Dear George,
Thanks for your question, and I would love to respond.

However, my participation in this discussion has becoming problematic because of AJ tactics and harassment. Any comment I make is met with allegations of dishonesty or the like. He seems fixated that all creationist arguments are “rife with deceit”.

If so, then how could you believe anything I said to you?

Before I answer your question, could I ask you a question? What do you think of AJ’s tactics over the last little while, perhaps his last few posts?

I ask you, as he seems to respect you, and might listen to you.

Best wishes,

Dan,

I don’t think it’s very fair of you to put George on the spot like that; as if to coax some sympathy from him by telling him that you’ll respond to his question if he says something that about me you believe probably won’t be too flattering. It all seems a bit too much like school yard manipulation to me.

Your question to George assumes that I rely on accusations of untruthfulness to support my arguments. A bit silly considering I’ve only just mentioned in my last response to you that I do point-by-point rebuttals so as to ensure that I don’t miss a point. I have given many responses such as my point about the stars that only dealt with the facts.

I mentioned that the instances of Quote Mining I had pointed out earlier presented a big hurdle for you as they had still gone unanswered, you then launched at me with accusations of slander when I had made no mention of your dishonesty, only that of Ben Stein and the contributors to www.creation.com.

I just want to hear to what you have to say about those instances of Quote Mining since you seem to hold both sources as authoritative.

Do you agree with such tactics?

If so, then why?

If not, then can we come to an agreement that there is some untruthfulness to Creationism?

What are your thoughts?

AJ Phillips,
Thanks for you concern, but let me try to understand Dan, and reply, myself.

Dear Dan,
I did not want to get involved in your disputes with AJ (and others) since - in my opinion - they are based on a misunderstanding: I can agree with both you and AJ. Let me explain.

Evolution - in my dictionary - is “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth”. The “are thought” expresses the fact that this is a scientific theory (i.e. aimed at explaining phenomena perceived through our senses and instruments), actually a whole “genus” of theories, with various explanations of this process (from classical Darwinism to neo-Darwinism, and their varieties). There is no scientific alternative to evolution theories. Something like Newton’s gravitation theory did not have an alternative until Einstein, although even he did not falsify it, only extend it.

Within these confines which version (or extension) of evolution theory corresponds more to (physical) reality as we observe it is a scientific question that I have no answer for myself, since I am not a biologist. So if your dispute with AJ was within these specialist confines, then I could not critically follow you, and it was relevant to ask whether you (and AJ) had the corresponding expert knowledge. Nevertheless, if AJ only wants to defend the scientific viability of evolution theory, of whichever flavour, then I have to be on his side.

However, there is also another level of disputes, namely about world-views between theists and atheists (anti-theists, agnostics) where a theist does not need to involve evolution theory at all (although it can yield a deeper insight into the underpinnings of one‘s faith, as shown in the link I tried to call your attention to. (ctd)

(ctd) On the other hand, an atheist needs to refer to evolution theory when defending his position (c.f. Dawkin’s dictum, that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”). Consequently, some of them identify ALL theist with “evolution deniers”. I am afraid you fell for that trick as well, when using the corresponding pejorative term “creationists”.

Part of that trick is to lure insecure believers into thinking that they have to reject the scientific theory of evolution in order to defend their faith. That leads to desperate, bordering on unfair, reactions (some of them mentioned by AJ) because of fear to admit that although one can find gaps in the theory of evolution - gaps that have nothing to do with faith or “unfaith” - there is no viable alternative scientific theory to replace evolution with.

Actually, as I tried to make my position clear to AJ, there is no point in world-view disputes in the sense of trying to convince/convert. We have to accept that atheists need to see our faith as a “delusion” (otherwise it would constitute “evidence”, so dear for them in defending their position), and perhaps expect them to understand that we see their atheism as “lacking something”: Call it insight, or a special “sixth sense” developed gradually through education, or - which, as the current situation shows, is going to have to be more and more the case in the West - through some shocking life experience (“limit experience” is, I think, the word for it in psychology). So if you only want to defend your theist/Christian world-view against - intentional or not - distortions and misconceptions, then I am on your side.

I think “sparks were flying” between your and AJ’s posts because these two levels of dispute got confused, were “rubbing against each other”.

George,
That people (me, you, AJ, and everyone else at OLO) have different understandings is not at issue. We all see things a little differently. That’s why we come here; to share points of view and discuss things in a civil manner, and occasionally learn something new.

The issue I raised is in regards to personal integrity. I cannot have a conversion with someone who believes I am part of a sector of society that is steeped in lies and deceit.

If you believe I am telling lies, then how can we converse any further?

Here are just some of AJ’s comments:

“…Creationist arguments, whether they be from websites or movies, are rife with deceit. Any viewpoint that requires so much deceit has lost the argument from the word ‘go’.”

“…I highlighted in an earlier response, of the inherent deceit in Creationism.”

We can discuss many things, regarding any manner of beliefs and philosophies. We’re not going to resolve them here, especially the creation evolution debate which has been going for hundreds of years. We just aim to discuss and perhaps move things forward a little.

The issue is personal integrity. This is my problem I pose to you for the moment.

If you believe I am telling lies, then we have no basis for conversation.

This would be a pity, because I genuinely think you make some very interesting points.

Dan, the reason I am always interested in reading your point of view -and George's, and Relda's- is because although I don't agree with you, I think the debate is still wide open.
No one has all the answers.
What I have never understood about (shall we say) fundamentalist creationists, is why they insist on bringing God down to a Human level, constraining It to a human time frame.
What not just say God created the Big Bang?
One of the hackneyed comments of theists that I find most irritating is: if there is no God, then what is the purpose of it all?
This to my mind begs the question: If there is a God, what is the purpose of it all?
I have never bothered to count to a million, just to make sure it 'works'. Once I cottoned on to the idea that it is just an endlessly repeating pattern, I was confident enough in the result to make the experiment pointless.
So, if God is omniscient and knows the purpose of Creation, and knows the result, why would It bother?
I think science is the study of Creation; an attempt to understand how it works. An investigation, in other words. In attempting to understand how an event occurred, questions as to whether there was a perpetrator and if so, what was his/her/it's motive are not only valid, but essential for complete understanding.
I think this is what irritates science minded atheists the most about theists; the attitude that everthing is either already 'known', or doesn't need to be known/investigated.
If God made us endlessly curious, It shouldn't complain if we act according to our nature.