · 21-01-2008 2:39am

and IF my gods and spirits exist, would it not be similarly wise of you to nod in their general direction?

not that theres any risk like hell if you dont. theyre a much more understanding bunch

its all about free will

Scofflaw · 21-01-2008 2:45am

J C wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Something that isn't pointed out often enough in Creationism debates is that Western science started off as an exploration of God's Creation as it was put in the Bible. Geology started off as an examination of the relics of the Flood, biology as an examination of Biblical Kinds.

I agree......and therefore Creation Science IS actually in a sense, science going back to it's roots, so to speak!!

Yes indeed. In much the same way, going back to trepanning to let the demons out represents a return to the roots of psychotherapy, and letting the poor subsist on whatever charity their neighbours offer represents a return to the roots of modern social systems.

Not that conservative Christians use trepanning, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops · 21-01-2008 3:04am

J C wrote: »

......I accept that you can HEAR.....
......but are you really LISTENING????:D

J C wrote: »

......I accept that you can look.....
......but are you really SEEING????:D

Aaah! That's, like, really profound. Dude. :rolleyes: srsly

J C wrote:

...and I freely give ALL of the credit to God.....and the National University of Ireland!!!

Well, we can thusly rule out the ITs, UL, DCU and all the colleges in Northern Ireland. The evolutionist net is closing in on you, JC. Soon, we will get you. There will be no where left to hide. MWAH HA HA!

stevejazzx · 21-01-2008 10:47am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not that conservative Christians use trepanning, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing else has worked for them so I suppose it'd be worth a try!:)

Akrasia · 21-01-2008 12:00pm

J C wrote: »

I agree......and therefore Creation Science IS actually in a sense, science going back to it's roots, so to speak!!

You mean going backwards right?

In tandem with the rest of science, Creation Science has made enormous progress in our understanding of these phenomena since then!!!

The only progress creationism has made has been in fattening the coffers of televangalists and helping to get a despotic warmongering president elected.

Creationsim is not science. It has nothing to do with science.

sdep · 21-01-2008 2:43pm

Thankyou Scofflaw for another excellent post.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Something that isn't pointed out often enough in Creationism debates is that Western science started off as an exploration of God's Creation as it was put in the Bible. Geology started off as an examination of the relics of the Flood, biology as an examination of Biblical Kinds.

Yes. Wicknight made the same point a few pages ago, though I didn't get round to acknowledging it there.

Scofflaw wrote: »

[...] In a very real sense, however, western science still follows a Christian paradigm, in which a Creator started the whole ball rolling - except that the Big Bang is now, for most scientists who are Christian, the point at which God intervened to create the Universe, and Genesis is clearly metaphorical.

Nevertheless, the Big Bang is still a model in which the Universe was created ex nihilo in one event, which sits extremely easily within the Christian (and more generally Middle Eastern) cosmological framework - what is not so acceptable are the ideas of multiple universes, cosmic fireball engines, etc, all of which have no correspondence with that mental framework, and which have remained of academic interest in a way that the Big Bang has not.

You can see from this, I think, that Creationists are up against quite a lot - in particular, they are up against a paradigm that allows an easy reconciliation of Christian and scientific thought. This is one of the reasons why Creationists are particularly keen to label science as 'materialistic' - to set up an opposition where currently there is actually a comfortable synthesis.

My concern is that in practice the reconciliation is too often achieved without thinking.

Science shows that ours is a still evolving species that shares common ancestry with all others and that has existed for a minute fraction of time since the Big Bang. Our evolution owes much to random mutation and chance extinction, and has been driven by a selective process working largely through competition, often bloodily so.

All of this ought to raise questions over religious claims concerning the unique status of humans, our centrality in a divine plan, and sin, soul and divine compassion. I'm not saying people can't find a way to accommodate science and religion, just that they ought to think it through.

And, returning to topic, creationists, be they Christian or Islamic (for an analysis of the rise of creationism in Islam, see here), don't even begin to do that.

wolfsbane · 21-01-2008 9:50pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Thats rich coming from a guy who believes in talking snakes.

And talking donkeys too! http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:22-35%20;&version=50;

When one is considering what the God who made the universe and all in it, what's so difficult about a snake that spoke? Surely even the amazing complexity of the physical world should give you a hint that we know so little of what is the totality of reality. Lift your eyes from the pavement, man.

Ekancone · 21-01-2008 9:56pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

And talking donkeys too! http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:22-35%20;&version=50;

When one is considering what the God who made the universe and all in it, what's so difficult about a snake that spoke? Surely even the amazing complexity of the physical world should give you a hint that we know so little of what is the totality of reality. Lift your eyes from the pavement, man.

Well, its that bit that i have trouble believing. Its far too simplistic to be true.

wolfsbane · 21-01-2008 10:24pm

sdep said:

Science shows that ours is a still evolving species that shares common ancestry with all others and that has existed for a minute fraction of time since the Big Bang. Our evolution owes much to random mutation and chance extinction, and has been driven by a selective process working largely through competition, often bloodily so.

All of this ought to raise questions over religious claims concerning the unique status of humans, our centrality in a divine plan, and sin, soul and divine compassion. I'm not saying people can't find a way to accommodate science and religion, just that they ought to think it through.

Seems you have company in your deliberations: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

BrianCalgary · 21-01-2008 11:01pm

So Atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

DapperGent · 21-01-2008 11:10pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So Atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

I heard about this other meeting where this one guy called John said something you'd be outraged about too. We need to keep our eye on all people named John henceforth.

BrianCalgary · 21-01-2008 11:27pm

DapperGent wrote: »

I heard about this other meeting where this one guy called John said something you'd be outraged about too. We need to keep our eye on all people named John henceforth.

I agree wholeheartedly.

sdep · 21-01-2008 11:28pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems you have company in your deliberations: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So Atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

For those who can't spare the time, and I recommend you don't, the article cited by Wolfsbane reports some extraordinary comments attributed to a scientist called Eric Pianka by an advocate of creationism called Forrest Mims. Dr Pianka is reported as saying that humans are no better than bacteria and calling for the killing through ebola of 90% of the world population.

There's a link to a nice ranting 'editorial' that makes reference to 'evolutionists', always a giveaway.

I thought it seemed odd, so looked it up further. As we might expect, a local news station gives another side to the story.

Anyway, the logic, so far as I can infer from Wolfsbane and BrianCalgary, seems to be that if you question whether humans were divinely created in a manner distinct from other species, it is but a short step to casually murdering most of the people on the globe. I can see how if one held such a view, one would be loath to give up a single comma of the book of Genesis, but I don't think it a particularly sensible argument.

Oh, but I vowed not to go pig wrestling.

BrianCalgary · 21-01-2008 11:37pm

sdep wrote: »

Anyway, the logic, so far as I can infer from Wolfsbane and BrianCalgary, seems to be that if you question whether humans were divinely created in a manner distinct from other species, it is but a short step to casually murdering most of the people on the globe. I can see how if one held such a view, one would be loath to give up a single comma of the book of Genesis, but I don't think it a particularly sensible argument.

Oh, but I vowed not to go pig wrestling.

Actually your logic is off. There are wackos all over the place that just enjoy the odd genocide of a particular group that would solve humanities ills.

Are you calling us pigs?

Scofflaw · 21-01-2008 11:55pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

sdep said:

Seems you have company in your deliberations: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

And that controversy in full, folks, from the good people at Wikipedia:

In early March 2006 the Texas Academy of Science (TAS) honored University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka as its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist during its 109th Annual Meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas. In a March 3, 2006 lecture at this 109th Annual Meeting, Pianka suggested that the human population is likely to crash, and that a mutant strain of Ebola (which has up to a 90% mortality rate) is a possible culprit. In response to Pianka's speech, Forrest Mims states that Pianka had "endorsed the elimination of 90 percent of the human population" through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus. This report was reported in Alex Jones' prisonplanet.com. and also widely propagated through blogs including William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" and "Telic Thoughts" (another pro-intelligent design blog which has since recanted its original report), Drudge Report and the Discovery Institute—the hub of the intelligent design movement and at which both Mims and Dembski sit as fellows. Dembski has also said that he has reported Pianka to the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Hmm. Statements by a prominent ecologist and evolutionary scientist are taken out of context - nothing new there - but reporting them in the unsupported testimony of one person to the Department of Homeland Security as 'fomenting bioterrorism'? So the guy gets investigated as a potential terrorist - and surprise surprise, nothing. No-one backs Mims' "testimony". Meanwhile, Dr Pianka gets death threats.

Nice. Nice work. No attempt to discredit individual scientists there, nope. I'm genuinely appalled.

Do you think this kind of thing is right, wolfsbane, JC, Brian? Do you think getting your intellectual opponents investigated as terrorists is good? Do you think you should lie about them, hand them over to security forces, send them and their family death threats? Do you think you should render them unto Caesar? Is that your morality?

Commandment 9: "thou shalt not bear false witness".

Jesus wept,
Scofflaw

sdep · 21-01-2008 11:56pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Are you calling us pigs?

No, of course not - my taxonomy isn't that off, and as Ken Ham would have it, they're not even in the same 'kind' as us.

If we must labour it, then the reference was to a metaphor in a post in this thread a few days back:

fatmammycat wrote: »

Why do people keep arguing with these religious anti-evolution folk? They are willfully obtuse and seem intent to stay that way. There is a mountain of scientific evidence out there, available and tangible, in support of evolution. If creationists choose to ignore it let them dwell in their fantasy diety driven world.
My Gamma used to say, 'don't wrestle with pigs, you'll only get dirty and the pig likes it.' This thread a very apt example of that.

Though perhaps, on reflection, metaphor is inappropriate in this of all threads.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Actually your logic is off. There are wackos all over the place that just enjoy the odd genocide of a particular group that would solve humanities ills.

No further comment.

BrianCalgary · 22-01-2008 12:09am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nice. Nice work. No attempt to discredit individual scientists there, nope. I'm genuinely appalled.

As you should be.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you think this kind of thing is right, wolfsbane, JC, Brian?

No

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you think getting your intellectual opponents investigated as terrorists is good?

No

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you think you should lie about them, hand them over to security forces, send them and their family death threats?

No

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you think you should render them unto Caesar?

No

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is that your morality?

no, and I'd be equally appaled if you seriously thought it was.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Jesus wept,
Scofflaw

And continues to weep.

Scofflaw · 22-01-2008 12:21am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

As you should be.

and I'd be equally appaled if you seriously thought it was.

What am I to think, Brian? Wolfsbane gives the link:

wolfsbane wrote:

Seems you have company in your deliberations

without any reference to the other side of the story, or there even being another side to the story - and most importantly, that one side of the story consists only of the thoroughly disputed testimony of Mims, and the reprehensible actions of Dembski - and you take up the cudgels, asking:

BrianCalgary wrote:

So Atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

...well, what am I supposed to think? That you support the breaking of the 9th Commandment (the ends justify the means!), the slandering of the innocent, the bearing of false witness, and the handing over to the authorities of the innocent?

It looks an awful lot like that, I have to say. The only possible excuse is that you're taking Dembski and Mims uncorroborated testimony at face value, and that you truly believe a respected scientist actually got a standing ovation for recommending the death by flesh-eating bacteria of 90% of the human race at a public meeting...quite frankly, that's beyond a joke. Where the hell is your collective commonsense?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 22-01-2008 12:33am

Scofflaw wrote: »

What am I to think, Brian? Wolfsbane gives the link:

without any reference to the other side of the story, or there even being another side to the story - and most importantly, that one side of the story consists only of the thoroughly disputed testimony of Mims, and the reprehensible actions of Dembski - and you take up the cudgels, asking:

...well, what am I supposed to think? That you support the breaking of the 9th Commandment (the ends justify the means!), the slandering of the innocent, the bearing of false witness, and the handing over to the authorities of the innocent?

It looks an awful lot like that, I have to say. The only possible excuse is that you're taking Dembski and Mims uncorroborated testimony at face value, and that you truly believe a respected scientist actually got a standing ovation for recommending the death by flesh-eating bacteria of 90% of the human race at a public meeting...quite frankly, that's beyond a joke. Where the hell is your collective commonsense?

Scofflaw

If you wish to speak like that then, my comment is how does it feel to be on the other side of one side of a story taken out of context?

That was my goal and you got royally ticked and appaled.

Heavens we face it every day. People misinterpreting and twisting scripture, not caring to hear the other side, or the in context version. Yet I am not allowed to read only one side, take it out of context and come up with something outrageous?

Exasperated at the hypocrisy,
Brian

sdep · 22-01-2008 12:43am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If you wish to speak like that then, my comment is how does it feel to be on the other side of one side of a story taken out of context?

That was my goal and you got royally ticked and appaled.

Heavens we face it every day. People misinterpreting and twisting scripture, not caring to hear the other side, or the in context version. Yet I am not allowed to read only one side, take it out of context and come up with something outrageous?

I hear the sound of furious back-pedalling, if you'll excuse the metaphor.

Scofflaw · 22-01-2008 12:43am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

If you wish to speak like that then, my comment is how does it feel to be on the other side of one side of a story taken out of context?

That was my goal and you got royally ticked and appaled.

Heavens we face it every day. People misinterpreting and twisting scripture, not caring to hear the other side, or the in context version. Yet I am not allowed to read only one side, take it out of context and come up with something outrageous?

Exasperated at the hypocrisy,
Brian

Taking scripture out of context for the sake of argument is not the same as bearing false witness, slandering someone, and having them investigated by the US Department of Homeland Security - and I am amazed you think it is!

Both sides in this thread have certainly accused the other of taking things out of context (and both scripture and science have been so treated here), but to continue and support the serious slandering of a third party is an entirely different matter. Both you and wolfsbane appeared to support this slander, and to believe it.

Do you honestly not see why this is entirely different from our anonymous discussions? It is not a question of whether you took anything out of context, but whether you took your side's rendering of the affair as 'gospel' truth, and repeated it without any attempt to check for veracity, or even sense!

Scofflaw

robindch · 22-01-2008 12:44am

hmmm... put my kid to bed between starting and finishing this post; seems the debate has heated up in my absence

Anyhow, below are primary sources (ie, non-Wikipedia) sources for the controversy which blew up 18 months or so ago.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems you have company in your deliberations: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So atheists, environmentalists and evolutionists think that genocide is good? Funny how they decry God in OT times, yet their own brethren advocate it?

Well, a few minutes with Uncle Google produce a different story, as one would expect from Mims' suspicious slagging off of Pianka's condemnation of anthropocentrism, and from the prominent copyright notice that adorns the top of Mims' text (why do so many of the alpha-creationists copyright their warblings?)

Turns out that what Mims wrote about Eric Pianka in no way reflects his published views, which Pianka helpfully hosts on his website. You can download a PDF version of the talk that he gave from here. While his views tend towards the alarmist, he does not of course, advocate wiping out 90% of the world's population.

Meanwhile, Forrest Mims is a "Fellow" of the Discovery Institute, advocates intelligent design and a global-warming denier.

The cheap and oh-so-easily pointed-out dishonesty of alpha-creationists like Mims and Dembski is contemptible to start with. It is doubly so that these frauds claim a higher morality. It is deeply sick that Mims' deceitful comments have caused death threats to be made against Pianka. But it reaches loathsome depth that I didn't think that this debate could reach, for Dembski to report the pack of lies to the Department of Homeland Security, presumably hoping for Big Brother to come and whisk the evolutionist Pianka away.

I mean, don't you guys ever get so much as the eensiest, teensiest twinge that you're being used?

.

BrianCalgary · 22-01-2008 12:54am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Taking scripture out of context for the sake of argument is not the same as bearing false witness, slandering someone, and having them investigated by the US Department of Homeland Security - and I am amazed you think it is!

Both sides in this thread have certainly accused the other of taking things out of context (and both scripture and science have been so treated here), but to continue and support the serious slandering of a third party is an entirely different matter. Both you and wolfsbane appeared to support this slander, and to believe it.

Do you honestly not see why this is entirely different from our anonymous discussions? It is not a question of whether you took anything out of context, but whether you took your side's rendering of the affair as 'gospel' truth, and repeated it without any attempt to check for veracity, or even sense!

Scofflaw

What I did is followed a link to a story. The story was outrageous and plastered an individual as a lunatic bent on destroying 90% of the population.

Anti-christian posters on this board come on quite often and wish to talk about the godhatesfags.com or Jesus Camp to mention a couple of recent threads. The claim then follows: tsk , tsk, dirty Christians, isn't Christianity horrible and all those that follow it.

The posters then do not want to hear what Christianity truly says. Or what Christ had to say, and continue with their desire to have Christianity slandered.

Here I read the one side of the story and decided to take the tact that this is mainstream atheistic evolutionary thought and waited for the response, lo and behold there it was.

I knew that a quick google would bring the other side of the story as it was quite outrageous to think that any learned man could come up with something like this nor did I believe it to be true for a second.

robindch · 22-01-2008 12:59am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

nor did I believe it to be true for a second.

Do I understand you correctly that you were trolling in a forum you moderate?

And given that you now believe that Mims' article is a pack of lies, what is your opinion of the honesty of creationists, not one of whom (I've been able to find) who has condemned this?

J C · 22-01-2008 1:14am

nerin wrote: »

and IF my gods and spirits exist, would it not be similarly wise of you to nod in their general direction?

They exist alright....but I won't be bowing in their direction any time soon!!!:D

nerin wrote: »

not that theres any risk like hell if you dont.

that's true!!:)

nerin wrote: »

its all about free will

.....it sure is!!!

.....and using your free will to be saved is vital!!!:D:)

stevejazzx · 22-01-2008 1:20am

I for one am having a hard time believing some of what I am hearing (reading) tonight...it seems as though there was some serious back tracking done...and the back trackers have made a real mess in covering their tracks...

robindch · 22-01-2008 1:37am

There's nothing wrong with backtracking and I heartily commend Brian for having the 'nads to admit that he was wrong.

I'd still like to hear his opinion of Mims and company, though. And whether they can continue to be trusted to be honest seekers-after-truth?

Scofflaw · 22-01-2008 1:46am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What I did is followed a link to a story. The story was outrageous and plastered an individual as a lunatic bent on destroying 90% of the population.

Anti-christian posters on this board come on quite often and wish to talk about the godhatesfags.com or Jesus Camp to mention a couple of recent threads. The claim then follows: tsk , tsk, dirty Christians, isn't Christianity horrible and all those that follow it.

The posters then do not want to hear what Christianity truly says. Or what Christ had to say, and continue with their desire to have Christianity slandered.

Here I read the one side of the story and decided to take the tact that this is mainstream atheistic evolutionary thought and waited for the response, lo and behold there it was.

I knew that a quick google would bring the other side of the story as it was quite outrageous to think that any learned man could come up with something like this nor did I believe it to be true for a second.

I'm delighted (and not surprised) to hear that. I have to point out, though that both Phelps and Mims think they're Christians, so I would say that you have inadvertently chosen the wrong demonstration - Phelps is bearing false witness against Christ, and Mims/Dembski against their fellow man in this instance.

When those who describe themselves as Christians are prepared to either misrepresent the Bible, or misrepresent another person, why are you surprised that people get the wrong idea about Christianity? And, as Brian says, when it is quite clear that Fellows of a Creationist Institute are prepared to stoop to lies, slander, false witness, and false accusation against individual scientists - what does that say about the rest of their claims?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nerin · 22-01-2008 1:49am

is this thread broken???i got emails that there were new posts,and when i get here they are gone

stevejazzx · 22-01-2008 1:59am

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm delighted (and not surprised) to hear that. I have to point out, though that both Phelps and Mims think they're Christians, so I would say that you have inadvertently chosen the wrong demonstration - Phelps is bearing false witness against Christ, and Mims/Dembski against their fellow man in this instance.

When those who describe themselves as Christians are prepared to either misrepresent the Bible, or misrepresent another person, why are you surprised that people get the wrong idea about Christianity? And, as Brian says, when it is quite clear that Fellows of a Creationist Institute are prepared to stoop to lies, slander, false witness, and false accusation against individual scientists - what does that say about the rest of their claims?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I do see where you're going but I do feel you've just let some juicy halibut off the hook and thrown it back into the wild ocean....you'll probably never catch a piece that nice again. It was a good moment nontheless.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments