Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
I agree.
Perhaps it’s just that I’ve not had my morning coffee, but even after reviewing previous posts I’m not sure I follow why this is such an important point in the larger context of the thread.
Oh, I never pay attention to that. (:
tacticalogic seems to want to discuss the point within the larger context; I'm willing.
I seem to spend a lot of my time on rabbit trails these days! I did come in on the middle of a discussion between tacticalogic and betty boop; sometimes I just can't help myself.
The disagreement started over whether or not Muslims are creationists. Betty boop argues they are not, and uses arguments that remove religious beliefs from the equation to reach that conclusion.
Tell that to the Catholics and Jews
On the other hand, as betty boop pointed out earlier, one can not judge every creationist to be of a Christian worldview,
True, there's also the fundamentalist Muslims who are hard core creationist
or even to believe in One God (Hindus come to mind, or the ancient Greek myths).
Speaking of the Hindus, they are neither Christian or Secular, So they have no religious agenda as a reason to favor Evolution vs Creationism vs ID. Yet today in India they teach evolution.
Point being, if the science behind Creationism and ID was so solid and evolution all just one big sham to promote Atheism, why is it that when groups (like the Hindus, Japanese Shintos, etc.) who for lack of better words "Don't have a dog in this fight" look at the evidence and always choose Evolution?
From her post #254 -
People whose entire education consists in rote memorization of the Q'uran as the only thing needful in life have never had an opportunity to cultivate reason, or the life of the mind. For this reason, I objected to Stultis declaring Islamists creationists; for the debate between creationists and evolutionists is premised on reason, on rationality; and the typical "graduate" of a Madrassah cannot even get into that game.The deliberate misquoting of another's argument is cheap as well.
It seems the only purpose to declare Islamists as "creationists" is to lump them into the same category as creationists who are well-educated and who have reflected deeply about certain claims of Darwinist theory, and have reasonable objections to them. By tossing both Islamists and creationists (as just defined) into the same basket, some important distinctions are lost. "Creationism" and "creationist" then can become words of opprobrium, and then perhaps people might say there's not a dime's worth of difference between one creationist and another. The deliberate losing of important distinctions is a very cheap strategy.
What do you mean when you say, "Tell that to the Catholics and Jews"?
Indeed. And I think we have to realize that while we can't "jump out of our skin", we have to realize that objectivity requires a certain amount of conscious effort to make allowances for it.
I cannot rely on my on observations an perceptions with regard to anything involving the colors red or green because I am color blind. I know this. If I dogmatically treat reality as being exactly as I perceive it, I'll spend the rest of my life at the next intersection I come to, waiting for the light to change to a color that doesn't exist.
I was merely trying to state that it's generally not useful to compare apples and oranges....
People can use anything as an excuse for their evil behavior, and they do. Evil exists and exists everywhere. It's not hard to see where it comes from.
Better questions that could be asked are: "What good has naturalism been the enabler for?" and "Where does good come from and who do we *blame* for it?"
It seems to me that the question isn't best asked why there's evil in the world or who's responsible for it, but why is there good in the world an who's responsible for THAT? Christianity is one of the few religions in the world, if not the only one, that teaches and insists on loving and forgiving one another, placing another's needs and wants above your own, laying down your life being the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of love for another.
You can criticize it all you want because some have abused it, but what about those other questions?
I agree. The disagreement started at about 132. At 142, she states that calling Muslims (Isamofascists) creationists is nonsensical. My disagreement with her is based on those arguments.
I'm not so much criticizing Christianity as much as pointing out the fallacy of not wanting to teach evolution in science class because people have used "naturalism" to commit evil.
Love and forgiveness aren't things that I would want a science teacher exploring either.
What does this have to do with the Catholics and Jews? ...?
Also, you imply that the content of school curriculum in places like India and Japan comes from some sort of exercise in which the evidence for various viewpoints is considered and weighed in an objective manner. If there were enough evidence for Creationism/ID, then surely that would be what the Hindus and Shintos are teaching in their schools. But since they’re teaching evolution now (reallly???), that must mean...evolution has more...evidence...for it?
I’m sorry I just can’t follow you... There is so much that is wrong with that, I’m not sure where to start.
.30C: A surprise left hook! Oooh, that's gotta hurt! Quickly followed by the classic right uppercut to the jaw! He's down! He's down! Bravo, betty boop!
And the answer is........?
Or did I miss it? Where's tl's answer to the question?
The original disagreement was over whether Muslims are creationists. If we call Muslims the apples, and Christions the oranges, the it's a queston of are they both fruit? Your argument amounts to an assertion that what constitutes "fruit" is not a matter of whether it grows on trees, but what color it is.
Welcome to FR. You can tell a good post by how quickly the evos descend on it and try to change the subject or discredit you.
So, js1138, how is that rubbish? You mean to say that scientists DON’T engage in that kind of immature, selfish behavior? That they’re pure as the new driven snow?
lifebygrace is right.
Science fraud:
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
If it will make you feel better, the answer to the question is "No, I had absolutely no intention of suggesting that, nor would I have any reason to in the context of this discussion since it's not the issue in question."
Happy now?
Irish observerd that tactical”... cannot respond logically or truthfully to my question for one simple reason: logic, truth, and reality cannot exist on the Evolutionary Escalator.”
tactical responded..Okay. Yell “strawman”, declare victory, and go away
Irish-—Either you have no intellectual ‘leg’ to stand on, or you do. If it’s the latter, then logically refute my claims by disclosing your source for truth, reason, and logic. But keep in mind that in your ‘material’ world there exists no metaphysical (spiritual). This means that
as one of your ‘icons’-—EO Wilson-—emphatically declares, man has no mind, logic, personhood, free will, conscience,reason, etc because (as he’s honest enough to admit) these attributes are ‘immaterial.’ In other words, they’re ‘spiritual.”
Your turn, tactical.
OK. I’ve had my coffee now. I suppose I can see where this got started, but it still seems to be a bit of a rabbit trail.
Anyway, if you’re interested in another person’s viewpoint on the issue:
It is my understanding that Islam is based on the assertion that it follows the monotheistic tradition of the God of Abraham...that the gospel was revealed to Moses but the Jews corrupted it...and that the gospel was later revealed to Jesus but the Apostles corrupted it. So, it is my limited understanding that — huge differences aside — both Christianity and Islam at least take their creation accounts from the same source.
It it also my understanding that there is a debate within Islam today about the proper role of evolution, if there is one, in the creation account. Some Muslim leaders allow for it while others find this completely unacceptable and have unpleasant things to say to those who say otherwise. Something of the same thing is going on in many Christian church congregations today — whether that should be happening is another discussion in and of itself.
So, I suppose some Muslims may fairly be called creationists because — like their Christian counterparts — they believe in the inerrancy of their creation account. However, it is also true that some Muslims — again, like their Christian counterparts — should not be broad-brush stroked as creationists because a closer examination of what they actually believe about God reveals significant questions or a fundamental lack of understanding about the character of God and the inerrancy of His word.
As both bettyboop and .30carbine have variously said, the question of whether someone is a creationist isn’t really answered by knowing how they fill in the blank on the religion line. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is and not every Christian who reflexively claims to be a creationist because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do but really doesn’t believe in the creation account should actually be called a creationist.
In any case, I still think this is a bit of squabbling over the proper application of a label at the expense of the larger questions...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.