Please calm down, Dan. You’re starting to frighten me a little.

You’re honesty or personal integrity is not a part of this issue I’m raising with you here (and even before, it was more about your arguments than you as a person), I have been avoiding going there since raking-over-the-coals I received recently.

If you feel so intrinsically tied to the authors of www.creation.com et al that my examples of Quote Mining actually hurt, then I’m sorry, but issues like this are going to be raised from time-to-time, and if you want Creationism to have any chance of holding the integrity that your posts tend to imply that it still has (I’ll admit now that I don’t think it can), then things like this are going to have to be addressed occasionally.

I would have thought that you’d feel a sense of urgency to address the issue (even if that means denouncing it to distance yourself) if you feel that your personal integrity is at stake here. People aren’t fooled by dodging and weaving around difficult points like this I’m afraid.

I’ve raised the issue of Quote Mining on a few occasions. You managed to change to direction of the discussion and I went with the flow at the time, but I’ve always wanted to know what you actually had to say about it and that’s why I’m being a little more persistent in holding onto it this time.

<<We can discuss many things, regarding any manner of beliefs and philosophies.>>

As Davidf had pointed out a little while ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151697) science is not just another belief.

With evolution, we’re talking about one of the most well-established scientific theories for which there are no scientific alternatives. Emphasis needs to be placed on the word “scientific” there since Intelligent Design is a religious belief - as was even determined in a court of law. If there really was a serious debate going on here, then the Creationists at the Dover trial would not have suffered what could accurately be described as a “total annihilation”.

Continued...

...Continued

<<We’re not going to resolve them here, especially the creation evolution debate which has been going for hundreds of years.>>

It’s true that this debate has been going on for a long time, but that doesn’t mean it’s not resolved.

When the most well-know advocates for Creationism are still comparing evolution to a 747 being assembled in a hurricane (as I heard Duane Gish do recently), then it’s a pretty good indication that the only ones left arguing against evolution are a noisy fringe minority who are best ignored.

If those as qualified as Gish can still make claims as patently false as the 747 analogy, then my only guess that they know what they’re saying is untrue, but they’re satisfied if they can at least create a sense of confusion about the issue.

I don’t think this is what you personally are doing though.

<< We just aim to discuss and perhaps move things forward a little.>>

We come to OLO for all the reasons you mentioned, but things will never move forward, even a little, if we are only going to dodge the tough challenges, repeat discredited arguments and fail to acknowledge when we were wrong about something.

At the risk of feeling like a reporter holding out a microphone, while chasing someone who is speed-walking away from them and only responding with “No comment”, I’ll politely ask again...

What is your opinion of the examples of Quote Mining I gave?

If you don’t agree with them, then great!

If you do agree with them, then why? Is it for the ‘greater good’ as those like Gish may tell themselves?

But more importantly, please calm down. I had always thought that when forced to address a difficult issue, you’d either just stop posting on that thread (as most on OLO do when cornered), or admit that I had a point so we could move things forward a little (I'd prefer the latter).

Instead you’re becoming frantic, looking for allies and trying to make me the issue.

Relax... I’m Dan-neutral at the moment.

Peace.

Dan,
>>If you believe I am telling lies, then how can we converse any further?<<
I never said you were telling lies. I only do not see any point in further participating in what you call “the creation evolution debate”, and I am sorry that I did not succeed in explaining to you why. As I wrote, I could understand the words Creationism, Creationist only as pejorative terms, intended to lump together opponents of (this or that) evolution theory with ALL those who believe “God created the world”, which is a statement that makes sense only in a religious - of whatever flavour - context, but not in a scientific one, where assertions must be falsifiable.

I believe that God is the cause and purpose of our existence, but I do not believe this can be defended as a scientific fact (“intelligent design”), independent of the human observer, because that would mean that God forces Himself on us, which would contradict that He gave us what we experience as free will.

Therefore I cannot comment on the sweeping statements that you quote from AJ, although as far as I remember he (or was it not him?) was already admonished here for using harsh or intolerant language towards you.

In spite of this, I looked (for the first time) at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/, and was shocked by the methods used to impress the faithful. I learned that Ben Stein has no credentials in biology, and although I cannot accuse him of intentionally trying to discredit religion and religious believers, he certainly is doing a good job at it. Richard Dawkins at least does the same intentionally, and I would not place bets on which one of them is more successful in that (although now it seems to have backfired on Dawkins, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/how-richard-dawkins-commu_b_312208.html).

Nevertheless, I respect Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist, and I have no reasons to doubt that Stein is a smart professional lawyer.

Grim,
>>the (theists’) attitude that everthing is either already 'known', or doesn't need to be known/investigated.<<
Could you provide a quote in support of this?

George,
I’m glad you say that you don’t think I’m telling lies (I didn’t suspect that you did).

And your memory is correct; it was AJ who was recently admonished on this thread by several others for going over the top.

Now what I am trying to do is to establish some framework for fruitful discussion. One of the attractions of OLO is its ‘anything goes’ approach. However, if that leads to name calling, or other abuse of our freedom, then I can find better ways to fill my time.

Denigration is often defined as comments designed to cause revulsion towards one section of the community. If someone said that ‘blacks are untrustworthy’, or ‘Gypsies are dirty’, or ‘women are devious’, that is not what I call proper debate or acceptable comment, here or anywhere else.

Now what about these 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’.”

“… the inherent deceit in Creationism.”

So I am glad you don’t think I am telling lies. However, we cannot begin to talk about any specifics until we dispense entirely with such base generalisations.

Grim,
You ask many questions. To address them reasonably would fill many threads. I would commend this, as an enquiring mind that asks many questions helps define us as being truly human.

Questioning minds are usually healthy (note Matthew 7:7,8). This is true whether we’re atheist, theist, or whatever, even fundamentalist creationist, as you put it.

The Big Bang is not a fact. And many healthy minded astronomers are now challenging its semi-established status.

I don’t know anyone that has counted to a million. Though the reasoning capacities that allow us to understand the concept contribute to what makes us human. I know apes don’t count to a million, nor understand the concept.

You talk about scientifically minded atheists. Can you name any of these from the 16th to 18th Centuries, when the Western world really got its ball rolling in scientific thinking?

Grim,
I’m sure, as we age, we tend toward the humbling conclusion, “No one has all the answers.” I tend to agree with Karen Armstrong when she says of God, "He is not good, divine, powerful or intelligent in any way that we can understand. We could not even say that God 'exists', because our concept of existence is too limited." Fundamentalists commit, in her view, the grave error of presuming to know God's mind and also of enlisting God on their side against their enemies. Unsurprisingly, militant atheists observe this reductive vision of God and in turn slam religion as a child-like description of the world that cannot compare with the subtlety and practical powers of science.

Dan correctly suggests our first scientists (Newton,Boyle,Kepler and Pascal etc.) developed their theories under a religious framework. One might ask, as Teilhard de Chardin did, can science and religion be successfully remarried? Can a reunion of these old lovers infuse a new vitality into the whole of western culture? Marx turned the world of philosophy upside down by revealing the foundations in society for every human theory. Teilhard tried to accomplish the even more difficult task of turning theology downside up by attempting to demonstrate the material world, the world of rocks and trees, stars and planets, plants and animals etc, rather than being the neutral subject of scientific investigation, was in fact the soil from which would spring a new vision of the ‘holy’.

He(Teilhard)points out that Darwin changed our understanding of time in much the same degree that Galileo transformed our sense of space. In both cases the boundaries of the universe were extended to infinity. Quite controversially, as a scientist and an individual thinker, he suggested that the primary source of religious truth is to be found in the material world rather than in the magisterium of the church. In a real sense, it shall be science which shows theology how to see; it shall be the personal experience of a single priest which will indicate to the highest ecclesiastical authorities what is essential in Catholic teaching.

My apologies George, I meant *some* theists; I certainly didn't have you or Relda or even Dan in mind when I wrote that.
Another fast moving gentleman who haunts these realms does spring to mind...
Dan, why? I suppose I could research the beliefs of the period mentioned, but I don't really see the relevance. Off the top of my head, Herbert Spencer, Huxley and Erasmus Darwin spring to mind, but so what?
As a world renowned modern philosopher so eloquently put it: "Please explain?"
Relda, informative as always. I do recall reading de Chardin many years ago, and found his views interesting, but can't recall details. That should fill my Saturday arvo...