Friday, May 09, 2008
Un-Enlightenment - redux
BBC NI’s Will Crawley is having somewhat of a Creation Weekend [to atone for past sins? - Ed]. On Sunday Sequence, 9am Radio Ulster, he will be discussing this “dramatic serialisation” of the Book of Genesis.. and before that he’s visiting the Waterfront Hall where the founder of Answers in Genesis USA, Ken Ham - previously mentioned here - is hosting an 2-day event. Do tell us if you spot any NI Executive Ministers there, Will. Some of us like to keep an eye on what they’re up to with the Giants Causeway.. What with The Un-Enlightenment already being promoted elsewhere.. Adds pauljames, in the comment zone, points to this additional piece of information - “Also, please remember all the speakers in your prayers--particularly as Ken will be meeting with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly Government. He will also be doing interviews with the BBC.”
Pete Baker @ 05:17 PM
Ever anxious, as is any grandparent, that my grandchildren are open to all the superior educational influences, I had of course hoped to bring the little darlings along to the Waterfront Hall this comimg weekend to discover all the “Answers to Everything” in Genesis.
Unfortunately they have just returned from Egypt where they have visited, among other places, the Pyramids and St Catherine’s Church and enjoyed all the accompanying commentary and (probably due to all those E numbers in the sweet diet) seem to be quite Bolshie.
“No more fuckin’ nutters, Grandad. It’s Legoland or you’re dead, man!”
What does a big softie grandfather do? I capitulated.
Tell me please, Pete - you do have all the answers - shall I now go to Hell?
What about the kiddies?
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 08:44 PM“shall I now go to Hell?
What about the kiddies?”
Almost certainly, Rory. On both counts.
See you there. ;o)
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 09:03 PMAiG are hoping for a rerun of the March 2005 waterfront hall event which they claim was “the largest audience ever for a creation event in Europe.” The website also asks for prayers when Ken Ham meets with members of the NI Assembly- any idea who these might be Pete?
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 09:13 PMpauljames
“The website also asks for prayers when Ken Ham meets with members of the NI Assembly”
Got a link?
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 09:24 PMPete
try this then scroll down to “specifics” or you could sign up as a prayer partner while you are there!
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 10:22 PMThanks paul.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 10:25 PMThis post is like a troll-fest waiting to happen!
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 10:47 PMAlan
Let’s keep the futuring to a minimum.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 10:50 PMI remember hearing Ken Ham in Great Victoria Street Baptist one night about ten years ago. Seems to have moved onto bigger venues now!
I went out of curiosity as some friends were big fans (subscribed to the monthly magazine etc). But it was all very convincing ... ish. Mild science => knocking the kind of people that don’t agree by citing single examples => and then allegations of if-you-don’t-believe-this then the-virgin-birth-falls-apart and you’ll-be-wondering-next-about-Jesus.
Not sure you could pay me to go back. Good people. But with views that seem unsustainable.
Posted by on May 09, 2008 @ 11:51 PM“Also, please remember all the speakers in your prayers--particularly as Ken will be meeting with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly Government’
A case of one ham meeting a lot of other hams and in the latter case they perhaps do need whatever help they can get . Mind you I don’t think they have a prayer of ahem ever having their prayers answered:(. Their respective God/Gods has been remarkably unattentive these past several decades . Anyway God is too busy ‘drowning ‘ all those people in Myanmar so that the world will sit up and take notice of another one party paranoid military dictatorship:(
Are people from Belfast not embarrased by these ‘Creationist’ eejits? I hope I’m wrong but thinking of Belfast now conjures up an image in caracture of three hairy primates sitting on a park bench with hands over eyes , ears and mouths respectively while the note above each says . See no science -Hear no science -Speak no science.
Now there’s an idea for cartoonist Knox :)Y
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 01:05 PMConfession time.
I used to be an evangelical Christian, Baptist to be precise. I also attended creationist events in great Victoria Street Baptists church.
Unfortunately I took the advice that we should all go and investigate this issue ourselves literaly.
After some investigation, including reading some Stephen jay Gould ( I particulalrly recommend <It’s A Wonderful Life, The Burges shale and the nature of history </i> ), I was left in no doubt that evolution occured, and is occuring, the interpretation by biblical scholars was wrong.The rest,as they say, is history.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 01:34 PMI am just wondering if TAFKABO, when he says that he used to be an ‘evangelical Christian’, does he mean that he once believed the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God but now believes it to be false, and does he mean that he once trusted Christ as his personal Saviour but no longer does. Or, does he equate going to a Baptist church with being an evangelical Christian.
There is a huge difference.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 07:11 PMIt was the former.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 07:49 PMI do not want to be one of the trolls that Alan is worried about but that comment from TAFKABO in my view illustrates one of the potential problems with making a song and dance about Creationism.
I have said before and will again confess to believing in creationism. However, this is a faith position. I feel (and cannot explain why exactly) that God wants me to believe this. My mother, also an evangelical Christian, believes in evolution (not that either of us are very into all this). I used to believe in evolution but have felt that God wants me to believe something different. However, this is a faith position. There seem to be some holes in evolution but I freely admit that there are many more in creationism. However, creationists have the great advantage which evolutions lack: that is saying we believe x y and z from an a prori position. Evolutionists; having to explain everything without recourse to this are clearly in a much more difficult position. A difficulty the likes of Answers in Genesis pretty ruthlessly exploit (which is fair enough in my view).
I am, however, firmly of the belief that one does not need to be a creationist to be an evangelical Christian, even a fairly fundamentalist one. There is always a danger that by making a huge song and dance about creationism that we can put some off becoming Christians and indeed can damage or even destroy the faith of others. Christians need to be wary of putting stumbling blocks before fellow Christians and using belief in creation as one of the tests of how good a Christian one is (which sometimes does seem implicit in creationist circles) is dangerously close to heresy and could fall foul of the injunction “Judge not lest ye be judged”. I have in jest at times suggested that if I said the world was only 4,000 and not 6,000 years old: would that make me a better Christian?
I am much more interested in there being lots and lots of people in heaven than in whether or not the world was made in six consecutive twenty four hour periods six thousand years ago. I also do not for a moment believe that people will be consigned to hell for not believing the above. If I get to heaven and discover that the world evolved I will not ask to leave and will be just as in awe of God as if I discover it was created.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 07:51 PMTurgon - you don’t sound like a troll!
You make a great point re not needing to be a creationist to be a (fundamental) evangelical. I think we’ve a lot more (an awfully lot more) in common than we disagree on. My experience of AiG was one of trying to make a gap, putting clear distance between the different sides of the argument, rather than offering any accommodation of different views. Hope to see you in heaven, if not before - bet we’ll both be surprised by what we find!
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 08:11 PMTurgon,
‘will be just as in awe of God as if I discover it was created. ‘
There are over 100 billion galaxies in the known Universe and each galaxy contains roughly 100 billion stars . We don’t know how many planets are orbiting these stars but it is certain that on at least one of them life has evolved to the point at which the universe has been made aware of itself. So far the planet Earth is the only one on which ‘intelligent’ life has been found and that only in the past 100,000 years of it’s 4.3 million year existence .
I’m in awe . Not at God or a God but at how we got here and how we became ‘conscious’ and why? Science does not explain everything but it’s clear from the evidence that evolution is a fact of life but it is not directed at creating or ‘evolving’ an intelligent animal such as man. Religion and God are rather creations of man as he has progressed/evolved over the ages just as he has progressed from hunter gatherer to farmer to tribesman to subject of a king/queen to citizen of a nation state or member of a multi national union. In our effort to explain the world about us the God concept has helped to answer many a difficult question.
Some of those questions are now being answered Ohne Gott(without God) but even so deep in sub atomic particle theory we are learning that the material universe which we see around us is not all it appears . The universe is queerer than we can imagine and full knowledge of it may be beyond us just as much as differntial calculus is beyond the reach of our chimpanzee cousins .
I came to my ‘atheism’ in such the same way as Tafkabo. This does not mean I disavow that a God cannot exist just that I cannot personnally perceive such a being or have faith in one . Yet I remain in ‘awe’ of our existence brief though it is both as an individual and as a species .And JC’s sermon on the mount is as good a maxim to live by as any.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 08:32 PMAlan
AiG’s rejection of all evidence which conflicts with their supernaturally-based belief in a particular literal interpretation of their sacred text and evolutionary theory inhabit entirely different worlds.
Which, of course, is why AiG try to create the impression a linked gap between the two.
Their objective is to portray the two as being on opposite sides of a scientific debate.
They’re not.
Evolutionary theory stands or falls on the basis of the questions asked about it by scientific inquiry.
It has survived in the face of all such questioning so far and shows no signs of failing in the future. That lengthy questioning has enabled refinement of the theory during the process - but then that’s science in action.
The attempt by AiG to portray their supernaturally-based beliefs, a 6000 year-old Earth among them, and evolutionary theory as being on opposite sides of a scientific debate is merely another example of The Un-Enlightenment.
Many believers in a creator god, of course, readily accept that evolutionary theory is perfectly valid - but then evolutionary theory, in itself, has little to say about the origins of life, and even less about the origins of the universe.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 08:55 PMIf a troll on Slugger is defined as someone who writes ‘an email or newsgroup posting with the intention of provoking an angry response’ (OED), then Pete and Greenflag seem to fit the bill.
Judging by the mocking, sarcastic and sneering tone of some of the comments earlier in this thread, starting with the initial posting, it would appear that some Sluggers are not aware that we now live in the post-modern age. Apparently there is no such thing as absolute truth, and no one has a right to say that someone else’s opinion is not valid. That being the case, Creationism has as much right to be heard as the theory of Evolution.
This post-modern broadmindedness, and acceptance and tolerance of everything and anything, however, does not appear to be extended to those who adhere to biblical Christianity. I suppose arrogance and intellectual snobbery are some of the most difficult things to overcome, and pride in ourselves and our achievements hinder us from acknowledging our basic dependence on a God who loves us and wants to communicate with us through His word.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 09:48 PMPete Baker,
“but then evolutionary theory, in itself, has little to say about the origins of life, and even less about the origins of the universe. “Extremely true and something which many of my fellow supernaturalists (I am learning the correct lingo am I not?) fail to understand. Creationism on the other hand tries to answer all those issues and as such its proponents frequently feel the need to (mis)identify their “enemies” (the evolutionists) as using evolution to explain everything.
Also in firness the likes of Richard Dawksins do seem to mix evolution and astromony etc. in their opposition to religion and then drag in religion being the cause of wars, macassres etc. which is in some ways a mirror image of some creationists.
As one rather wise (and quite liberal) Christian friend of mine observed science is very good at answering the question How? but poor at the question Why?
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 10:02 PMFirst reports from Ham in Belfast detail an interuption from a fire alarm, (do you have an alibi Pete?) plus an account of an interview “By a well-known BBC radio personality who is known to attack biblical creationists” (surely not Will Crawley.) Still no word of who the MLA’s might be though.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 10:15 PM“Creationism on the other hand tries to answer all those issues and as such its proponents frequently feel the need to (mis)identify their “enemies” (the evolutionists) as using evolution to explain everything.”
Turgon, your first point re-inforces the argument that creationism does not belong in the field of science - being a supernaturally-based belief.
Btw, I realise that supernatural may appear to be antagonistic, but it merely separates a belief from what is observable in nature.
Your second point identifies the modus operandi of those who seek to equate, or entwine, religion and science - which is why I’ve placed AiG’s argument among those promoting The Un-Enlightenment.
What Dawkins does or does not do is irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, it verges on the ‘whataboutery’.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 10:17 PMpauljames
Alibi?
They wouldn’t get one red cent from me - I’d need to have bought a ticket.
Interesting that they’re in first with an attack on Will Crawley before tomorrow’s[?] broadcast.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 10:27 PMPete,
Sorry you misunderstand me. I am not trying to suggest that creationism is a scientific position although I know some promote it as such. It is a faith position.I actually think the term supernaturalist is in no way an insult. It groups people like me with various crystal healing nutters but actually in this context that is fair enough as both believe in essentially faith positions and refute any scientific “proof” of how incorrect they are. I am fully aware of the internal inconstiences in my beliefs. Personaly I feel that at the end of the day I have to believe in something and this is what I believe in. I can say it is real to me but no I cannot prove it. That is why it is a faith. I feel I try to believe in God the way my 4 year old believes in me. My four year old will soon enough discover my fallability, foolishness and my bad points. I believe I will never discover any such in God. However, at the moment just as my son seems to believe I am practically perfect I believe God is perfect.
Re Dawkins I am merely pointing out that some people do manage to make what seems almost a belief system out of science which is indeed a perversion of what it (science) is about.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 10:34 PMTurgon
It’s not that I was mis-understanding you, it’s more that I was clarifying what the actual argument by AiG was - i.e. attempting to portray it inaccurately as a scientific argument.
Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 11:22 PMTurgon
I believe yours is the only honest position a believer can adopt and I respect you for that. AiG hold that “The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.”
People live or die by this book, there is no a la carte option, the choice is indeed yours.Posted by on May 10, 2008 @ 11:55 PM
