Asian Darwinist Profs Call Creationists Barbarians

CEH ^ | October 22, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.

Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”

Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...

[freedumb2003]

>>ou know, I’m a Christian. But seeing how some people who call themselves Christian behave on just this thread, makes me wonder a lot.<<

Sorry — only those who have read the Bible in its original languages get to decide who is and isn’t Christian.

Just like the folk here who did so... right?
;)

[xcamel]

And metmom, and ‘angermemnon’ and several others on the ‘echo chamber choir’

[freedumb2003]

>>I knew you would be a shrinking violet. You remind me a lot of Coyoteman, except at least he could cut and paste his responses. You can’t even do that.<<

yeah — “sleep” and “work” are against your moral code.

[TexasAg]

The lowest of the low — those who do not have any substance on their side just call those who understand science “liberals.”
get used to it, texasAG — it is all they have.

Oh I understand the mindset, freedumb2003. It's no different than my kids trying to justify their bad behavior. "Oh, I get to act bad because someone else did. It's not my fault. It's those mean LIBERALS who do all the mean stuff. I just defend myself, like mocking someone's sobriety or calling anyone who disagrees with me an atheist who worships Darwin."

Some people just can't accept the fact that it is possible to be (i) Christian, (ii) conservative, and (iii) either believe in evolution or just not care whether it's true. They equate "conservative" with "my reading of the Bible." Don't agree with them, and you're a liberal spewing liberal non-sense. I wonder how folks like that would have reacted 400 years ago during debates on spontaneous generation.

[metmom]

Is that the now standard for credibility on these threads?

You mean a degree in science ISN'T required for credibility on these threads?

Then why all the sneering and condemnation of creationists who don't have science degrees speaking on science by the evos?

Let me see if I get this straight.....

If an evo has a science degree and speaks on science, he speaks authoritatively about science because he's a *real* scientist.

If an creationist has a science degree and speaks on science, he can't speak authoritatively about science because he's not a *real* scientist.

If an evo doesn't have a science degree and speaks on science, he speaks authoritatively about science because ??????

So, in light of your question, it's clear that the criteria about whether someone is qualified to speak authoritatively on science is not whether they actually have a degree in science or have been trained in it, but rather that they tow the evo party line.

[metmom]

Now, is a science degree the new standard for credibility?

No, Einstein. It's not a *new* standard.

What planet are you from?

It's the standard that evos have been appealing to for years, but is apparently only valid when held by an evo supporter.

[whattajoke]

And as I keep explaining, I have never run into a creationist who believes you have to be a biblical YEC to be a Christian. Clear enough for you?

Not hardly. While I certainly agree with this statement, you forgot to add the GGG disclaimer:

When I say "Christian" I mean "True Christian®" and while my platitude sounds nice, I don't believe a word of it. My view of what a True Christian® is is very, very narrow."

[GodGunsGuts]

Bill Dembski is a Christian that believes the Earth is billions of years old. Does the Bible contradict what Bill Dembski believes about the age of the Earth. Yes it does. Do I believe that Bill Dembski is still a Christian? Yes I do. Is that clear enough for you???

[whattajoke]

Yes, thank you; refreshing!

Is he going to heaven or hell?

[GodGunsGuts]

Heaven. Where do you think you are going when you die, Whattahoke?

[TexasAg]

Heaven. Where do you think you are going when you die, Whattahoke?

whattajoke's question is legitimate. There are a number of people who will say that you must hold on to specific beliefs (apart from faith in Jesus Christ) in order to be saved. Some people here call them cult members. I think they are more appropriately called sect members. While many denominations view themselves as part of the whole body of Christ, some people feel that only their group with their particular beliefs are saved (so they view their group as a sect rather than a part of the body of Christ).

I've found that debating with anyone who believes that only their sect gets to Heaven is generally a worthless endeavor. I have a feeling whattajoke probably has had similar experiences.

[whattajoke]

Heaven.

That's refreshing. I won't pursue this subject any more (ie, Catholics, Jews, or any of the myriad of different inter-Christian ideas. It wouldn't serve to get us anywhere anyway.)

Where do you think you are going when you die, Whattahoke?

You know what I think. I think something very different from you - and I am quite comfortable with what I think. I mention that last part because I think you won't believe me. I'm not comfortable because I feel superior or because I lack morals or a soul or anything. I'm comfortable because my rationality allows me to accept what I believe happens... And that is, I die, people grieve, and that's that. No soul, no afterlife, no nothing.

In light of that, I am trying my darndest to make my mark on the world in my 75-90 or so years I have to do so. Life is beautiful. I'm married to a beautiful, funny and intelligent woman and yes, we have a son. I love to travel, to hike, to meet people, to read - to experience the world. I find beauty in sunrises and birdsongs and childbirth. I relish a good debate. I appreciate German engineering, Asian cuisines, beautiful women, a Belgian beers, fall foliage... I find beauty in the same world that you do - I simple don't ascribe supernatural origins to it.

I am fiscally conservative across the board. I am socially conservative on a vast majority of issues (including abortion). I buy into the entire cause/movement/etc - except for the fairly recent religious overhaul of a wing of the GOP. I happen to think it's detrimental in a lot of ways and provides fodder for the opposition - often unfairly - when one of the leaders falls. And they always seem to fall.

I have a libertarian bent when it comes to privacy and most personal freedoms. I abhor big government and profligate spending. And nanny statism.

I could go on and on. My point is, when your HMS Creation crew accuses me and others of being liberals, it's rather annoying, childish, single-minded and weak. A "Free Republic" allows for dissenting thought. In my world anyway.

[Mr. Silverback]

Study up, Sparky.

[Mr. Silverback]

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?

Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.

Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

[Mr. Silverback]

That’s a strawman. The premise is not that Darwin is a religious figure, but that the ToE is advocated for religious reasons.

That said, consider this scenario: A friend and I both attend a Baptist church. He tells me that he feels it’s essential to Christian belief that you believe Jesus’ sandals never wore out. I get out my Bible and correct him, and he accepts it. Since we both believe the basic tenets of Christianity, we both continue to be Christians.

If one believes in materialism, Darwin being wrong about one aspect of his theory means nothing. It doesn’t do anything to make you less of a materialist.

[Mr. Silverback]

And, there are lots of faithful Christians who have no problems believing in Jesus Christ and thinking that evolution may be true. Yet it appears they are atheists in your view.

They may not be atheists, but they disagree with Jesus Christ and His hand-picked apostles. Check it.

[Mr. Silverback]

Hmmmm...Let me be sure I understand you, Moonman. One can be faithfully obedient to Jesus while believing He and His hand-picked apostles were spouting myths?

[kittymyrib]

There is no freedom of religion allowed by the believers in evolution. All those who dare question their religion must be pilloried. British Muslims will be less tolerant of their bigotry than Christians have been.

[Moonman62]

My post was about GodGunsGuts and one of his often used tactics here on FR. It wasn’t an attack on Christianity.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah...considering the possibility that systems which dwarf almost all manmade systems in complexity may have been engineered is the equivalent of drinking raw sewage.

Very intellectual of you.