Jonathan Falwell: Defending creationism without shame
Jason Spaceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 3, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Within that simple phrase, the Bible informs mankind the manner in
which God miraculously generated our world and universes we cannot
even imagine.
"The book of Genesis is a fitting introduction to the rest of the
Bible," the "LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible" states. "From the grandeur
of God's creative acts to the beginnings of marriage, sin, sacrifice
for sin, family, work, murder, races, civilization, and God's chosen
people (Israel), the book of Genesis lays the foundation of God's
revelation of Himself to man. Genesis answers basic questions about
the origin of all living things, the origin of evil in the world, and
the beginning of God's plan to redeem the human race."
Yet, in this age of secularism and so-called diversity, it has become
uncool to believe the biblical account of the world's foundation.
And while Christians wholeheartedly believe that God created the
heavens and the earth, recent polls indicate that a majority of
Americans at least moderately believe that God created us.
These Americans' beliefs, however, are generally ignored by the
mainstream, including the national media, academia and popular
culture. Subsequently, Christians who adhere to biblical foundations
of creation are routinely met with a barrage of secularist dogma
designed to refute their core convictions.
And so it is up to Christians to be able to express their biblical
beliefs in order to effectively represent the cause of Christ in this
cultural debate.
Dr. David DeWitt, Liberty University professor of biology, wants to
help Christians understand the nature of creationism and teach them
how to ably counter mainstream arguments.
His new book, "Unraveling the Origins Controversy," is a crash course
in biblical creationism and examines assumptions on both sides of the
origins debate with clear biblical teachings.
The veteran professor, who is director of Liberty's Center for
Creation Studies, notes that there are new scientific findings in
terms of the earth's foundations almost every day, and Christians need
to have a framework for understanding these alleged evolutionary
breakthroughs.
Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of
Health grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We
live in the same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We
simply use different assumptions to reach creation conclusions."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58486
J. Spaceman
Steven J.
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: November 3, 2007
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
> "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
>
> Within that simple phrase, the Bible informs mankind the manner in
> which God miraculously generated our world and universes we cannot
> even imagine.
>
traditional and literal reading, it does not say how He did so. And
it seems to me that one needs to read more into the text than is
strictly, literally there to get "and universes we cannot even
imagine" (but should I complain about a creationist implicitly making
concessions to the multiple universe concept?).
>
> "The book of Genesis is a fitting introduction to the rest of the
> Bible," the "LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible" states. "From the grandeur
> of God's creative acts to the beginnings of marriage, sin, sacrifice
> for sin, family, work, murder, races, civilization, and God's chosen
> people (Israel), the book of Genesis lays the foundation of God's
> revelation of Himself to man. Genesis answers basic questions about
> the origin of all living things, the origin of evil in the world, and
> the beginning of God's plan to redeem the human race."
>
understanding and arguing about evolutionary theory is that
creationism purports to be, simultaneously, an explanation of the
origin of the universe, the origin of the Earth, the origin of life,
the origin of biological complexity and diversity, the origin of
morality, and a justification for morality. It is remarkably
difficult in many cases to get them to see that, scientifically, those
are several different problems and that no one theory deals with all
of them, or that it is not a deficiency of evolutionary theory that it
does not explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
>
> Yet, in this age of secularism and so-called diversity, it has become
> uncool to believe the biblical account of the world's foundation.
>
unfashionable. Not "hard to reconcile with the data," not "totally
lacking in testability or explanatory value," just "uncool." Note
also that he nowhere claims that the evidence actually supports
creation theory, or that there actually is a creation theory.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of
> Health grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We
> live in the same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We
> simply use different assumptions to reach creation conclusions."
>
and age has retreated to epistemological nihilism. Note that even
their scientific expert does not claim that the evidence is better
explained by or better supports their version of events; his point is,
rather, that evidence does not really matter, since different
worldviews and different assumptions can justify any conclusion from
the same evidence.
Presumably, he does not apply this approach to his Alzheimer's
research. One wonders if it ever bothers him that he has to apply it
to any "creation research" that he does.
The article goes on to note that there is no evolutionist argument to
which there is not a creationist answer. It does not specify that the
answer is scientific, or reasonable, or, in the strict literal sense,
truthful.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58486
>
> J. Spaceman
-- Steven J.
The Last Conformist
Just out of curiosity, is this a relative of Jerry?
Bob T.
> [snip]
>
> Just out of curiosity, is this a relative of Jerry?
Yes, he's Jerry's son. Do they not have Wikipedia on your Internet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Falwell
- Bob T.
Desertphile
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
> From the article:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: November 3, 2007
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
> "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
The Aramaic says "yahwewh of the gods" (yy-el-ohim) not "god" (el)
or "gods" (el-ohim) nor "the god of this place"(elohe). And it
appears to be in the present tense: "In the beginning the yahweh
of the gods is preparing the heavens and the Earth...." The older
version has just "the gods" doing that job.
"The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament
(Genesis-Exodus)"
> Within that simple phrase, the Bible informs mankind the manner in
> which God miraculously generated our world and universes we cannot
> even imagine.
The Bible "informs?" I thought it disinformed.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
RAM
science and creationist thought [whether it be ID, Scientific
Creationist literature, or conventional creationists beliefs]) and
most again do not care that they are ignorant; indeed I would argue
that they are happily and arrogantly ignorant (look at the
overwhelming number of one-time posters to TO). I think what is true
about creationists in general is that they know in a very
unenlightened way that their religious creationism covers the
universe, its origins and biological complexity and its origins; but
most importantly for them it is about the emergence and justification
of all morality. That these are separate scientific phenomena
strengthens for them the past, present, and undoubtedly the future
failure of science to deal with the world that they (absolutely) know
exists scientifically and morally.
The primary reason for their failure to understand the science, as I
view it, is that their vision of morality is tied to religious
creationism. Over-coming scientific ignorance and remaining a
creationist requires mental gymnastics that are a waste of effort for
them and is a latent challenge to them morally. Only a few want to be
well armed in their battle against science and logic. Morality,
however, is the elephant it the room. Morality for them is god given
and not a function of biological and sociocultural evolution. Most
will be dismissive of the sciences that directly impinge on their
religious/moral view of creationism. We have numerous examples of this
latter group and few in the opposite one. Maintaining this dismissive
view of parts of science that morally challenges them is the signature
feature of supposedly well-informed creationists. There are far, far
fewer still who honestly say that they are going to remain religious
creationists knowing that science doesn't and probably can't support
some of their most sacred religious beliefs. This latter group is of
course the only one with a morally consistent view of their own
religious beliefs. Most of the creationists in TO are correctly
viewed as "morally challenged" for their selective dismissal (and
abysmal unscientific rewriting) of those parts of any science that
directly or indirectly challenges creationist beliefs and assertions
about reality and/or the source of morality. For overwhelmingly most
creationist (the IDer, the SciCreists, or ignorant unthinking
creationist) the failure is overwhelmingly a moral one. Yet they are
the ones who are trying to win the cultural war with a strident and
fatally flawed morality. Such is one of the paradoxes of this
reactionary age.
RAM
Davej
wrote:
> [...]
> Read it athttp://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58486
Well, what else would you expect to find in "Wing Nut Daily?"
Cj
".....that it is not a deficiency of evolutionary theory that it
does not explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe."
Creationists don't have to worry about that, they have one theory that
explains everything and they don't need any more than that. For them it
makes sense to hold to one theory (truth) that doesn't require thought or
the difficulty of learning facts. It is probably human nature to take the
easiest route and gladly grasp something that is simple, quick and
acceptable to those around you. Most of the creationist/ID protesters on TO
have grasped the simple explanation of everything but cannot bring
themselves to consider alternatives that require more effort and more
learning. Facts are merely inconvenient and temporary distractions when you
know the Absolute Truth About Everything.
Cj
Jeffrey Turner
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: November 3, 2007
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
> "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Not really up to Bulwer-Lytton standards, is it?
--Jeff
--
"Power never concedes anything without a
demand. It never has and it never will."
--Frederick Douglass
JohnN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: November 3, 2007
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
> Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of
> Health grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We
> live in the same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We
> simply use different assumptions to reach creation conclusions."
Any word if his NIH grant application included trying prayer to cure
Alzheimers?
JohnN
Ron O
wrote:
>
> J. Spaceman
I say get off their case and see what they do. If they really do push
creationism instead of one of the current dishonest scams that would
be refreshing. Get them to present their data and defend it in the
same forum everyone else has to deal in. Their notion will sink or
swim.
It doesn't matter that their arguments are likely to have failed
decades or even centuries ago. Once they present their arguments we
will know. It would be sad if it was just a rehash of the scientific
creationism failure, but even that would be better than the deceptive
scams the current generation of creationist scam artists are running.
If they think that they can present some believeable argument for
their point of view let them try. I'd like to see what they come up
with. It has to be better than hiding their intent and lying about
what they are arguing about like the ID perps.
Ron Okimoto
skyeyes
I was brought up to be a fundy creationist, and still know many of
them. While it's true that their vision of morality is tied to
creationism, their *main* motivation for clinging to it is that
without it, their recipe for salvation is invalidated. The morality
thing is entirely secondary to that.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
I was talking to another denizen of alt.atheism recently about Islam,
and he pointed out something that I think may be relevant to Christian
creationists as well as Islamic fundies: they don't seem to be able
to handle complexity.
Judging from the fundies I grew up with and the ones I know today, I
think he may be onto something.
Victor Eijkhout
> > "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
>
> Not really up to Bulwer-Lytton standards, is it?
It was a dark and stormy night when God created the lights in the sky.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Ash
>
> Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of
> Health grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We
> live in the same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We
> simply use different assumptions to reach creation conclusions."
Well, they live in the same world, but they certainly don't use the same
facts. I suppose they do kind of use different assumptions to reach
creation conclusions,, but if they put it like that, it implies they
reach the conclusioons through the evidence, rahter than starting with them
Kermit
This is correct, if you assume the following to be evidence:
"The Bible is always correct."
"I will not live forever if I'm wrong."
"The world is simple."
If you keep these assumptions in mind, you will understand where
Creationists are coming from. This is not quite universal, but these
beliefs are drilled into them from birth, and play to humanity's
typical weaknesses.
There are a *few Creationists capable of learning. They are mostly
young and have not yet been exposed to certain large bodies of facts
(e.g. "physics" and "biology"), nor actually heard clear reasoning
before. These people can be salvaged. Fundamentalist churches often
lose young people in college, which is why they have Bob Jones
University. My cousin attended that school, and came out a rather good
church pianist...
Kermit
Noelie S. Alito
> On Nov 6, 8:22 am, Ash <ash.ama...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. DeWitt, who recently received a large National Institutes of
>>> Health grant to support his Alzheimer's disease research, said, "We
>>> live in the same world and use the same facts as evolutionists. We
>>> simply use different assumptions to reach creation conclusions."
>> Well, they live in the same world, but they certainly don't use the same
>> facts. I suppose they do kind of use different assumptions to reach
>> creation conclusions,, but if they put it like that, it implies they
>> reach the conclusioons through the evidence, rahter than starting with them
>
> This is correct, if you assume the following to be evidence:
> "The Bible is always correct."
> "I will not live forever if I'm wrong."
> "The world is simple."
>
> If you keep these assumptions in mind, you will understand where
> Creationists are coming from. This is not quite universal, but these
> beliefs are drilled into them from birth, and play to humanity's
> typical weaknesses.
>
> There are a *few Creationists capable of learning.
Many of them are now referred to as "atheists" or even "antitheists".
Seriously, it seems that some people raised with shallowly
authoritarian emotional fundamentalism, when confronted with
their own loss of faith are less likely to appreciate the
spirituality and personal betterment that others derive from
their own religious beliefs. Or perhaps it's just the pendulum
swinging once it's set free.
> They are mostly
> young and have not yet been exposed to certain large bodies of facts
> (e.g. "physics" and "biology"), nor actually heard clear reasoning
> before. These people can be salvaged. Fundamentalist churches often
> lose young people in college, which is why they have Bob Jones
> University. My cousin attended that school, and came out a rather good
> church pianist...
The Methodist who lived on the corner had some serious chops when
it came to playing the organ in our little neighborhood Catholic
church. Personally, I as a heathen enjoy singing a lot of sacred
music.
Noelie
--
"We all like sheep!"