Creo Catfight in Kentucky!

This reminds me of when Mr Ham broke ties with his Australian compatriots concerning stealing paying subscribers.

I wonder if this might affect the "museum" and plans for the "amusement park" celebrating divine genocide.

At the least, some creationists might be somewhat less likely to patronize such junk.

Glen Davidson

What does that tell you, Ken, when your fellow liars-to-children think that even YOU are too lunatic for them???

I'm enjoying every minute of this. Here are these supposedly "Christian" morons who have trouble living up to Jesus Christ's teachings, and yet claim to be the devout Christians that they are. If I didn't know better, I would have thought this was a long Monty Python skit in progress.

I've noticed in recent months, Senor Jambon has seemed consumed with responding to how much he's daily dissed by the reality-based world. Almost every post is "Can you believe what he wrote about me/us?!" "Can you believe this quote about AiG??" Not sure why he even cares what people say about him, as it seems "The Creation [Anti]Museum" is doing quite well. But there's often a degree of hubris that comes with such success... and perhaps The Ham-Inator feels he should by now be above such criticism. Or maybe the pressure of holding together his little fundie fiefdom in the face of opposition from even his fellow evangelicals pushing him over the edge. Perhaps soon his head will explode. Ahhh... one can hope!

Paul said: Perhaps soon his head will explode. Ahhh... one can hope!

ICR has taken a firm--and necessary--stand on the Homeschooling Conference controversy. I don't see the Homeschooling Conference organizers as monsters just for wanting to include YEC and non-YEC at the microphone. But we need to get honest--they invited a Biologos TE guy (Dr. Enns) who's busy running around here selling massive disbelief and doubt lately, including his Bible curriculum, even to the point of advising Christian parents that "the subject of sin should not be taught to children". Say WHAT?? No way, bay-bay. That kind of jive-time hooly-magoo, coming from a guy calling himself a Christian, is messed up like a diarrhea devil-dog. (And NO, I have not said that anybody was going to Hell. Neither has ICR or AIG. Not a soul. I'm just telling you the truth about Enns' evolution-derived, Bible-denying, half-Hadean GOOP, that's all. You can email him and snitch on me if you want to.) Therefore, honestly, Ken Ham and AIG's strong response, given what Enns/Biologos have been putting out lately against both the Bible and Ham/AIG, becomes much more justified and reasonable. Sometimes you have to at least speak up and let the chips fall. Meanwhile, let's take a look. Please check out ICR's clear and correct analysis concerning this controversy. http://www.icr.org/article/6032/

Well, if the Bible is so clear, how come these Home Schooling Conventions don't see things Ham's way, FL?

How is it that you and Ken Ham are True Christians(tm) and the Home Schooling Convention organizers aren't?

Is it the Devil, or what?

FL said: Again, I'd prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn't work. That's the deal.

So, FL, do you agree with Ken Ham in that the Homeschoolers are just as bad and unChristian as the hippie fornicators of the 60's?

mrg said:

FL said: Again, I'd prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn't work. That's the deal.

Well, OK. If ya'll gotta insist on fighting among yourselves ... I don't see any reason to complain.

Quikie questions for Vanko and Stanton:

Specifically where, in the Ham/AIG link (given in the OP), does it say that the Conference organizers are NOT Christians?

Where does Ham say that Enns or the conference organizers are "unChristian" (to borrow Stanton's phrase)?

FL

At times, ol' Hambo seems to behave like a megalomaniac, believing that he alone preaches the TRVTH. He's the ayatollah of Appalachia, and his fellow creationists can't put up with him any more.

Nathan Ham's rebuttal to the HomeschoolersSome Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word "love" to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase "make love, not war" gave their movement a false sense of piety.

John Vanko said: Well, if the Bible is so clear, how come these Home Schooling Conventions don't see things Ham's way, FL? How is it that you and Ken Ham are True Christians(tm) and the Home Schooling Convention organizers aren't? Is it the Devil, or what?

FL lying outright again, as usual: Well, on intramural stuff, I always prefer peace and kumbaya to drama and dustup. However, 'Peace-at-any-Price' just doesn't work. Especially not for Christianity. (That's how all the theistic evolutionists got their fannies messed up!!). So, while I don't celebrate what has happened, I truly believe that Ham's and AIG's strong response was in fact justified, given what was going on. Dr. Enns is not a monster. In fact, I'd buy up his textbook Moody Handbook of Theology in a heartbeat. Probably will purchase it by next year. But having said that...Well, you gotta draw a line somewhere sometime. The Conference organizers should have found a Christian TE who still puts the "Christian" ahead of the "TE." So, the fact is that Ham/AIG was correct to risk retaliation for speaking the honest truth. Again, I'd prefer peace and quiet. However, Ken Ham is correct. And honestly, peace at any price doesn't work. That's the deal. FL

The hilarious part of this is that it's of a piece with the rest of sectarian Christendom. Divergences in Christian sects are mostly over politics and money, and the politics is usually personal, although they're usually presented as being over doctrine. That goes 'way, 'way back.

Possibly this spat derives from some beef between Enns and Ham over who's the big man, or something one of them said about the other, or simply that they don't like each other, and there ain't room enough in this town (or sect) for both of them. The first split in Christendom, between Paul and the original disciples, was over stuff like that.

Ham and Enns will say that it's over the authority of the Word of God, but they really mean that it's over their own authority to tell people what the Word of God is. Neither of them has any whatsoever, of course.

Ham says that all of Genesis must be taken as literal fact, except those bits that he, Ken Ham, says shouldn't be.

Enns, it would appear, has a somewhat different list of those. Possibly Enns is somewhere within shouting distance of reality. He might be prepared to consider actual evidence. Who knows? But accepting a different list of metaphors from Ken Ham's list means disputing Ken Ham's personal infallibility, and that's something Ken can't brook.

So, yes, it may be personal. But I think, looking at what's involved here, that what this is really about is money. It's market share. Some marketing guy has sent a memo.

The homeschoolers want a larger market share than they've got, and to get that, they need to appeal to a demographic beyond bedrock fundamentalist creobots. One group they badly want to get in are parents who are considering homeschooling because they don't think the schools are giving a good enough education, or because there's too much bullying and abuse. That's a group who aren't going to be impressed with the likes of Ham, a man who's elevated ignorance, bullying and abuse into a political method.

So, Ken's gotta be hung out to dry. And it has to be done neat and clean, in the dead of night, as a fait accompli. Well, there's precedent in the Scriptures for that, you know. Not that Ken has any of the characteristics of the guy they did it to, back then.

But reflect, if you like, on what these loons would be doing to each other - and to us - if they actually had the powers of the Sanhedrin.

To describe Emms as holding "outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God" is simply a bare-faced lie.

But then lying is the standard practice of creationists.

I first met Scam in Liverpool in 1991/2 and experienced his vitriol. Sadly he removed reference to me from his website.

Dave Luckett said: The hilarious part of this is that it's of a piece with the rest of sectarian Christendom. Divergences in Christian sects are mostly over politics and money, and the politics is usually personal, although they're usually presented as being over doctrine. That goes 'way, 'way back.

Mike

For the record I am a church of England vicar

So I guess this is pretty bad economic news for the new Ark thing.

Seems like the best potential customers are being antagonized.

Dunno. Ham has a lot of backing that just won't go away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110326/sc_livescience/godshand44ofamericansseenaturaldisastersassignofendtimes

Green, blue, or Oil of ?

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all.

FL said: (Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!)

Of course FL once again ignores the tough questions. Stanton quoted Ham on the subject of the homeschoolers that sounded to me like a rejection of their christianity. No answer FL? Then you are lying, again.

Frank B said: Of course FL once again ignores the tough questions. Stanton quoted Ham on the subject of the homeschoolers that sounded to me like a rejection of their christianity. No answer FL? Then you are lying, again.

FL lied: PS....from what I've seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That's how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no?

Dave Luckett said: "It's market share."

FL the deceitful malevolent malingering Answers in Genesis Dalek clone barfed:

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all.

Umm Dale, I was talking about Christian homeschooling conferences. You should know that I don't come HERE for peace and quiet. I come to PT when I want busted chairs & broken glass. (Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!) PS....from what I've seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That's how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no? FL

To describe Emms as holding “outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God” is simply a bare-faced lie.

"Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins."

(Peter Enns') Incarnational approach which labels all alleged problems of the Bible as “human” does no Christian and non-Christian a service, because in the cultural climate of today, the critics believe the Bible to be all too human. It is the Divine nature of the Scripture that is in dispute. http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/a-critical-evaluation-of-peter-enns%E2%80%99-theological-method-in-his-formulation-of-the-incarnational-model-of-scripture/

FL said:

"Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins."

Do you see what guano just went down there? The man just said the entire Adam and Eve story, including The Fall, is historically false. Not a penny less.

Perhaps you could translate what Nathan Ham is saying, FL?

Nathan Ham’s rebuttal to the Homeschoolers-- Some Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word “love” to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase “make love, not war” gave their movement a false sense of piety.

From what little I know of Christianese...

If that's so, then how come you always make a song and dance of how Christians can only approach Jesus ONLY if they do exactly as you dictate?

Like, how you always harp on how Christians have to read the Bible 100% literally, and reject science as being an evil god, or Jesus will personally send them to Hell?

Why should we believe you that Nathan Ham is affirming the Homeschoolers' Christianity when he's simultaneously comparing them to evil, Godless, fornicating hippies?

Are you rejecting and denouncing the Christianity of those of us, here, who are Christian, when you mock us by telling us how we're all going to be personally murdered by God with fire before being personally flushed to Hell for accepting Evolution as true?

FL said:

If you prefer peace and quiet, you wouldn’t be here at all.

Umm Dale, I was talking about Christian homeschooling conferences. You should know that I don't come HERE for peace and quiet. I come to PT when I want busted chairs & broken glass. (Everybody needs a hobby, ya know!)

PS....from what I've seen over the years, you Panda Boys have had your own intra-mural dustups on occasion. That's how you eventually, umm, lost your theistic evolutionist contributor PvM, no? FL

FL said:

To describe Emms as holding “outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God” is simply a bare-faced lie.

No, I'm afraid it's not, Vicar Roberts. At first I thought maybe Ken Ham WAS being a bit "ham-handed" in his criticisms of Dr. Enns, and that maybe Ham should have "played along to get along." Indeed, if Enns had limited himself to, "Hey I think Earth is 4.6 billion years old", I'd have said "Okay, no need to fight about it in a homeschool conference." But Enns has come up with a lot, LOT, worse than that. It's serious. I am honestly convinced that Ham really DID get it right this time--and was willing to risk his own microphone to speak the truth. *** "Outright liberal theology"? "Undermines the authority of the Word of God?" Yes sir, both statements are true. Look what Enns wrote on Biologos:

"Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins."

Do you see what guano just went down there? The man just said the entire Adam and Eve story, including The Fall, is historically false. Not a penny less. IOW, the Ultimate Problem for which Jesus had to provide the Ultimate Solution, turns out to be historically untrue. The Fall is a false fable, not actual Earth history. So Dr. Enns suggests. Now I'm sure that position works for you Panda Boys. Kewl beans, you say. But for Christians??? No way baby. Don't get me started or I might do some extra euphemisms like "Hadean" again. Enns has messed up. For a fuller discussion of why Enns is wrong on Adam/Eve, see the following critique: http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2010/05/01/a-critique-of-biologos-pauls-adam-2/ Also keep in mind that Enns' Bible curricula says that the Genesis Flood "was an attempt by God to set it right, but it didn’t work." It also recommends to parents that their children NOT be told about sin, but just tell 'em about Jesus instead. (It was that last piece o' crap that started changing my mind towards accepting that Ken Ham was right after all.) *** Won't try to belabor the situation, but if any of you are wondering what specifically was wrong with Dr. Enn's "Inspiration and Incarcation" book that eventually resulted in the departure from WTS, please go here (and please notice the concluding statement!!).

(Peter Enns') Incarnational approach which labels all alleged problems of the Bible as “human” does no Christian and non-Christian a service, because in the cultural climate of today, the critics believe the Bible to be all too human. It is the Divine nature of the Scripture that is in dispute. http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/a-critical-evaluation-of-peter-enns%E2%80%99-theological-method-in-his-formulation-of-the-incarnational-model-of-scripture/

*** Like I said, Enns was okay back when he wrote the Moody Handbook of Theology. Still gonna buy it someday. But now, because Enns got himself pizen'd by evolution and skepticism, he's now doing exactly what Ham said he was doing. And the evidence is there to prove it. (And NO, I still didn't say Enns wasn't a Christian. Didn't say Enns was going to Hell. Ham hasn't said it either. But Enns has MESSED UP for sure!!) FL

FL wants it both ways. (S)he wants to tell people who disagree with him(her) that they are going to hell, but doesn't want to be accused of denying the christianity in other people. Ham can not simultaneously compare Peter Enns to fornicating hippies and love him as a fellow christian. Can christians be like fornicating hippies, FL? It's your choice whether to approve of Ham's statement or not.

Frank B said: FL wants it both ways. (S)he wants to tell people who disagree with him(her) that they are going to hell, but doesn't want to be accused of denying the christianity in other people. Ham can not simultaneously compare Peter Enns to fornicating hippies and love him as a fellow christian. Can christians be like fornicating hippies, FL? It's your choice whether to approve of Ham's statement or not.

Also FL, we don't give a flying **** what you think of Enns. Your screed against him is like the buzzing of insects in our ears.

FL said:

Nathan Ham’s rebuttal to the Homeschoolers-- Some Christians today are like the hippies of 50 years ago who used the word “love” to justify their fornications and sins against the word of God. The hippie culture is often pictured as a group of drug-addicted, fornicating drunks whose catchphrase “make love, not war” gave their movement a false sense of piety.

Notice: the man didn't say that the Conference organizers were NOT Christians. Didn't say they were going to Hell. And you probably caught that little phrase, "are like", right? You see it, right? It's just a simile. So, your phrase there, "Some Christians are like..." makes NO attempt to deny that indeed they are Christians. Indeed, despite the criticism that follows, their status as Christians is plainly acknowledged upfront. That's why I keep on saying (without being refuted, I notice!) that Ham, and AIG, and ICR, have NOT attempted to claim that Enns or the Homeschool Conference organizers/attendees are not Christians. FL

What do ID advocates have against Christianity, anyway, that they keep trying to drive educated people away from it?

Just wondering.

Henry J said: What do ID advocates have against Christianity, anyway, that they keep trying to drive educated people away from it? Just wondering.

By "sectarian Christianity" I meant the sectarianism - ie, the tendency to schism into many competing sects - of Christianity. I think this tendency is actually explained by personalities and politics among the leaders and by money, rather than by sincere differences over doctrine, although doctrine is always given as the reason for the schism.

That point has nothing to do with whether Christians accept evolution or not. Christian sects split over personalities, power and money. This is true of the current sects on the fundamentalist fringe, as we see in this brouhaha, but it was just as true about the major schisms of Christianity, beginning with the Pauline.

As Mike Clinch remarked, many Christians accept evolution. Of course this is correct. Regrettably, there is a powerful and influential moiety of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who reject it, and who hold that acceptance of evolution is tantamount to denial of the Word of God, hence incompatible with Christianity. One of them has already shown up on this thread: FL.

And FL is trying to push the idea that PT drives theists of any stripe away. He's wrong about PvM. He's wrong about the other theists here, including Mike Clinch. Well, then, give him the lie. Speak out. Speak up. Tell him, as a fellow-Christian, that his reading of Scripture is foolish and shallow, and that there is no requirement in doctrine, tradition or reason for a Christian to read Genesis as literal history. That happens to be the truth. FL will deny it, of course, but that's because FL's an extreme loon.

Say it loud, say it clear. Genesis can be read as powerful metaphor, narratives with important moral and behavioural messages, and thus it can be used just as Jesus used it, as teaching; that there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, in this view that is incompatible with Christianity or even in conflict with acceptance of the authority of the Bible; and that scientists have been led (by God, if you like) to uncover the literal facts about the history of the Earth and of life by studying the evidence.

If Christians do not say such things to other Christians, then other views will gain ground in the Church, simply because loons like FL are always willing to push them. I put it to Mike and the other Christians present that they really don't want FL and his merry band to gain. The Church that results from that might not be the sort of Church they want to be part of.

Dave Luckett said: Say it loud, say it clear. Genesis can be read as powerful metaphor, narratives with important moral and behavioural messages, and thus it can be used just as Jesus used it, as teaching; that there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, in this view that is incompatible with Christianity or even in conflict with acceptance of the authority of the Bible; and that scientists have been led (by God, if you like) to uncover the literal facts about the history of the Earth and of life by studying the evidence. If Christians do not say such things to other Christians, then other views will gain ground in the Church, simply because loons like FL are always willing to push them. I put it to Mike and the other Christians present that they really don't want FL and his merry band to gain. The Church that results from that might not be the sort of Church they want to be part of.

Mike Clinch said: Fundamentalism of all varieties generally gets started in societies and cultures undergoing dramatic social change, and it is generally a way of trying to hold onto a stable, idealized past. Christian fundamentalism and its associated Creationism started in the Nineteenth Century as a reaction against the societal changes of the Industrial Revolution, and (sadly) as a reaction against the perversion of Social Darwinism. Islamic fundamentalism got started after the near-medieval worlds of the Middle East got dragged into the Twentieth Century by exposure to the West.

John Kwok said:

Mike Clinch said: Fundamentalism of all varieties generally gets started in societies and cultures undergoing dramatic social change, and it is generally a way of trying to hold onto a stable, idealized past. Christian fundamentalism and its associated Creationism started in the Nineteenth Century as a reaction against the societal changes of the Industrial Revolution, and (sadly) as a reaction against the perversion of Social Darwinism. Islamic fundamentalism got started after the near-medieval worlds of the Middle East got dragged into the Twentieth Century by exposure to the West.

A couple of points of yours bear some correcting, Mike. Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity arose as a result of the Great Awakening here in the United States in the first half of the 19th Century and grew in part due to the Abolitionist movement in the Northern United States (A notable example of which is the zealous abolitionist John Brown.). As for Fundamentalist Sunni Islam, that was a reaction not only to Western imperialism, but also to the Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Saudi family forged an alliance with Wahabbi Sunni Islamic fanatics as early as the late 18th Century but didn't succeed in wrestling control of central Arabia - Mecca and Medina - until they drove out the Hashemite rulers of Mecca early in the 20th Century (The Hashemites would become the kings of Iraq and Jordan under British control until shortly after World War II.).

John Kwok said: A couple of points of yours bear some correcting, Mike. Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity arose as a result of the Great Awakening here in the United States in the first half of the 19th Century and grew in part due to the Abolitionist movement in the Northern United States (A notable example of which is the zealous abolitionist John Brown

DavidK -

As usual, polls are manipulated to create the false impression that more Americans are religious fundamentalists than is the case.

Why is this done? My guess is that journalists and people in the polling industry tend to share the following characteristics - 1) there's a high proportion of baby boomer and former Reagan Youth types who try to voluntarily aid the Republican party while posing as "objective" journalists and 2) simultaneously, they enjoy mocking the presumed stupidity of the average American, relative to their own (entirely imaginary) possession of brilliance and sophistication. That's just my guess, and it could be some other reason.

A quick read of the article reveals the weasel words in the poll - some high percentage of Americans believe that natural disasters either are or could be the work of a divine being.

"Or could be"? I've never been religious in my life despite being raised in a friendly, non-traumatizing church, and although I'd personally say no to that, it's a clear set-up.

They do this in polls all the time - in fact, a poll that doesn't do it is a rare exception. Set up a fake false dichotomy in which the scientific choice is presented as requiring a direct, confrontational contradiction of mainstream religious ideas. There's a big difference between saying that earthquakes have natural causes, versus saying the the Christian god could not possibly ever cause an earthquake.

It's a childishly obvious way to bias polls, and while I don't suggest a conscious conspiracy except in the cases where a creepy fundamentalist weasel who hides his true beliefs has set up the questions (likely to be a fairly common occurrence), I do note that something is causing people to produce biased poll after biased poll.

FL -

Sounds as if that Dr Enns is a stubborn heretic.

If you can get rid of the First Amendment and the Eighth Amendment, you might be able to "burn" some idea of what's at "stake" into him. I'm sure you've got a whole "rack" of good ideas for persuading him.

FL said:

That's why I keep on saying (without being refuted, I notice!) that Ham, and AIG, and ICR, have NOT attempted to claim that Enns or the Homeschool Conference organizers/attendees are not Christians. *** < FL

The point is that Ham is dismissing Enns and previously NT Wright McGrath et al as LIBERAL CHRISTIANS i.e. not proper Christians at all and by implication not "born again". I get used to the devious comments of the likes of FL and Ken Scam, What is see is that there faith is based on a silly doctrine of inerrancy and makes scant reference to Jesus whom I thought was the focus of Christian belief.

Hey FL,

Some folks alleged above that some fundamentalist/evangelical/creationist leaders are hypocritical charlatans, just in it for the money and power. Now I was wondering, do you think there have there been such "pastors" as that in, say, the last 30 years? Never mind small-time, storefront pastors, I'm talking about leaders of large congregations with some national recognition, at least among evangelicals, who have been respected and followed by many Christians with views similar to yours--but whom you now recognize as having been power- and money-hungry hypocrites whose main motive was fleecing the gullible.

If you acknowledge that there have been such charlatans among fundamentalist leaders, can you name some? Are there any still extant and practicing that you would condemn as hypocritical money-grabbers? Names? Stick with your fellow fundamentalists, please, rather than going after other denominations whom you don't consider to be true Christians.

Mike Clinch said:

John Kwok said: A couple of points of yours bear some correcting, Mike. Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity arose as a result of the Great Awakening here in the United States in the first half of the 19th Century and grew in part due to the Abolitionist movement in the Northern United States (A notable example of which is the zealous abolitionist John Brown

Hi John, I'd distinguish the evangelical strain of Protestant Christianity that arose in the great Awakening from the later fundamentalists. There were a lot of sects of Protestant Christianity that emphasized conversion and renewal in the early Nineteenth Century, and a lot of sects that fundamentalists regard as heretical that started at the same time - Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists and the LDS (Mormon) Church. The more reactionary and conservative fundamentalists got going much later, and they take their name from a series of essays that were written in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, and finally published together in 1917. In search of an absolute standard for what was right and wrong, they adopted a literal inerrancy standard for the Bible. They could then use that standard to defend against "heretical" sects, including Roman Catholics. As an outgrowth of that standard, they decreed that if one verse in the Bible could be disproven, the entire edifice would collapse like a house of cards. Therefore, in order to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, they were forced to attack evolution, geology and any other sciencethat cast doubt on a literal, six-day creation narrative. This just re-echoes my point that for fundamentalists, the fight against evolution is just a sideshow in their struggle to impose a Biblical world view on religion and life in America. For scientists, it's our main struggle.

Dave Luckett said: And FL is trying to push the idea that PT drives theists of any stripe away. He's wrong about PvM. He's wrong about the other theists here, including Mike Clinch. Well, then, give him the lie. Speak out. Speak up. Tell him, as a fellow-Christian, that his reading of Scripture is foolish and shallow, and that there is no requirement in doctrine, tradition or reason for a Christian to read Genesis as literal history. That happens to be the truth. FL will deny it, of course, but that's because FL's an extreme loon. Say it loud, say it clear. Genesis can be read as powerful metaphor, narratives with important moral and behavioural messages, and thus it can be used just as Jesus used it, as teaching; that there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, in this view that is incompatible with Christianity or even in conflict with acceptance of the authority of the Bible; and that scientists have been led (by God, if you like) to uncover the literal facts about the history of the Earth and of life by studying the evidence.

I'd like to interrupt the regularly scheduled troll baiting to point out something that I find absolutely fascinating but that seems to escaped everyone's notice. Dave describes this dust up as being between two creationists, but that's only true if you subscribe to an archaic definition of "creationist". Biologos works to promote science education and counter the teaching of anti-science propaganda, but they do it in a way that's sensitive and respectful of religious belief instead of going out of their way to attack religious belief. And here we see amazing results from their efforts. A home schooling conference, a culture rife with anti-science propaganda, turning on AIG and adopting a real science curriculum! And what has the Dawkins, Myers, et al. crowd produced? A population of uncomfortable teachers and administrators finding ways to slide "equal time" into the classroom on the sly, as has just happened in Chicago.

Haven't seen any discussion of Chicago here either. The creationists won there folks. Equal time got a pass. Only slightly more subtle than a disclaimer pasted inside a book, or a disclaimer announced over a PA. Why has this happened? Because the people involved see the issue framed as science vs religion instead of science vs pseudoscience.

Mike said: Haven't seen any discussion of Chicago here either. The creationists won there folks. Equal time got a pass. Only slightly more subtle than a disclaimer pasted inside a book, or a disclaimer announced over a PA. Why has this happened? Because the people involved see the issue framed as science vs religion instead of science vs pseudoscience.

“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.” “The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” - St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)

Haven’t seen any discussion of Chicago here either. The creationists won there folks.

Dave describes this dust up as being between two creationists, but that’s only true if you subscribe to an archaic definition of “creationist”.

And here's FL, to demonstrate once again that the only thing he can respond to is authority.

Augustine thought that Christians should not demonstrate their ignorance of the natural world before others, because it had the effect of discounting their opinions generally. He was right.

Augustine also thought that the Earth was 6000 years old (although I think it likely that had he been presented with the evidence that it was six orders of magnitude older, he would have accepted it). He was wrong.

FL is trying to argue that if we accept the first we must accept the second, but this can only follow if we grant Augustine authority. But Augustine doesn't have authority. The evidence has the authority.

The evidence in the first case shows that Augustine was right. Millions of Christians have turned away from their faith, and millions of non-Christians refuse it, because loons like FL insist, falsely, that their impossible misconstruction of reality is necessary to Christianity.

The evidence in the second case shows that Augustine was wrong. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life has been present on it for about 3.5 billion years.

There is, of course, no inconsistancy at all in saying that Augustine was right about one thing and wrong about another; the problem, like most of FL's problems, lies in his inability to process reality, and his substitution of other methods for that necessary task.

FL said: And don't forget, this is the same Augustine that wrote that the Earth is LESS THAN 6000 years old. This is the same Augustine that wrote that the global Noahic Flood of Genesis was LITERAL. This is the same Augustine that believed that God created everything instantly. (Are you sure you want to keep on quoting him?) FL

FL said:

Haven’t seen any discussion of Chicago here either. The creationists won there folks.

:) FL

FL said: And don't forget, this is the same Augustine that wrote that the Earth is LESS THAN 6000 years old. This is the same Augustine that wrote that the global Noahic Flood of Genesis was LITERAL. This is the same Augustine that believed that God created everything instantly. (Are you sure you want to keep on quoting him?) FL

Don't forget that Darwin didn't believe in genes or DNA or plate tectonics.

He wouldn't have done today either:)

I guess FL doesn't want to talk about creationist-fundamentalist leaders who have shown themselves to be mainly in the preaching game for money and power. Oh, and for the kinky sex that seems to be a perquisite for so many of them.

Michael Roberts said: Don't forget that Darwin didn't believe in genes or DNA or plate tectonics. He wouldn't have done today either:)

FL said: And don't forget, this is the same Augustine that wrote that the Earth is LESS THAN 6000 years old. This is the same Augustine that wrote that the global Noahic Flood of Genesis was LITERAL. This is the same Augustine that believed that God created everything instantly. (Are you sure you want to keep on quoting him?) FL

Stanton said: This is true. However, many of those who try to reframe it as science vs pseudoscience tend to find an immense amount of resistance, mostly from the religious side,

as the religious side takes extreme offense to people implying that their sacred superstitions are pseudoscience,

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

Mike said: I've been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

Glad you qualified that, because I’m seeing alot of resistance right here from atheists.

Having said that, I see the false "ID/creationism or atheism" meme pushed massively more by ID/creationists.

FL said:

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

And so Mike stumbles onto the hidden secret of the Panda's Thumb...what will happen next? Stay tuned!

Not to mention ignoring those of us who don't care if anyone believes in the Big G or not.

Mike said:

Stanton said: This is true. However, many of those who try to reframe it as science vs pseudoscience tend to find an immense amount of resistance, mostly from the religious side,

Glad you qualified that, because I'm seeing alot of resistance right here from atheists. I've been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education. And, sure enough, we are seeing science education suffer.

as the religious side takes extreme offense to people implying that their sacred superstitions are pseudoscience,

Thank you. Maybe that statement is showing a lack of understanding of the creationism problem, maybe it's a slip, but it illustrates perfectly why resistance to biology education CAN NOT be usefully framed as science vs religion. The major result is unnecessary confusion. The pseudoscience being used in anti-science propaganda isn't, of course, anyone's "sacred superstitions". The problem is the snake oil pushed as the "alternative science". The largest, most vocal, and most invested community pushing back against the persistant degradation of science education has a desperate need to examine what their goals are. I don't believe anyone sets out to purposely shoot themselves in the foot.

Stanton said: Out of curiosity, which individuals here are saying that attacking religion is more important than seeing the success of science education?

And no, chewing out a trolling bigot, like FL, does not count as "attacking religion."

Nope, just another case in point. You’re blocking.

Of course religious fundamentalists are more to blame for harming science education.

Not the point.

There’s a standard repertoire of responses from the atheist community when accused of hurting science education in the cause of attacking religion: “It’s the fundies that are the problem, not us. They started it.” “You’re telling us to just shut the heck up.” “Get the bleep off this forum you bleeping accomodationist.”

All just dodges to prevent examination of how some self-appointed spokespeople for science are hurting rather than helping the cause of science education,

and how some people and organizations (like Ken Miller and Biologos) should be receiving unreserved support and praise rather than being derided.

It’s simple. 1. When atheist social activism is coupled to public school science education the public will try to accomodate competing opinions. You’re not going to change that.

2. It is not necessary to couple public school science education to atheism in order to promote the opinions and civil rights of atheists. The two work just fine as separate issues.

3. The best spokespeople for promoting science education without making people feel threatened are those who make clear that they don’t have an agenda other than good science education. I know of atheists who seem to be able to do this just fine.

harold said: Seriously, specifically what the frak are you talking about?

FL said:

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

And so Mike stumbles onto the hidden secret of the Panda's Thumb...what will happen next? Stay tuned!

Mike said:

harold said: Seriously, specifically what the frak are you talking about?

I think I was fairly clear in the thread above (the whole series of comments and replies). I'm addressing the too common attitude among some pro-science activists that produced the criticism of Biologos in the article to which we're commenting. Doesn't seem like you personally fall within my criticism Harold, so you don't have to worry, not that I think anyone needs to worry about criticism from me, or that anyone actually is worried. I would like to encourage some more reflection though. I worry that after more than three decades of this dreck that there still isn't a clear, concise frame of reference by which the news media and the general public can judge whether "alternative science" belongs in a science classroom. The courts can not handle the problem, which is much more extensive than some seem to realize, or care to think about.

Dale Husband said:

FL the malicious malingering mendacious delusional Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

And so Mike stumbles onto the hidden secret of the Panda's Thumb...what will happen next? Stay tuned!

Yet another of FL's outright lies. What individual commenters do here does not reflect on the actual nature of Panda's Thumb. It is about EVOLUTION, not atheism.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

And so Mike stumbles onto the hidden secret of the Panda's Thumb...what will happen next? Stay tuned!

Yet another of FL's outright lies. What individual commenters do here does not reflect on the actual nature of Panda's Thumb. It is about EVOLUTION, not atheism.

Ray said:

Dale Husband said:

FL the malicious malingering mendacious delusional Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone barfed:

I’ve been told by multiple individuals that attacking religion is more important than the success of science education.

And so Mike stumbles onto the hidden secret of the Panda's Thumb...what will happen next? Stay tuned!

Yet another of FL's outright lies. What individual commenters do here does not reflect on the actual nature of Panda's Thumb. It is about EVOLUTION, not atheism.

Just an observation, but how can stating a personal observation be a lie?

Harold, Mike's point is not your point, agreed. Mike appears to me to be saying that insult and abuse of allies is poor tactics. (He is not saying that you indulge in it.) He is an ally against the theocrats and fundamentalists who would cheerfully destroy science education, if not science itself and the Enlightenment to boot. They're our enemies. Making an enemy of Mike is counterproductive. No, not merely counterproductive. Actually subversive.

All right, he's a Christian, and I'm not. He has not said a word against my lack of belief. I'll not say a word against his faith, beyond stating impersonally how and why I don't share it, and we can get along on what we have in common.

FWIW, I attest that you can get personally abused, right here, for defending any form of religion, or even for saying that there's no point in deriding the religious, as such, and nobody says a word.

Ray said:

Yet another of FL's outright lies. What individual commenters do here does not reflect on the actual nature of Panda's Thumb. It is about EVOLUTION, not atheism.

Just an observation, but how can stating a personal observation be a lie?

I think I was fairly clear in the thread above (the whole series of comments and replies). I’m addressing the too common attitude among some pro-science activists that produced the criticism of Biologos in the article to which we’re commenting.

FWIW, I attest that you can get personally abused, right here, for defending any form of religion, or even for saying that there’s no point in deriding the religious, as such, and nobody says a word.

harold said: but I disagree about the weight he assigns to atheist rudeness as a factor in harming science education.

I am not “making an enemy of him” (Mike) (by) engaging him in dialog.

I disagree about the weight he (Mike) assigns to atheist rudeness as a factor in harming science education. I think that particular factor is less relevant, to the struggle for good science education, than he thinks it is.

Dave Luckett said: But as soon as we do the same, the opposite effect kicks in. We abandon the marketplace of ideas for the theater of emotion. We have, in fact, voluntarily moved to the only terrain where our enemies can hope to win. This is obviously a capital error.

Mike said: Why are they uncomfortable? Because it's not their job to teach theology (or antitheology) in a science classroom, and they're going to get into trouble for it. Framing the issue as science vs religion forces them to teach theology in the classroom, if only with a nod and a wink. Rudeness isn't the major problem, though it doesn't win hearts and minds, for sure.

Look at Chicago again: http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-creationism-in-classroom-libertyville-high-school-science-teacher-admits-to-teaching-creationism-in-classroom-may-lose-job-20110322,0,4655277.story How's the issue framed? Science vs religion. Atheists vs "reasonable people". How are they dealing with it? Presenting what they believe to be "alternative science", if however briefly and restricted. The clear message is that it will be allowed so long as it isn't officially part of the tested subject matter.

Absolutely unnecessary. The issue for schools is not science vs religion. It's science vs pseudoscience. Groups with agendas other than good science education are responsible for this, and keeping the public from understanding how to deal with the controversy. Yes, I know they started it, but that's no reason to emulate them.

The need to be more voices explicitly stating that good science education has no necessary impact on children's religious education. And, sorry, that's the truth.

Condemnation of "accomodationists" is extremely counter productive and reveals screwed up priorities. I'm not concerned that it's done rudely, though it is. I'm concerned that it's stupid. We're losing.

Stanton said: So what is your plan?

harold said: ... I don't see anything negative about Biologos in the article. I was favorably impressed by the description of Peter Enns. I got the impression that Peter Enns did something very positive. I don't think that Biologos is above criticism, but if Enns was able to make a positive case for science at a home-schooling convention of creationists, without compromising science, and he seems to have done so to some degree, I congratulate him. ...

Mike said:

Stanton said: So what is your plan?

Cite Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Biologos, NCBI, etc. Don't cite Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, etc, and when they come up make it clear that they have an agenda other than science education, and they don't speak for me as a scientist and educator. Keep the discussion on what science IS, why cynically arrived at "alternatives" are not science, and not whether or not I believe in G_d.

Mike said:

Stanton said: So what is your plan?

Cite Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Biologos, NCBI, etc. Don't cite Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, etc, and when they come up make it clear that they have an agenda other than science education, and they don't speak for me as a scientist and educator. Keep the discussion on what science IS, why cynically arrived at "alternatives" are not science, and not whether or not I believe in G_d.

Forgot to add Michael Ruse to my cite list.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/science-and-religion-one-more-time/33653

Dave,

Like harold - but before he posted here at PT - I too thought it was noteworthy to praise Peter Enns for his work:

As for BioLogos, I believe they have tried too often to bend over backwards to ingratiate themselves with their fellow “Brothers in Christ” so am pleasantly surprised by Peter Enns’s efforts in this regard (especially when I had given him a list of Dembski’s larcenious behavior and he seemed unimpressed). If this succeeds then this will be their most important accomplishment to date in seeking dialogue with fellow Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians who are willing to set aside their deeply held religious beliefs for the sake of genuine scientific education.

Mike said: Forgot to add Michael Ruse to my cite list. http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/science-and-religion-one-more-time/33653

John Kwok said:

Mike said: Forgot to add Michael Ruse to my cite list. http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/science-and-religion-one-more-time/33653

I wouldn't since he has gone out of his way to befriend Bill Dembski.

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

FL said:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

John Kwok said: However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Poor FL, he hasn't got a clue about how to decode the Bible. Even when he should know that according to the Gospels, Jesus (from memory) "Opened the mind of his disciples so they could understand the scriptures." FL is capable of looking that up for himself.

I just want to know, has FL got his mind opened? I have, and I know the meaning of some of the most significant allegories, but I won't tell, at least not FL.

He is nowhere near the humility required.

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Dembski owes you nothing, John. And your stunt with Myers wasn't a stunt. The entire history of your reaction to Myers - a highly irrational reaction, I might add - can be found at his blog. This includes the fact that you wrote threating emails to his colleagues. Don't varnish over your past bad behavior, John. It makes you little different from Floyd, save that you accept science and he doesn't.

John Kwok said:

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Dembski owes you nothing, John. And your stunt with Myers wasn't a stunt. The entire history of your reaction to Myers - a highly irrational reaction, I might add - can be found at his blog. This includes the fact that you wrote threating emails to his colleagues. Don't varnish over your past bad behavior, John. It makes you little different from Floyd, save that you accept science and he doesn't.

Malchus, I did that stunt to provoke Myers. I said that shortly after it ended and I am still saying it now. As for Dembski, he does owe me for trying to have Amazon practice a crude form of censorship against one of my extremely negative one star reviews of his pathetic mendacious intellectual pornography (which was discussed here at Panda's Thumb - the act of censorship - back in December 2007).

John Kwok said:

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Dembski owes you nothing, John. And your stunt with Myers wasn't a stunt. The entire history of your reaction to Myers - a highly irrational reaction, I might add - can be found at his blog. This includes the fact that you wrote threating emails to his colleagues. Don't varnish over your past bad behavior, John. It makes you little different from Floyd, save that you accept science and he doesn't.

Malchus, I did that stunt to provoke Myers. I said that shortly after it ended and I am still saying it now. As for Dembski, he does owe me for trying to have Amazon practice a crude form of censorship against one of my extremely negative one star reviews of his pathetic mendacious intellectual pornography (which was discussed here at Panda's Thumb - the act of censorship - back in December 2007).

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Dembski owes you nothing, John. And your stunt with Myers wasn't a stunt. The entire history of your reaction to Myers - a highly irrational reaction, I might add - can be found at his blog. This includes the fact that you wrote threating emails to his colleagues. Don't varnish over your past bad behavior, John. It makes you little different from Floyd, save that you accept science and he doesn't.

Malchus, I did that stunt to provoke Myers. I said that shortly after it ended and I am still saying it now. As for Dembski, he does owe me for trying to have Amazon practice a crude form of censorship against one of my extremely negative one star reviews of his pathetic mendacious intellectual pornography (which was discussed here at Panda's Thumb - the act of censorship - back in December 2007).

Moreover Malchus, Dembski stole $20,000 from the Dover Area School District for failing to live up to his end and serve as the lead witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. I don't think anyone should give him a free pass on this. If he wants to act like the thug that he is (e. g. Dover deposition, falsely accusing University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a bioterrorist to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, stealing the XVIVO-produced Harvard University cell animation video, and trying to have Amazon impose a crude form of censorship against me), then he should be ready to pay for the consequences of activities that are unworthy of someone who has a Master's degree in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and claims to be a devout Christian.

Malchus said: He stole the money? You have proof of this? My understanding is that no contractual clauses were violated; no one has sued him to get the money back. You have decided in your own mind to judge another person for their actions and demand personal satisfaction utterly unrelated to their offense. This is not ethical, it is not legal, it is nothing but a fantasy running in your head. John, you need to come back to earth.

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

FL the malingering malicious mendacious Answers in Genitals Dalek croaked:

So the clear-cut dichotomy you’ve implied between the “accomodationists” and militant Atheists isn’t as neat as you might wish.

Careful John. You keep on telling the truth like that, somebody gonna call you a Dalek or a Borg or a @#$# or (worst of all) a Malicious Mendicant!! FL

I've been called worse, especially by some zealous New Atheists who think that PZ Myers owes me a camera (No, PZ doesn't and I pulled that prank on him just to see how he'd react, and the subsequent reaction was precisely what I had predicted. However, Bill Dembski does owe me up to $10,000 in expensive Leica rangefinder camera gear, which he could forego if he donates that amount towards Intel Science Talent Search research by current students at my high school alma mater... and repays the $20,000 that he stole from the Dover Area (PA) School District.

Dembski owes you nothing, John. And your stunt with Myers wasn't a stunt. The entire history of your reaction to Myers - a highly irrational reaction, I might add - can be found at his blog. This includes the fact that you wrote threating emails to his colleagues. Don't varnish over your past bad behavior, John. It makes you little different from Floyd, save that you accept science and he doesn't.

Malchus, I did that stunt to provoke Myers. I said that shortly after it ended and I am still saying it now. As for Dembski, he does owe me for trying to have Amazon practice a crude form of censorship against one of my extremely negative one star reviews of his pathetic mendacious intellectual pornography (which was discussed here at Panda's Thumb - the act of censorship - back in December 2007).

Moreover Malchus, Dembski stole $20,000 from the Dover Area School District for failing to live up to his end and serve as the lead witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. I don't think anyone should give him a free pass on this. If he wants to act like the thug that he is (e. g. Dover deposition, falsely accusing University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka of being a bioterrorist to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, stealing the XVIVO-produced Harvard University cell animation video, and trying to have Amazon impose a crude form of censorship against me), then he should be ready to pay for the consequences of activities that are unworthy of someone who has a Master's degree in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary and claims to be a devout Christian.

Man, I really don't want to see another episode of the Kwok Wars unfold.

J. Biggs said: Man, I really don't want to see another episode of the Kwok Wars unfold.

Moreover, who appointed Malchus as the PT "cop" who thinks that somehow there isn't any difference between me and FL? If he honestly thinks that then he is just as delusional as the creos whom he delights in attacking.

Malchus said: He stole the money? You have proof of this? My understanding is that no contractual clauses were violated; no one has sued him to get the money back.

Mike said: There's a standard repertoire of responses from the atheist community when accused of hurting science education in the cause of attacking religion: "It's the fundies that are the problem, not us. They started it." "You're telling us to just shut the heck up." "Get the bleep off this forum you bleeping accomodationist." All just dodges to prevent examination of how some self-appointed spokespeople for science are hurting rather than helping the cause of science education...

J. Biggs said: Man, I really don't want to see another episode of the Kwok Wars unfold.

Mike said: Cite Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Biologos, NCBI, etc. Don't cite Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, etc, and when they come up make it clear that they have an agenda other than science education, and they don't speak for me as a scientist and educator.

Science Avenger -

I forgot about this thread, but for the record, I am inclined to agree with your points.

I very strongly agree with Mike on one point. Not only should someone's scientific credentials NOT be discriminated against because of their private religious views, but religious scientists have a special role in rebutting certain creationist lies.

I've made my distaste for any type of discrimination based on private religion or lack of private religion well known, and have often posted links about distasteful examples from the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_and_Isabella#Expulsion_of_non-Christians_and_Spanish_Inquisition, etc.

The creationism in public schools issue isn't ONLY about good science education, it's about that AND about fundamental constitutional rights. Atheists exist, they have the right to be scientists, they have the right to public education, they have the right to express themselves, and Mike will have to live with that, too.

I reject the argument that "people will turn to creationism is loud atheists accept science" on factual grounds. Misleading poll responses notwithstanding, I see no evidence that creationism in schools is adopted widely, nor that it is especially an issue in areas where atheists might be expected to be in high concentrations. Instead, anti-evolution policy is always pushed by right wing authoritarians in rural, conservative areas, and to date, every such effort has always resulted in rejection in a court of law, in an election, or both.

John Kwok -

My guess is that Dembski wanted to testify, but that the attorneys realized that the jury would despise him and convinced him not to (their side lost anyway but they couldn't predict that at the time). One could argue pretty strongly that he deserved to be paid anyway. This in no way mitigates his long track record as a mendacious intellectual pornographer. And obviously, this is just my guess.

harold said: Science Avenger - I forgot about this thread, but for the record, I am inclined to agree with your points. I very strongly agree with Mike on one point. Not only should someone's scientific credentials NOT be discriminated against because of their private religious views, but religious scientists have a special role in rebutting certain creationist lies. I've made my distaste for any type of discrimination based on private religion or lack of private religion well known, and have often posted links about distasteful examples from the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_laws, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_and_Isabella#Expulsion_of_non-Christians_and_Spanish_Inquisition, etc. The creationism in public schools issue isn't ONLY about good science education, it's about that AND about fundamental constitutional rights. Atheists exist, they have the right to be scientists, they have the right to public education, they have the right to express themselves, and Mike will have to live with that, too. I reject the argument that "people will turn to creationism is loud atheists accept science" on factual grounds. Misleading poll responses notwithstanding, I see no evidence that creationism in schools is adopted widely, nor that it is especially an issue in areas where atheists might be expected to be in high concentrations. Instead, anti-evolution policy is always pushed by right wing authoritarians in rural, conservative areas, and to date, every such effort has always resulted in rejection in a court of law, in an election, or both. John Kwok - My guess is that Dembski wanted to testify, but that the attorneys realized that the jury would despise him and convinced him not to (their side lost anyway but they couldn't predict that at the time). One could argue pretty strongly that he deserved to be paid anyway. This in no way mitigates his long track record as a mendacious intellectual pornographer. And obviously, this is just my guess.

You may be right, John. I'll never really know exactly what happened. Some combination of people not feeling that Dembski was a good witness, Dembski himself getting cold feet, and possibly, Dembski himself getting cold feet because he was being heavily criticized as a witness, may have played out. The "insisting that his own lawyer was present" when he was supposed to be an expert witness is most odd. Some may do that, but people who served as expert witnesses that I have known tended to be confident, and the position doesn't carry any serious legal risk. There is a risk of looking like a fool, but not much risk of legal trouble.

In light of not knowing and the lack of any action by the Thomas Moore Legal Center against Dembski - that's who actually paid him; the citizens of Dover got stuck with the bill for the other side of the case, Domino's Pizza picked up the creationist tab - I'll judge this one as "insufficient evidence for conviction".

As for Dembski's general character and history, and the quality of his writings, you and I are in complete agreement.

Dave Thomas, my apologies. Hopefully you won't feel the need to dump this to the BW (not because I care but because I don't want to cause PT administrators extra work). This will be my last comment on this particular topic.

harold said: You may be right, John. I'll never really know exactly what happened. Some combination of people not feeling that Dembski was a good witness, Dembski himself getting cold feet, and possibly, Dembski himself getting cold feet because he was being heavily criticized as a witness, may have played out. The "insisting that his own lawyer was present" when he was supposed to be an expert witness is most odd. Some may do that, but people who served as expert witnesses that I have known tended to be confident, and the position doesn't carry any serious legal risk. There is a risk of looking like a fool, but not much risk of legal trouble. In light of not knowing and the lack of any action by the Thomas Moore Legal Center against Dembski - that's who actually paid him; the citizens of Dover got stuck with the bill for the other side of the case, Domino's Pizza picked up the creationist tab - I'll judge this one as "insufficient evidence for conviction". As for Dembski's general character and history, and the quality of his writings, you and I are in complete agreement. Dave Thomas, my apologies. Hopefully you won't feel the need to dump this to the BW (not because I care but because I don't want to cause PT administrators extra work). This will be my last comment on this particular topic.

I reject the argument that “people will turn to creationism is (if?) loud atheists accept science” on factual grounds.

Dave Luckett -

I entirely agree with you, and in fact you bring up some points I have been meaning to talk about for a while.

(Obviously, I interpreted Mike differently than you did. Your interpretation may be correct. If all Mike was saying was that, for reasons of effectiveness and courtesy, atheist science supporters would be well-advised to voluntarily stay on topic and not tangentially attack the religion of their allies, in the specific context of discussing science and science education, when a persuadable audience is present, I strongly agree with that. My impression was that he implied that they should hide the fact that they are atheists and/or stay out of the debate because they are atheists.)

Anyway, on to the points you reminded me of.

In dealing with creationists, we often face the dilemma of choosing between persuasive, strongly critical, or outright emotionally hostile language.

There can be no doubt that, when dealing with one who can be persuaded, it is irrational not to use persuasive language. Persuasive language usually acknowledges and respects the other persons' point of view, then makes a logical and courteous case for the view which is being presented, and includes language requesting feedback. Persuasive language may indeed include some guesses about the other person's motivations, but only if they are non-insulting and likely to be accurate. (NOTE - I am talking about honest persuasive language here, not brainwashing or fraud techniques.) Persuasive language can contain humor, and when successful that can be very effective, but use of humor in this context requires skill.

But persuasive language only works on people who seek an honest dialog. And it carries a risk. By dint of being respectful, it can mislead casual third parties into assigning a higher value to the wrong position in the dialog, because they see it being treated with respect. A particularly dangerous situation can arise if the would-be persuader continues a persuasive approach toward a dishonest, manipulative target, long after any hope of persuasion is reasonable. The would-be persuader can seem to observers to be obsequious.

Once one abandons persuasion, one enters the realm of negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is not optimal for learning to the person who receives it. No, it is not. It triggers defensive emotional reactions, and it also creates emotional associations in a Pavlovian manner. A child ridiculed or abused in school by a teacher may develop a negative conditioned response to books, reading, classrooms, etc.

It has been said in this forum that "ridicule" aids learning in some instances. George Carlin has been raised as an example. That is supported, but the phenomenon exists because "humor" and "ridicule" can be hard to differentiate. Groups of young males often respond to seemingly rough humor as a teaching method, but probably only if the humor reinforces group bonds. George Carlin was an extremely skilled humorist and had the talent of satirizing without alienating (of course some people were alienated but many people he satirized weren't). These aren't true examples of negative reinforcement.

One method of negative reinforcement is strong but non-emotional criticism, focusing strictly on the topic under discussion. Generally, this can be quite persuasive, but ONLY to someone who is committed to learn from the criticism. This method is much more time effective than full on persuasion, and hence is a potentially rational method in academia and professional training situations, where it is taken for granted that the criticized person wants to learn. A particularly effective teaching method, toward those who want to learn, is to mix blunt criticism of what is wrong with positive reinforcement on another level.

In some ways strong criticism of specific ideas is the "best of both worlds", as it is not as guaranteed to provoke a defensive response as the next level up, but does not leave spectators with the impression that the incorrect position is being granted excess respect. However, this method is not perfect. It may miss an opportunity where more persuasive language could have won someone over. Also, although not necessarily relevant here, there is a common abuse of this technique, in which one who actually wishes to discourage and ridicule sets an unreasonable task, and then "strongly criticizes" the student for the predictable failure; this is a means of disguising pure, useless negative reinforcement as "teaching". This may get short term results as it may provoke very gifted students to such anger that they may solve surprisingly difficult problems, but it isn't a great method overall. Lastly, this method may not be possible. Certain types of things, like "dishonesty", cannot be described in terms that are not laden with emotion. So the method of strong criticism may overlap with the more extreme method described below.

Finally, there is the level of outright emotional attacks that make use of insulting language and make reference to character, cognitive ability, and so on. Note that these attacks are often very accurate. This technique is provoked by frustration, either because other approaches were tried, or because the initiator shows up using implied attacks of this sort themselves.

In fact, this is the level of dialog that almost all creationist want. They do everything in their power to quickly push the discussion to this level, they attack back scornfully at persuasive speech, and they ignore strong but non-emotional criticism.

However, just because they want it doesn't mean that they shouldn't sometimes get it. It is important to convey, to third parties, an accurate sense of what is going on. Some prominent creationists simply cannot be accurately described in neutral language, because the least emotion-laden terms that accurately describe them are still not perceived as "neutral". Terms like "dishonest" and "manipulative" need to be used when they need to be used. You can't pretend that a blatantly dishonest person is honest in hopes of persuading them.

It is a delicate balancing act to determine which method to use.

Dave Luckett said: I make the different argument that theists who would otherwise advocate for science and science education will tend to withdraw from the debate if it is implied or stated to them that science requires or implies atheism, especially if this implication or statement is made in personally insulting terms. That is, potential allies in that debate will become alienated.

harold said: It is a delicate balancing act to determine which method to use.

Science Avenger said:

Dave Luckett said: I make the different argument that theists who would otherwise advocate for science and science education will tend to withdraw from the debate if it is implied or stated to them that science requires or implies atheism, especially if this implication or statement is made in personally insulting terms. That is, potential allies in that debate will become alienated.

I agree entirely. It's a matter of prioritizing one's battles. I'll concern myself with Ken Miller's Catholicism when their aren't, by orders of magnitude, bigger fish to fry.