CMI's new project.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: CMI's new project.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:38 pm

Peter

I tried to add a comment under the video but got a highly unhelpful Error message.

""I have mirrored this video because the person who originally posted it disabled comments." Thanks. I trust that is legal, whether or not you informed CMI of your intentions and whether or not CMI gave permission as necessary.
The video has been mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3168"

Ashley
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8836
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: CMI's new project.

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:35 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:You can tell it's propaganda. Because of the constant background music. Why can't we just listen to them talk? Because that might be a bit boring I suggest.

"The Master Race was an evolutionary concept...". Ah yes, Godwin's Law in action.



I had forgotten I had already posted this Ashley, but the trailer came in an e-mail from CMI.

All the usual claims from "scientists" who don't understand evolution. Mutations generate no new information, Hitler used Darwinism to justify the holocaust etc.

As Don Prothero said to Robinson "I don't count them as "real" scientists".

He's quite right.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:25 pm

Talking of CMI, someone named Peter Sander has posted the following on the CMI Facebook page (I'm posting it here because I know they are keen on censorship):

"One life's most destabilizing experiences is the realization that one’s trust is misplaced.
I was a scientifically-literate Young-Earth Creationist for over fifteen years. During this time I believed that the early chapters of Genesis were authoritative not as science texts but as absolute statements about the history of the Earth and, by presumptive default, always correct on all matters that relate to what can be verified scientifically. However, this was a very difficult position for me to hold. It required that I delay explanation for or more often ignore the physical evidences in homology and the genetic code for evolutionary common ancestry, the biogeographical distributions of plants and animals along patterns that fit an actual evolutionary history reinforced by respective regional fossil and sedimentary records, the abundance of transitional forms present and past, the clear role of death and suffering in the development of biological diversity, the fruitful explanations for human anatomy and behavior anchored in our evolutionary history as primates, etc. In order to retain my belief in Young-Earth Creationism I had to sublimate what I saw with my eyes to my paradigm. Of course, I understood my paradigm as one and the same as “the Bible’s,” so, I might better say, I sublimated and subordinated the natural world and all that my eyes told me about to the Bible.
The Bible made me an atheist. Well, this is slightly overstated. In reality, my turn toward atheism was the result of many variables, but the Bible became one of the primary intellectual pillars of my atheism. I held the above-described approach to the Bible and science—trying always to assuage and overcome my doubts—for several years until I came to a disturbing realization. I realized in late 2004 that the early chapters of Genesis were heavily dependent on their ancient near-eastern cultural context and also assumed that the Earth was vaulted with a domed heavens or “firmament” behind or over which was an aqueous chaos (see illustration below). I came to realize that this depiction of the cosmos as a vaulted firmament was re-iterated throughout the Scriptures in the books of Exodus, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation. With this realization my cosmos came literally crashing down.
The tenuous relationship that I maintained between the Bible (my creationist paradigm) and science came to a halt. Obviously, I reasoned, the Bible was relaying a view of the cosmos that was expressly incorrect. If the Bible was asking me to believe something that I knew was false by simple night-sky observation, then how could I allow it any longer to dictate against or demonize what I knew about the evolutionary history of life. When in reality my problem was with my fundamentalist assumptions about the Bible and not the Bible itself, I arrived at the conclusion that the Bible was wrong; therefore, I was justified in rejecting its authority over my life. After a few quiet years of doubt I eventually “came out” as an atheist in 2006 privately to my first wife and then publically in May, 2007 as an agnostic. Though I knew of other approaches to Genesis, I was far too steeped in fundamentalist-creationist readings of Genesis to give them the time they deserved. The Bible failed me. It had asked me to believe despite my eyes only to break this trust later.
Trust broken with the Bible, I made a last-ditch attempt to find God through the Quran which I read through a second time (the first time was some 12 years before) in the spring of 2007. Though less committed to a particular chronology of earth history, I found a domed/vaulted heavens in the Quran and other scientific discrepancies. Similarly, despite the prosaic beauty of the “inimitable Quran,” I found it culturally limited by Platonic categories of divine perfection including a view of God’s transcendence that made God ontologically unknowable, aloof. Jumping ahead a few moths, I was an agnostic whose skepticism was sealed by years of trying to make the Bible work.
However, it wasn’t the Bible that failed me. It was creationism that furnished me with the intellectual tools and kindle for atheism. I had inherited a particular approach to the Bible that de-emphasized its humanity while elevating it to absolutes in categories of human knowledge that were more indebted to the Enlightenment and to modernism than to historical and traditional Jewish and Christian approaches to Scripture. Essentially, I had accepted a Docetic reading of Scripture—one that effectively denied or sublimated its human origins to its divine origins. Agnosticism, skepticism, and atheism freed me to see the Bible critically in its human contexts, contexts that were the flesh and blood of the divine Word they circumscribed. And so, in this way, atheism freed me from creationism and freed the Bible for me from the compromised shackles of its closeted affair with modernism via fundamentalism.
I now read the Bible as book that is fully human and hence fully open to the sloppy and scandalous limits of its authors’ cultures and conceptual worlds and yet also fully inspired and divine. The limits of the Bible’s authors’ neither limit God’s ability to work through and in the Bible, nor do they stifle the voice and presence of the Spirit of God that I sacramentally encounter in the messiness of Scripture. I pray that others will learn to free their minds from the shackles of the fundamentalist compromise embodied in creationism, a compromise that forces the mind into a Docetic denial of Scripture’s humanity, into a fettered encounter with the natural world, and, for many, into atheism." (I admit I didn't follow the meaning of every single sentence.)

Someone with the initials RG has replied to him thus (I have no reason to doubt her sincerity):
"Wow! No wonder you're having trouble believing the Word of God. Your intellect is your stumbling block".

Followed by Sander:
"No ideological paradigm has wrecked more havoc in my faith walk than creationism. It literally was the easy path to atheism. Creationism can have a place at the table, but for creationists to dogmatically claim that evolution is inherently anti-God and fundamentally anti-Christian is first dishonest and second an unnecessary stumbling block to many."

LK: "Can you explain why you feel that way Peter?" (I thought he just did.)

And APR: "that may be your claim, but for every one like you there are 1000 people that have walked away from the faith because they see clearly the discrepancy between Genesis and evolution, and they have been told the lie that evolution is scientifically well supported, therefore they conclude (rightly so, assuming the latter) that the Bible must be faulty.
There are two essential facts which cannot be ignored in this subject:
1. God's Word in Genesis and Exodus 20 states emphatically clearly that he created everything in 6 days, and formed Adam out of the earth directly, and created the sun, moon and stars only on the 4th (fourth) day - the day after the plants were created. This is impossible to reconcile with evolution no matter how long the day supposedly is - in fact, the longer the 3rd day, the worse it is, because plants cannot grow without the sun. Either the Bible is wrong or evolution is wrong. You can't get away from that without closing your eyes.
2. Natural selection is not evolution. Genetic machinery has incredibly sophisticated design enabling the existing genetic programming to be recombined so as to produce diverse expressions of the genes, without breaking anything. The interaction between the environment and God's design of genetic machinery results in natural selection.
So to discuss the evidence for evolution, one must first remove from the scope of discussion both natural selection and genetic variation of existing genes, because these are in line with creation as much as evolution.
It would be nice to imagine, like Darwin, that natural selection could also provide a pathway for mutations to ADD new genes, but actually natural selection tends to LOSE genes and mutations DAMAGE genes.
(Note for example how it was once okay to marry your sister but over time the human genome has so degraded that now if you marry a cousin or even more distant relative the odds of a child inheriting a shared genetic deformty are much increased.)
To provide evidence for evolution you need to find evidence of a series of mutations which result in a new and unique set of genes achieving an entirely different function. For example, a pathway from the solid bones of a lizard to the hollow bones of a bird; or from fur to feather. But not only has no such pathway or evidence of one ever been found, not one has even been scientifically postulated!
There is only speculation, on the order of, wow, this looks like that, ok, so that's evidence this came from that.
The only scientific evidence for evolution is the fossil record, and that is even better evidence of a world-wide flood, as are the sea shells on the top of Mt. Everest.
So please don't post non-fan mail here because it's just wasting our time".

A 'fan', clearly, is someone who is utterly impervious to ANY new information that does not come from the Bible. Don't trouble me with any facts! And where does APR get his statistics from?

I will be interested to see whether CMI themselves respond or simply remove the post.

WHY does a God truth despise the human intellect - the brain trying to make sense of God's evidence (assuming he exists and it is his evidence of course)?

To be a CMI supporter you have to be anti-science, whether you admit to it or not.

The discussion is under a link to the rather hysterical Robert Gurney article that has just appeared on CMI's website.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8836
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:48 pm

https://www.facebook.com/creationministries
I have added a comment (split into two though that wasn't my intention). I expect I will be banned forthwith (but Peter and Anthony may see it):


"Anthony "for every one like you there are 1000 people that have walked away from the faith because they see clearly the discrepancy between Genesis and evolution" - where do your statistics come from? "they have been told the lie that evolution is scientifically well supported" - an honest creationist (they do exist) has admitted that this is the truth - read the 2009 blog post 'The Truth about Evolution' by YEC Todd C Wood. And your point 1 AGREES with what Sander has expressed - evolution and Genesis DO conflict.
Sorry, I tried to start a new para but instead made my post before it was complete. I was going to add that I am also posting my comment at the British Centre for Science Education community forum. On your second point, you are I believe misrepresenting what natural selection acting upon occasional beneficial mutations can sometimes achieve. I have read both sides of the argument, and the 'no new information' claim by YECs is wrong I believe. Natural selection ALONE would be conservative, reducing genetic variation (as with pedigree dogs or lab rat strains) but it is not natural selection ALONE. "The only scientific evidence for evolution is the fossil record". That is completely untrue. Look it up online. "... and that is even better evidence of a world-wide flood, as are the sea shells on the top of Mt. Everest". No, the very ancient marine shells were within subducted rock pushed up when the Himalaya formed after India collided with Asia. Look it up. How would a big flood transport marine shells thousands of miles inland? Ashley"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8836
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: CMI's new project.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:41 pm

More about this (I assume it's new as it was flagged in an email received today though it seems 'familiar' so perhaps it's CMI hyping up old material again):
http://creation.com/creation-videos?fil ... ign=emails
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8836
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron