Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Glad that you found us and look forward to learning from you.
The article you linked to is a great example of the conman tactics of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and it is filled with examples of Ken Ham's dishonesty. It begins with the totally false assumption that the issue is one of Christians vs Secularists, an issue that Ken knows full well is simply false.
He starts off with lies in the first paragraph and continues lying throughout the article, but that is just normal for the body of Christians that support Biblical Creationism.
What is so sad and pitiful is that that body, that vast group of Christians, are so ignorant, so brain washed, so gullible that they do not see the article for the absolute joke that it is and many actually follow up on the conman's plea in the last few paragraphs and send in money.
Re: Welcome to EvC and Yes, Ken Ham is a major Liar for Christ
Hullo jar,
Thanks for replying.
The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:
"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."
In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.
quote: One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.
Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning.
You quoted Miller to say in part
quote:
would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith.
Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision
Outside the portion I have quoted but you did, Ken M. gets to the part I quoted with a clause about "religion" and "science" being placed in opposition. Of course it is not "religion" and "science" that are in opposition but the writings of people speaking for either one that may be "opposites" as to some particular conclusion. I take it that because one can not be sure that the people involved in these deabtes are finding the opposite as to the material then available to discuss the subject either as within "science" or within "religion" that this is not where the choice is. I did not find that simply placing the things to be discussed as something antithetical is bad to begin with. A melancholy reflection seems to remand instead that the difficulty comes if "young people" are forced to make a "false" choice, on account of IF ID was to place pedagogy at extremes not mediated by the teachers themselves.
I DO THINK/agree that if ID was to place a new and false choice to students then that is not good but if the moderator or guide to what is good or bad is freedom to think itself as is indicated in the second part of the colored section of your quote, then I can not agree that the choice of rejecting faith or maintaining faith is what is at stake when it comes to morally upholding freedom itself.
The difference as to "choosing" and "turning" has to do with the differences of the mathematical and philsophical directum of ID NOT the sense vs the sound of ID itself. Miller merely sees what we all/anyone can see in ID, as it is today, much to do about philosophy and not as much about math.
It would not be that philosophy changes on faith in ID but that the discursive deviation THAT would cause for "choice", is currently not about concepts but about diverse choices of constructions FROM THEM. But these are missing in ID. Thus it really is a problem to MANDATE ID TEACHING until one sees mutiple constructions of the concept, as would be done in a mathematical frame of mind, no matter the philosophy, and without a homogenous and simple substance notion of Irreducible Complexity. What we have had here is that we were about to have law make restrictions where the non generalizable defintions were lacking. Math abhors restrictions to generalization but the current matter of the universality of ID replaced the choice of construction of elements and THAT is not something I for one could mandate as to be taught to high schools especially as this would be something that college students would not necessarily find simple to expose.
Freedom to pursue this course of achiving generality in place of universality however IS REQUIRED but if students do not know what they are free to pursue they will not do better than their teachers. So it is not really "freedom" that needs be cherished in this case but the perception of the difference of philosophy and math that needs be.
Miller may be overvaluing NOT having to do more math(number vs relation) as per the common philosophical horizon but my concern was to quote your quote and not change the meaning and criticize that it could be used against/inopposition to "creationists in general" *if* it is "freedom" that is the condition of agreement.
You wrote "I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."
I'm convinced that my use of it isn't inacurrate. I base this on the following grounds:
a) jar claimed the following:
"...What is so sad and pitiful is that that body, that vast group of Christians, are so ignorant, so brain washed, so gullible that they do not see the article for the absolute joke that it is and many actually follow up on the conman's plea in the last few paragraphs and send in money."
b) I reacted to his claim with my take on the subject (note that I claim that my take equals Miller's). Here:
The following quote from Prof. Kenneth R. Miller expresses how I feel about this subject:
"...Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith. Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community."
c) That my claim equals Miller's is based on the following grounds. Miller actually describes his reasons why he thinks that letting ID being taught in schools would lead to opposing religion and sciense. And more importantly I agree with both his opinion and his reasoning he bases it on. That means my claim equals his:
Judge John E. Jones' decision in the Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design (ID) case (Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District) is a great victory for science, science education, and for freedom of religion.
Judge Jones clearly grasped the weight of scientific evidence behind evolution, and properly pointed out that it serves as the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. The trial was especially significant because it afforded the proponents of ID, including such prominent advocates as Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, the opportunity to present a scientific case for ID over several days of wide-open testimony. What took place, as the trial record makes clear, is that the pseudo-scientific claims of ID collapsed upon inspection. A series of expert witnesses for the parents who objected to the district's ID policy were able to demonstrate conclusively that ID is not science. They further showed that ID has no factual grounding, and that it represents a thinly-veiled attempt to insert a religious doctrine into schools under the guise of science.
As an expert witness for the plaintiffs, I was pleased to take the stand on the opening days of the trial in defense of the scientific integrity of evolution, and I am delighted with the verdict. Placing science and religion in opposition to each other, as a mandate to teach ID inevitably would, dishonors both science and religion, and would require young people to make the false choice of rejecting their faith to accept science, or turning their backs on modern science to maintain their faith. Everyone who cherishes religious freedom in America has reason to give thanks for this decision, and to applaud the courageous parents and teachers of Dover who took a stand for educational and religious freedom in their community.
You wrote "In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the following poor debating tactic.
quote:
One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning.
Obviously this is not a good thing to do no matter what the subject of the debate is. I would like to try to quote your colored quoted section here and then try to show how your use of it may be inacurrate while I will hopeful keep you convinced that I have not changed it's meaning."
I'm afraid that you've misunderstood me. I've never claimed that it was impossible to misuse a quotation even if one didn't change its meaning. What I claimed is the following:
"One of the methods one could use is to quote a passage and change the meaning."
It seems to me the only reason to quote someone and do nothing with the words themselves is only useful for affirmation. But in that case why not just write what you as an author thinks instead? I see no point, in a debate, to double-up the wordings, so as to in effect squelch by quantity. If something is correct, it only needs to be "said", once.
Ok, I see you object to the simple "opposing" of r... and s....
The quote said, "as a mandate to teach ID would...", it said, to my ears, "as if" a mandate to teach... There was a comma between "would" and "dishonors".
Now I can back up to this comma as well.
I was trying to show that the dishonor is not the same mathematically and philosophically, but today with two beers behind me it is probably not a good time for me to try to drive this point home, as you are also new to EvC and I do not want to "Brad McFall you" out of the box.
If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would "inevitably" (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you. To me this is only an inevitability if the honors are not to be bestowed on the students making the choice.
If you desire me to make the dovetail less rough I will oblige later but for now that is all I can say if this is really going to the altar.
You wrote, "If your only point was to show in agreement with Miller that ID is not so good becuase it would 'inevitably' (sic!) put science and religion in opposition then I really do not have a point to make for you."
Inevitably is the correct spelling.
As to the rest of your post, there's no dishonesty whatsoever in claiming an agreement with the words of another person.
Another standard creationist approach is to make a series of assertions with no substantiation, full of logical fallacies. This is the problem with your pet-peeve creationist's video (What's Wrong With These Creationist Statements? )
See if you can get him to post here -- he will find his assertions are not enough.
Enjoy.
ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
Another standard creationist approach is to make a series of assertions with no substantiation, full of logical fallacies. This is the problem with your pet-peeve creationist's video (What's Wrong With These Creationist Statements? )
See if you can get him to post here -- he will find his assertions are not enough.
Enjoy.
ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
"
Thanks for your reply.
I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.
Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.
Check out this lovely fourteen-year-old boy (with the nick Kabane52) who took the challenge, and answered his video.
Seems he hits all the salient points. Gives me faith () in the schools ... for those that want an education.
I'll try to get him post here, although I can't imagine that he would.
I'll bet he doesn't last. He'll make the claim that we are all liars and agents etc. He will likely maintain his delusions at all cost.
The biggest problem he will have -- and the reason he calls evolution a lie -- is that he has a problem with cognitive dissonance: what he believes is not supported by the evidence, therefore either what he believes is false or the evidence is a lie. If you do not (cannot) allow the concept of belief being false then the only conclusion you can reach is that the evidence is a lie, no matter how persuasive it is.
If you go back and look at his arguments with this perspective you will see that he ignores possibilities because of his fixed beliefs.
This is basic to fundamentalist creationist beliefs (whether christian, muslim, hindu or whatever) -- the absolutism and rejection of alternate possibilities.
As discussed in our emails I don't believe one could change his mind - I don't think it is possible to do that to absolutist fundamentalist creationists without dealing with the cognitive dissonance issues at a more complete level than is possible on the internet. Something more like a cult intervention program to de-program the propoganda and lies is needed first.
Absolutist fundamentalist creationism really goes beyond being a cult of ignorance (as jar says) to being one of lies and ignorance mixed with Authoritarianism.
It's 'kool-aid religion' ... with more than sugar, food-color and flavoring added.
The biggest problem he will have -- and the reason he calls evolution a lie -- is that he has a problem with cognitive dissonance: what he believes is not supported by the evidence, therefore either what he believes is false or the evidence is a lie.
Cognitive dissonance does not come from holding beliefs that conflict with reality; it comes from being aware of the conflict. My suspicion is that VenomFangX sincerely believes that the evidence is on his side, and does not suffer from cognitive dissonance at all.
This is basic to fundamentalist creationist beliefs (whether christian, muslim, hindu or whatever) -- the absolutism and rejection of alternate possibilities.
To be a fundamentalist creationist, one must believe the fundamentalist creationist arguments. Almost all of these arguments render all other possibilities (such as evolution) completely absurd (witness the numerous proofs that evolution is impossible). One can hardly be a fundamentalist creationist without very strongly rejecting the alternatives.
As discussed in our emails I don't believe one could change his mind - I don't think it is possible to do that to absolutist fundamentalist creationists without dealing with the cognitive dissonance issues at a more complete level than is possible on the internet. Something more like a cult intervention program to de-program the propoganda and lies is needed first.
.
It's 'kool-aid religion' ... with more than sugar, food-color and flavoring added.
I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of most fundamentalists.
The nature of the most types of fundamentalist philosophy makes it difficult to see alternatives as anything but insane; if someone is a fundamentalist, almost by necessity that person will have an extremely high level of confidence. But this does not mean that fundamentalists have been brainwashed. They have simply heard arguments, weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.
As an aside, interactions on this discussion board (some even with you!) have converted at least several fundamentalist creationist posters to some variety of evolutionist (myself included), and have likely done the same to many lurkers. I think that most fundamentalists are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they could work through the cognitive dissonance and change their mind if they thought they were in error.
What I found frightening is that Kabane52 received many comments (several hundred) on his videos. There are quite a few among them such as 'shut up fatty' or something to that effect.
There's another youtuber with the nick Soldier in God's Army (SIGA) who puts up some very witty satires.
The young man with the nick VenomFangX commented the following on one of SIGA's videos, 'The unicorn was a dinosaur. End of story.'
To which SIGA answered, 'Wrong, brother. You're letting yourself be used as a tool of Satan himself!!! '
"...I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of most fundamentalists.
The nature of the most types of fundamentalist philosophy makes it difficult to see alternatives as anything but insane; if someone is a fundamentalist, almost by necessity that person will have an extremely high level of confidence. But this does not mean that fundamentalists have been brainwashed. They have simply heard arguments, weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.
As an aside, interactions on this discussion board (some even with you!) have converted at least several fundamentalist creationist posters to some variety of evolutionist (myself included), and have likely done the same to many lurkers. I think that most fundamentalists are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they could work through the cognitive dissonance and change their mind if they thought they were in error."
I would be very interested in your opinion.
One of the reasons I thought it would be difficult for him to change his mind was that he makes other videos about Islam with the words 'satan, evil' in their title (if you note similarly to the evolution videos).
How do you think this cycle can be broken up? He's certainly interested in the topic, since he attacks it. That could be a good sign.
...weighed evidence and concluded that one side is dramatically more convincing than the other.
For a large portion of the creationists this is a very inaccurate description. To "weigh" evidence suggest looking at the evidence on both sides and seeing what the balance is.
Most do come no where remotely near this. They have been fed some simplistic junk and work very hard to not take any any new information. They repeat what they have been told without thinking it through.
We see a few of these pass through here every month. They are dogmatic, arrogant and not prepared to ask a question or listen to anything said.
On the occasion when one will engage in a give and take they often shy way as soon as they see they are being lead to a conclusion that they don't like.
A common dodge is the "it is just different interpretations of the evidence". However, when asked to supply the base evidence and give a detailed interpretation explaining it they duck and run. None of them have EVER actually worked through an "alternative" explanation that considers even a small part of the total evidence.
Your characterisation is, I think, very, very off the mark.
) in the schools ... for those that want an education.
™ Version 4.2