Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nikolai · 06-09-2002, 05:53 PM

This letter apeared in my newspaper today. I am right now working on a responce, and I am not sure how to aproach answering it because I havent writen to the paper before. Should I focus on the scientific facts or on the absoridity of teaching Creationism, because it will either be Christian Creationism or none at all because its imposible to teach 2500 different stories. Should I answer the part about how there is no evil in the bible?

Quote:

I would like to respond to the letter by Michael Di Leo regarding denying accreditation to Patrick Henry College.
Concerning his statement about witch hunts and the Inquisition, biblical Christianity never endorsed those kinds of activities. They have, however, been a part of human history. Glaring examples include the Roman trials of Christians (killed for the sake of a name), the September Massacres (France), or the many sporadic mob lynchings in our nation's history. History and experience attest to the evil nature of humans, something evolution knows nothing about.

The barrage of scientific discoveries Di Leo upholds as proof against biblical creation is a paper tiger, at best. Scientists do not agree unanimously on any one point of his argument. This is a realm of theory, or educated guess. Radiometric dating was proved inaccurate in 1967. The correctional graph produced by Hans Seuss is hardly convincing. Strike one. If the universe is expanding (another theory), then at one time the stars were closer together, and we would not need thousands of years to pass before seeing them. Strike two. Concerning the Hubble Telescope, and the images it has produced, get real! Scientists have no clue what they are seeing for the first time, but they do have ideas. Strike three, and out! Creation is not kept out of the schools for lack of adequate scientific evidence, argumentation, or scholarship.

In fact, the Institute for Creation Research has scientists who welcome any opportunity to debate evolutionists at colleges and universities, and hold their own quite well. The single obstacle keeping creation out of the schools is the religious issue. As long as that wall stands, evolutionists are safe, for the others have fallen. Jeff Farris. prince george.

<a href="http://www.timesdispatch.com/editorials/letters/MGBHOV4N62D.html" target="_blank">TimesDispatch.com</a>

The Other Michael · 06-09-2002, 07:15 PM

Hi Nikolai,

I like your idea about all the possible different creationism theories that would have to be taught.

Perhaps you could do something along the lines of looking up the number of scientists in the world whose fields depend on the evolutionary theory for some part of their work, and contrast that very large number to the number of creationists (if you can find a stat for that), and ask if the letter writer has any idea why, if evolution is so worthless, the ranks of creationists haven't been swollen by hundreds of thousands of defectors from the scientific ranks.

That may smack of argument from popularity/authority a bit, but it seems more valid than what he's arguing.

But I'm sure that people who actually know something about evolutionary science will have much better ideas than that.

good hunting,
Michael

enrious · 06-09-2002, 07:48 PM

Michael Shermer's book, "Why people belive strange things" discusses the Louisiana case that made it to the Supreme Court in....87?

Anyway, read the majority ruling because it discusses why Creationism isn't science.

Buffman · 06-09-2002, 07:55 PM

These could help to give you some solid info:

<a href="http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/creationism.html</a>

Be sure to check the references at the end of the above URL.

<a href="http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html</a>

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationist-strategy.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationist-strategy.pdf</a>

ex-idaho · 06-09-2002, 10:44 PM

Science is just like capitalism. The better mousetrap wins. Scientist, in order to make money and make a name for themselves are forced to re-invent the mousetrap constantly. No theory is sacred and all are subjected to constant scrutiny.

If evolution as whole were somehow wrong or invalid then it would have been proven so long ago by a another scientist looking to make a name and a dollar. But it hasn't. Sure parts have been revised time and time again, this only proves my point.

When creationist point to the time that the scientist have been wrong you say, "see, if they hid they don't hide thier mistakes, so it must be right".

tragic_pizza · 06-10-2002, 06:09 AM

My challenge to you is to attack the letter on its points without appearing to atack God. That way, you cannot be dismissed as yet another Christian-basher, and your points must be examined on their merits.

Explaining that Ceationism has as its basis faith, while evolution science has as its basis <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">quantifiable observations</a>, without attacking said faith as invalid out-of-hand, should help to make your points hit home.

Toto · 06-10-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
My challenge to you is to attack the letter on its points without appearing to atack God. That way, you cannot be dismissed as yet another Christian-basher, and your points must be examined on their merits.

It's hard to attack God if you do not believe in God, or think God is your favorite fictional character. I think t_p meant to say without appearing to attack the church, and we all know that most Christians and most institutional churches have accepted the reality of evolution.

Nikolai · 06-10-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

I think t_p meant to say without appearing to attack the church, and we all know that most Christians and most institutional churches have accepted the reality of evolution.

Ah, I also though about saying that, but the thing is that I am only sure about Catholics, and this is Virginia, home of the Southern Baptists. So does anyone have any information about the number of denominations that acccept evolution?

MOst of the replies have been about evolution. ALthough I find them usefull, the original letter was more about the universe in general. As in Big Bang vs. 6 days.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nikolai ]

Doug · 06-10-2002, 04:35 PM

I would also mention that even if the writer of the letter was able to submit evidence that falsified evolution, this in no way is evidence in favor of creationism.

tragic_pizza · 06-11-2002, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


It's hard to attack God if you do not believe in God, or think God is your favorite fictional character. I think t_p meant to say without appearing to attack the church, and we all know that most Christians and most institutional churches have accepted the reality of evolution.

I actually meant it as I said it... but meant it exactly the way you put it, Toto.

Thing is, there are Christians who will equate attacking the church or the Bible with a direct attack on the Almighty. I submit that it is possible to offer counterpoint to the ICR without speaking against, or down to, the church or the Bible or, by extension, God or a god.

Nikolai, I think that you'll find support in some of the more liberal denominations, like the PC(USA) and the Episcopal Church.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2002, 07:15 PM	#2
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hi Nikolai, I like your idea about all the possible different creationism theories that would have to be taught. Perhaps you could do something along the lines of looking up the number of scientists in the world whose fields depend on the evolutionary theory for some part of their work, and contrast that very large number to the number of creationists (if you can find a stat for that), and ask if the letter writer has any idea why, if evolution is so worthless, the ranks of creationists haven't been swollen by hundreds of thousands of defectors from the scientific ranks. That may smack of argument from popularity/authority a bit, but it seems more valid than what he's arguing. But I'm sure that people who actually know something about evolutionary science will have much better ideas than that. good hunting, Michael

06-09-2002, 07:48 PM	#3
enrious Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Home Posts: 895	Michael Shermer's book, "Why people belive strange things" discusses the Louisiana case that made it to the Supreme Court in....87? Anyway, read the majority ruling because it discusses why Creationism isn't science.

06-09-2002, 07:55 PM	#4
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	These could help to give you some solid info: <a href="http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/creationism.html</a> Be sure to check the references at the end of the above URL. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html</a> <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationist-strategy.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationist-strategy.pdf</a>

06-09-2002, 10:44 PM	#5
ex-idaho Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Spudtopia, ID Posts: 5,315	Science is just like capitalism. The better mousetrap wins. Scientist, in order to make money and make a name for themselves are forced to re-invent the mousetrap constantly. No theory is sacred and all are subjected to constant scrutiny. If evolution as whole were somehow wrong or invalid then it would have been proven so long ago by a another scientist looking to make a name and a dollar. But it hasn't. Sure parts have been revised time and time again, this only proves my point. When creationist point to the time that the scientist have been wrong you say, "see, if they hid they don't hide thier mistakes, so it must be right".

06-10-2002, 06:09 AM	#6
tragic_pizza Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 108	My challenge to you is to attack the letter on its points without appearing to atack God. That way, you cannot be dismissed as yet another Christian-basher, and your points must be examined on their merits. Explaining that Ceationism has as its basis faith, while evolution science has as its basis <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" target="_blank">quantifiable observations</a>, without attacking said faith as invalid out-of-hand, should help to make your points hit home.

06-10-2002, 04:35 PM	#9
Doug Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: New York, NY Posts: 629	I would also mention that even if the writer of the letter was able to submit evidence that falsified evolution, this in no way is evidence in favor of creationism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.