Comment #12124

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 21, 2004 12:42 PM (e) (s)

What really bugs me about evolutionists is that often they seem to be unconstrained by any respect for honesty. It’s more than presenting a different side to a story; it’s flagrant misrepresentation of the positions of creationism and intelligent design, coupled to self-serving praise for their own unsupported position. For example, the National Center for Science Education masks a blatantly anti-creationist under an apparently neutral - and indeed laudable-sounding moniker. Talkorigins masks an evolutionist agenda under the guise of

a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

I should think that good scientists would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.

Comment #12159

Posted by Gav on December 21, 2004 06:14 PM (e) (s)

aCTa - what faith is that please? I certainly don’t believe in evolution; I’m prepared to go along with it for now just because it seems to be the only theory around. I do wish you could show me a better one.

Comment #12165

Posted by Great White Wonder on December 21, 2004 07:43 PM (e) (s)

Gav, how about enterocraftic theory?  It’s the latest alternative to evolutionary theory that’s sweeping the nation.  Just wait until they hear about it in Dover.  Herr Buckingham will be freebasing enterocraftic theory before 2005 is over.

Comment #12166

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on December 21, 2004 07:47 PM (e) (s)

P.Z. Myers wrote:

The “Truth for Youth” stuff exemplifies the “Lying for Jesus” strategy of too many creationists. I should think Christians would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.

Indeed. That is exactly why I put in time and effort on countering antievolution propaganda.

Comment #12187

Posted by Ed Darrell on December 22, 2004 12:00 PM (e) (s)

Have you ever noticed how worked up creationists get when you point out that their tactics are “lying for Jesus?”

It’s really amusing if they admit they don’t see any moral difficulty with the tactic (or is it strategy?).

Comment #12193

Posted by Flint on December 22, 2004 02:06 PM (e) (s)

It’s really amusing if they admit they don’t see any moral difficulty with the tactic (or is it strategy?).

There’s some doubt that they recognize any dishonesty at all. They know the Truth. It is correct because they SAY it’s correct. Contradictory claims are wrong. Period. If science says otherwise, science is wrong. Science is either stupid, lying, or both. Creationist Troll illustrates this principle faithfully. Science is simply a religion whose scriptures were NOT written by God, and are therefore written by Satan. Perhaps Satan is preventing scientists from seeing the Truth, or perhaps Satan has perverted the scientists into glorying in their errors.

The presumption, of course, is that both creationists and scientists start already knowing the answers and are both interpreting reality to fit. The difference is that scientists start with the wrong answers, so their interpretation of reality MUST be false. But you have to know the Real Truth to realize this.

Comment #12202

Posted by Steve on December 23, 2004 12:36 AM (e) (s)

That’s always, I think, been the most interesting question here. Are Dembski et al. being intentionally dishonest, or just unintentionally very wrong? I think the ID footsoldiers are believers, but I have to wonder about those at the top, who are educated enough to know better. Was it Glenn…Morgan? who said in the latest Skeptic that when he reviewed Wells’s stuff the errors of omission were systematic and led him to suspect that the deception was intentional.

Comment #12216

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 23, 2004 04:28 PM (e) (s)

And more importantly, how could one tell?  Could one design an ‘intelligent inaccuracies’ filter?

Y’know:

if the inaccuracy is due to regularity, then it’s a mistake

if the inaccuracy is due to chance, then it’s a mistake

if neither, then the author is lying his head off.

Comment #12232

Posted by Joe McFaul on December 24, 2004 03:42 PM (e) (s)

Here’s a proposed “intelligent inaccuracies” filter

1. I fthe inacurracy is a rare occurence, it’s due to chance.

2.  If the inaccuracy is more frequent, it’s due to carelessness or ignorance.

3. If the inaccuracy is frequnt and contiues after the inaccuracy is pointed out, it’s due to “intelligent design.”

Dembski, Wells and Johnson unquestionably demonstrate “intelligent Design” under this analytical framework.

Comment #12254

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 26, 2004 01:07 PM (e) (s)

Nice work, Joe.  Yours is much cleaner than mine!

Post a Comment