Creationist admits to being “a deceiver and a liar”

| 202 Comments

It certainly has been a rough few days for disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard, quoted by AP/MSNBC as saying

The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem… I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”

Why mention this on the Thumb? Because Haggard is also a barnstorming “Goo to you by way of the Zoo”-style creationist. As proof, I submit this 6-minute YouTube video that looks to be part of Richard Dawkins’ BBC television series “The Root of All Evil.” The appearance of Rev. Haggard in this series was mentioned on the Thumb waaaay back on Jan. 12th, 2006 by commenter Dean Morrison.

Anyway, watch this 6-minute YouTube clip to see just how really smarmy and oily Haggard can be when he’s not trying to explain his sexcapades.

Hat Tip: Thanks to Raw Story

202 Comments

Evolutionist admits to being “not at all surprised.”

Yes, it’s called homophobia, Haggard. You’d do better with science than ancient proscriptions to understand yourself and humanity.

I think that the lying part is what matters most here. We have odious people on our side, including liars and deceivers. But when you’re open to the meaning of the evidence you simply don’t have any reason to lie concerning origins, and the rest of science (including the psychology of homosexuals). This is why one needs to be honest about science, for it at least gives a person a foothold in the world of truth (small-t truth, naturally), and perhaps will lead to truthfulness about oneself (doesn’t always happen, certainly).

Too much can be made of Haggard, nonetheless it is true that lies lead to more lies, which is essentially the history of the ID movement. The lies must stop somewhere.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard’s obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I’ve seen this before in debates, and it’s a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They’ll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard’s obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I’ve seen this before in debates, and it’s a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They’ll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

That guy interviewing him is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of him to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg to Haggard but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. It’s just undiplomatic. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant. It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That’s some disastrous (non)selectivity. “I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother.” *stunned looks from close readers*

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. It’s just undiplomatic for Dawkins to say. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant. It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That’s some disastrous (non)selectivity. “I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother.” *stunned looks from close readers*

I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions

Alas, the general public doesn’t know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, and doesn’t really care, either. (shrug) But then, the anti-evolutioners are not, have never been, and never will be, about science. It’s a political movement, and it has virtually nothing to do with science. And since people are not won TO creationism through science, they won’t be won AWAY from it by science either. No matter how politely it’s explained to them. Anti-evolution (by whatever name) is theocratic politics. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It can only be beaten the same way every *other* political movement is beaten — by out-organizing it. We can talk “science” to people until we are purple in the face, and it just doesn’t help. It’s simply not what this fight is all about.

As for the fundies, they don’t listen to polite people. It doesn’t feed their martyr complex. (I am totally serious. Just ask Mr Suttkus about his little experiment online . … . )

I am *never* polite to fundies. I am also never polite to Klansmen, neo-Nazis, or Leninists. And all for the very same reasons. I see no need whatever to make nice-nice with them. Instead, my openly-proclaimed aim is to destroy them utterly as an effective political movement – to disrupt their organizations, to cut off their funding, to provoke as much internal dissent amongst them as I can, and to laugh at them savagely at every opportunity.

This is not a badminton match. It’s a boxing match. Punches will be thrown, teeth will be knocked out, and blood will spatter the walls. And in the end, one side will walk away, and one side won’t.

People who don’t want to get their hands dirty with a bare-knuckled political fight like that, had best seek some other intellectual past-time.

It certainly has been a rough few days for disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard

Prediction: he will give his teary televised “I have sinned, forgive me !!!” speach, all will be forgotten, and within six months he’ll be right back to fleecing his flock, just like Bakker and Swaggart.

Hovind will do the same, as soon as he gets out of jail.

Fundies are chumps. Every one of them. (shrug)

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip, and indeed in parts of “The God Delusion”. But he isn’t arrogant - he’s mad as hell and he is quite right to be so. For too long people like him, and me, and the rev Dr Lenny have have sat silently by while these appalling idiots say exactly what they want (well, not you Lenny) and we’ve been driven to understand that we must act, and speak, and confront these f___wits. Expect to see Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and others yet to emerge be fully as strident against the hypocrisy of Haggard and others as they are against us. And, BTW, the RD website www.richarddawkins.net really rocks and so far without the trolls that beset PT (not too much) and talk origins (sadly too much) - try it out.

edited for foul language - dt

Ted Haggard Wrote:

The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem… I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.

Well, Ted, why don’t you take care of the “lies and deceit” problem by telling family, friends and flock whenever you feel attraction to a man or a hankering for illicit substances in the future? Then they can help you stay on the path of righteousness, and you can show them just how common these feelings are even in the most godly of folk.

It’s kinda sad really. In a sane world, Haggard would just say “I’m gay/bisexual. Deal with it.”

It never ceases to amaze me how people can fall so readily and so completely for hucksters like this. Even back when I was nominally religious I recognized that the evangelical movement was mostly just a scam. Yet millions of people eat this stuff up.

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn’t been outed for a “transgression” of some sort?

It sure feels good when one of these hypocrites gets exposed for what they really are. If only their followers would get a clue from it.

Well, this is also an excellent object lesson that homosexuality is not an exclucive either/or practice, nor a simple “life style” choice.

Fnxtr, the reason why he can’t say “Just deal with it” is because one of his major talking points is about how homosexual relations are evil, and are a blasphemy in the eyes of God. Any people who partake in them are the worst degree of sinner.

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

actually, it shouldn’t be all that surprising. they likely come from very repressed households, and basically would be “excommunicated” from their peers if they voiced any reasonable arguments in opposition to the extremeist viewpoint.

this kind of thing gets constantly reinforced in millions of fundiebot households around the US, resulting in the constant spew of homophobia.

to survive in that environmnet, someone who really IS gay would have to quickly learn to compartmentalize.

when they have to do it to the extreme level we see in Haggard’s case, you get an extreme desire to do anything to counter the repression in private.

I imagine having sex with hookers and snorting meth is just scratching the surface of Ted’s private life.

yes, the point is the insanity involved in the repressive and ingorant peer groups and family groups to begin with, not that folks like Ted end up junkie whores.

of course, try to tell that to some redneck fundiebot gaybasher, and he’ll think you’re just some screaming liberal anti-US pussy, that should be run out of “their” country on a rail.

go figure.

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Not really. It is called in old school psychotherapy “resistance” or “avoidance,” transactional therapy language used different words for the same thing. I don’t really know, but I will guess that even scientology has some sort of term for the same thing.

I have thought for many years that the biblical author Saul/Paul was a homosexual. Most OT biblical injunctions against homosexuality stem from the “temple cleansing” in 2 Kings 23.7 which actually refers to ritual prostitution. This was common in all Mesopotamian temples, and was an early practice in the Bethel, and Jerusalem temples as well. It was strongly polytheistic, and the montheists grouped it with all the other annathamas. Paulist writing merely extended these earlier texts.

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I’m saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won’t be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won’t be. That’s my point. Yeah, I’m angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don’t like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it’s not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it’s not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It’s about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they’re going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I’ve seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can’t underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip

Peter,Anthonyk, I think Richard Dawkins probably has every right to be angry with the creationists. You may be unaware of what they did to him in 1997:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/[…]crexpose.htm

I still think he (Dawkins) should take them to court.

I think that Dawkins had every right to be inflammatory given the spectacle he just watched. It was Nurembergish. Goebbels could have learned a thing or two there if only through the integration of massive film screens and how to use informality. The Creationists who visited him before suck. Those people, though, are/were not Haggard or his “flock.” It’s clear that Haggard’s response was over-the-top. Look at his body language, the sneering and listen to the tone of his voice. He was definitely trying to intimidate Dawkins and there is no sense in Dawkins trying to feign diplomacy with a would-be Ayatollah who is clearly (at least the way the film was edited) interested in picking a fight. Dawkins was absolutely correct to retort, “Excuse me. But did you say ‘By accident?’” and then follow that with, “I don’t know a single scientist who believes that” and “You obviously don’t know anything about science.” Those statements are factually correct and Haggard, like way too many power-hungry deceitful leper messiahs (thanks Metallica) moves the goal posts around and changes the argument that he clearly couldn’t win (Biblical inerrancy and consistency) by making it about Dawkins arrogance. Whether or not Dawkins is arrogant (a claim often directed at him that seems fairly accurate) is irrelevent when he is: a) invited to a “fight” and b) correct. We can investigate everyone of the claims each of them made and learn, quite easily, that Dawkins’ claims are verifiable and that Haggard’s are, at best, highly questionable. I am somewhat with Lenny on this one. This is a boxing match and sometimes, your boxing might turn into more of a fight in the octagon. We should be as diplomatic as possible in every case where it is worthwhile, but sometimes idiocy needs to be mocked for what it is and not treated with simpering wussitude. That will only make IDiots and YECers believe that we are limp-wristed (read: not gay) liberals. F*** that.

Don’t worry. Haggard is going to be counciled by James Dobson. That will fix everything!

Sorry about all of those type-os. I was in a hurry to go vote.

In a way, I feel sorry for Haggard. By the time his body let him know that (a) he had homosexual desires; (b) it was totally unexpected and involuntary; and (c) there wasn’t anything he could do about it because it’s permanent and irreversible, he had already been permanently brainwashed into “knowing” that such people were sinners who “choose” evil.

What we’re seeing, at least what I think I’m seeing, is someone with directly opposing, hardwired requirements, trying to reconcile them. It tells me that no amount of sincere (not to mention desperately urgent) effort can overcome biological demands, and no degree of intransigence of those biological demands can penetrate the certain knowledge that they are NOT intransigent inculcated through early indoctrination.

Ted Haggard is a wonderful illustration of what happens when biology wars with brainwashing, and ONE of them must be abandoned. The result is a lifetime of confusion, misery, and deceit. Creationism is, by the time of puberty, no more open to choice than biology.

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

Just ONCE, I’d like to see one of these Christofascists come out and say, “I’m gay, I’m sorry I tried to cover it up and thus deceive everyone around me – and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren’t such evil perverts after all, and maybe we should save our righteous rage for people who are REALLY dangerous, like child-abusers, polluters, and hucksters who get paid for bearing false witness against their neighbors…”

Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?

Raging Bee:

and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren’t such evil perverts after all

But this was exactly my point. If they said any such thing, they would KNOW that they were lying. By the time the brain “sets up” with creationist doctrine, it is *permanent*. Haggard is yet another living proof (out of many such illustrations) that what you dream might be learned, CANNOT be learned. The hardwiring is no longer subject to change even under the most direct and overwhelming refutation.

Haggard has spent and will continue to spend his life knowing that he is an evil pervert, and unable to change either his perversion, or his conviction that it IS perversion. You don’t “unlearn” that sort of indoctrination anymore than you “unlearn” sexual orientation.

Flint: I disagree. The biggest obstacle to learning (or to admitting what one has learned) is not “hardwiring” (a word that carries a certain amount of prejudice); it’s peer-pressure: If Haggard had said what I dreamed him to say, he would have been instantly, quietly, disowned by everyone he “grew up” with; and it is this threat of ostracism that kept him living the lies for so long. To use Bruce Springsteen’s wording, there’s the “darkness on the edge of town,” and getting shoved out into this darkness is, at best, a form of death, to be avoided at all costs.

That’s why I dream of the occasional televangelist wingnut showing the bravery Jesus should have given him: every such admission weakens the peer-pressure, and makes honesty a little easier for future generations.

I wonder which closeted mega-church evangelist is going to be the first to infect his wife with AIDS.

Raging Bee:

I hear you, but I don’t offhand know of any way to resolve this. My sense has always been that people like Haggard really do not have any choice. Sure, peer pressure would force him to do some zero-based reconstruction of his life, since he would surely be rejected (as you say) by everyone he’s ever known. And even knowing that he’d have earned the deep respect of a great many people he hasn’t met personally is small consolation.

But internalizing the recognition that homosexuality is neither sinful nor choosable after all? I can’t help doubting that this is possible. I suspect there are cases of creationism that are exactly as incurable as sexual orientation. Yes, you can control yourself to the extent of not acting on these things, but they’re still there.

(I smoked for 33 years, and 6 years ago I quit. The claim that I am now a “nonsmoker” is absurd - I want a cigarette every moment of every day. I believe this condition is permanent. I can SAY I’m cured, but I can’t say it honestly.)

Flint, This is getting off-topic but I smoked for 10 years and am now a high-level amateur XC bike racer. 10 years isn’t 33 but it’s a long time. I don’t crave smoking and I used to smoke Lucky Strikes when I worked in a plastic factory. (Wow I’m glad I went to school and beyond.) People can move away from these maladaptive practices but they require large shifts in daily behaviour that might be awful for some time. I think that you are taking too hard a line or maybe overgeneralizing. I suppose I’d like some actual data. Perhaps what you mean is that some people have been so brainwashed into believing Creationist doctrines that they cannot possibly logically unpack those beliefs without genuinely and (possibly) irreparably damaging their identities and psyches so it’s easier for them to maintain their worldview than dismantle it and begin anew? Much like scientologists are the hardest to remove from their belief system or Mormons leaving TLS? I think it’s clear that it can be done, it just might be dangerous to the identity make-up of the individual. Am I understanding you? Am I moving in the right direction?

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Reminds me of a dialogue from the movie Victor Victoria (as recounted from old and fading memory):

James Garner: “You CAN’T be gay! You’re the toughest sonofabitch in town!”

His newly-out Bodyguard: “When you’re gay, you HAVE to be the toughest sonofabitch in town.”

look to your own house for snakes.

HEY !!!! Don’t you be puttin’ down snakes in my presence.

;)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 69, byte 69 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Fortunately for you, ignorance and arrogance are correctible conditions.

UN-fortunately for you, correcting them requires a bit of effort on your part.

Oh the irony :).…..

Hey Lenny

“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one’s thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own.

Sounds a little like, “Twould be in vain to say we know something we have not antecedently felt!”

Hume ALERT!

If Science is the truth, prove this statement through Science. Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll eventually get this one right. (self defeating)…or maybe you wish to call it a connundrum, which, um means self defeating too!

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one’s thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own.

Lets critique shall we?

Well, he’s got the first part right, Empiricism surely does not know anything.

The quest for perfection that is not possible? It follows we have already attained it then! You’ve defeated your purpose, self defeating and false. Remember, should does not mean can. Just because we should act a certain way does not mean we always can do it.

Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do.

Prove that statement with Science if its “the best you can do.” If you can’t prove the statement, then its not the best you can do, because the statement must exist if anything is to be done at all here. So.…gee golly, there must be something out there a little bit better than Science. Could it be…Philosophy?

It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own. - Wow guy, sounds like you’ve got a religion going here. Isn’t a religion, a set of beliefs! It follows you’re following a set of beliefs to “correct your own errors here.” Scientism however, as we know it, is still self defeating and false. Try Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland for more information on that one. Or check out: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20379231.html

Try avoiding your fake inquiry and sham reasoning, you know your little tautologous “Science is the only thing that proves anything at all.”

There’s something very ironic about “Dr.” Michael Martin–his latest self-conferred degree is in “NeuroScience” (a good thing, since he’s in distinct need of a couple of neurons to rub together)–posting on this particular thread.

Three guesses, Michael, you deceptive, lying little Creationist.

Gay’s don’t exist! Gays are an illusion created by mankind. The Gay gene is false.

Oh Mikey, why won’t you just admit you’re bitter because your Bio 101 prof is flunking you over there at William and Mary?

Who knew those darn atheistic teachers wouldn’t accept “Goddidit” as answers to all your exam questions! It’s a conspiracy.

Looking forward to your inevitable IP-banning.

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

This is a fallacy in reasoning. One man does not affect the truth behind religion. The position of religion is not affected by what one person does or does not do. In other words, some people make mistakes, but does it means that they SHOULD make mistakes? No, but, the only way we are justified in being forgiven is through knowing Jesus Christ. The only way to come to know Jesus Christ is through Logos. John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was the word, and the word was God.

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I’m saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won’t be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won’t be. That’s my point. Yeah, I’m angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don’t like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it’s not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it’s not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It’s about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they’re going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I’ve seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can’t underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

Quite frankly, an argument from emotion, if anyone is smart is what needs to be avoided in the first place. BUT, this does not mean we separate reason from faith. A reasonable faith is needed in order to make sense out of anything with any kind of truth value.

Au contraire my friend. I reviewed the evidence. The reason I went away from Evolution was because Evolution had no evidence or logic in its corner. It was always a matter over at NIH, that we, “suppress the other side’s evidence. Pay no attention to them, because they don’t know what they’re talking about.” Essentially, this was the mentality maintained. I began to buy into this for a while, until I started actually thoroughly studying the evidence for Genetics. Genetics and Evolution started to no longer be compatible. I began to think to myself, if Evolution is true, I have got to find something here to make Genetics compatible with Evolution. I literally started running out of things to agree with it. I tell you, I was one desperate sun of a gun. I was thinking, whats going on here? This Science no longer makes since. At this point, nothing at all made sense to me. Almost assuredly, the biggest drawback was the fact I saw no new genetic information in the mutations that we observe. And I figured, if this were so, Evolution could not occur. My next problem was my presuppositions. I had preconceived ill formed judgments about the other side, the YECS. I had always been taught that the YECS side did not agree with Natural Selection, Variation or Speciation. It was around this time that I ran into Dr. Jonathan Safarti. Dr. Safarti was the gentleman who actually got me interested into YECS. I found an impressive supply of information (positive evidence) supplied that actually agreed with a Young Earth. This was blowing my mind. Eventually, I began to search deeper into this, and deeper. I found some really interesting facts, that the YECS had already come up with a model for the origins of the earth, and had an explanation for the one thing I could not make sense of out of Science, which was the lack of beneficial mutations in Science. Ultimately this was the conclusion I came to. I also studied Intelligent Design and Progressive Creation Science as well as Theistic Evolution. In the end, YECS made the most sense. So, I object, the reason I believe YECS to be the truth is because it is the truth, and for no other reason. It has nothing to do with which way I sway on religious grounds or Philosophical grounds. Religion and Philosophy should be thought of to be of a necessary dichotomy between the two, as well as a necessary dichotomy between Science and the two. Science is based around inductive reasoning. Philosophy is based around deductive reasoning. However, in the end, all of this seemingly ties right into the Bible, and therefore, I also object that we use the Bible to prove the Bible. It ties into the Bible because the Bible is the truth. We can reason our way to this conclusion, and in like turn, we are able to prove the existence of God as well. Theres a lot more information out there than you might expect my friend. Religious implications have nothing to do with it. Believe me, I was a PHD working at the forefront of a Peer Review organization before I came to the conclusion that YECS was the only correct Science that we have out there. If you would like, I can supply you with some fantastic information and evidence to demonstrate my point. You’d also be surprised to know that there are truly more Evolutionists who become YECS, than YECS who become Evolutionists in the scientific community.

God bless,

Dr. Michael Martin

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn’t you say?

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn’t you say?

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

But you seem to believe the Bible completely, and you make no sense at all.

By the way, how many people were on your ‘committee’ now, Mike? A thousand?

E? Writes…

The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed “truth”.

But E?, that’s the whole point of the thing. We’re not asking you to trust us. We don’t want you to believe us. We want you, and every student on the planet to stand up to us and cry “Show me the Money!”.

Because ya know what? We have the money. The facts are on our side. There is nothing to hide. Does the ToE have faults? Sure. Ask and we’ll tell you. Are there known gaps? Yup. Ya wanna know what they are, I’ll give you the links.

It’s all public domain, and it’s all there, freely available at your local natural history museum, warts and all.

The beauty of science isn’t what is, but what it isn’t.

It isn’t faith, it isn’t magic, it isn’t fairy tales.

It’s a list of known, demonstrable facts, and a theory that seems to connect them. A theory that has never, ever been shown to have a serious flaw. Despite a century and a half of the most savage criticism ever leveled at a scientific theory.

So you don’t believe me? Great!

You insist that I show you the evidence and let you decide for yourself? Wonderful!

A budding little skeptic! Sniff.. I’m so freakin’ happy, sniff, sniff, I’m on the verge of tears!

Because you know what — We have the bodies.

We have the Lucy, and she died 3 million years before Moses looked at the face of Pharoh. We have Erectus, and he still had the teeth of a gorilla. And we have truckload of Habilus and Neandertalis, and all those other ancestors who took a lap in your gene pool. We even have your gene pool. And we’ll show it all to you for the price of a bus-ride downtown to that big building with the dinosaurs out front.

Now, believe it or not, I don’t want to belittle your faith, your Bible, or your God, but when I was a young lad I was kicked out of Sunday school for asking questions about Noah’s Flood. In the years since, I’ve found that usually, when someone won’t answer a simple, direct question it means they’re hiding something.

So here’s an easy experiment — This Sunday, go to your church, and ask an embarrassing question about faith, maybe something like “Noah’s flood was supposed to take place in 2600BC, but the Egyptians had a thriving, pyramid building, empire by then, and they make no mention of being wiped out? What gives?”

Then go to any big-city natural history museum, wander into the human ancestors’ section, put your hands on the actual evidence and ask a similarly embarrassing question there, like “You still don’t have a good model for hominid migration out of Africa”

I suspect that one place will say “Good Question!” and try to give you an honest, complete answer, and the other will weasel out of it and tell you that you’re a sinner and are going to burn.

Then ask yourself. Who has something to hide?

This is science, lad, and “show me the money” is the rallying cry. But it works both ways. ID has, like creationism before it, never been able to put anything on the table. You have to ask yourself, if they have the Truth, how likely is it that, in 3000 years nobody has been able to chip off the tinyist little corner and brought it out into the light of day?

I have more than a passing acquaintance with that Bible you keep quoting, and in my copy, the first command God ever gives man is

…have dominion over .… all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Dominion implies mastery, and mastery implies understanding. Get to it.

Again - who do you trust - You talk about evidence and this and that and the other but so many answers seem to be the result of, not only a lot of hard work, but assumption upon assumption. History itself can be twisted because it happened so long ago. The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver - He twisted the Word of God around when speaking to Eve and I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone. Even dating methods are in question because there are so many variables and so many assumptions. How can you stand on such shaky ground? See below…

Critics use the pyramids to claim the Bible can’t be right. They say the pyramids were built long before Noah’s Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair, not global like the Bible says. Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.

The problem is with the way modern scholars have constructed their chronology of Egypt. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information. With so little to work from, archaeologists have had to make copious assumptions. And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.

All this has turned these wonders of the ancient world into something of an enigma. If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures? If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world? Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

But the pyramids of Egypt are no enigma when we use biblical history as our starting point. According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood. The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary. In other words, the reigns were concurrent with each other. Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.

It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham (Genesis 10:6, 13). That’s why, at the first dynasty, there bursts on the scene a people of culture and skill who already possessed a form of writing.

For the first two dynasties, the earliest settlers did not build pyramids. Instead, kings were buried in chambers underneath mud-brick edifices, called mastabas. However, in the third dynasty, King Zoser had a vizier (chief minister) called Imhotep, who used rough blocks of stone, instead of bricks, to build the king’s mastaba. Then he added six stages making the famous Step Pyramid of Saqqara, on the west bank of the River Nile, 20 km (12 miles) south of modern Cairo. This is believed to be the first pyramid ever built in Egypt.

“He said” - “She said”

Evolution?

Remember? “Though shalt not steal?”

Why did you steal a large part of your previous post from David Down at Answers in Genesis? If you tried such a thing in a science course at any reputable university you would get zero for the assignment, if not kicked out of the course. On a second offence it is possible to be kicked out of the university in disgrace.

It seems that you are indulging in projection when you accuse scientists of dishonesty and poor scholarship. You yourself need to adopt a higher standard of integrity and to think for yourself.

Hey, Evolution?

Carefully re-read this thread, particularly the spectacular meltdown of that little lying YEC, “Dr.” Michael Martin, who lied to all us–including you, dude!–about his claimed biology credentials in an effort to persuade us–and you!–that he had some idea of what he was talking about when he atacked the Theory of Evolution and upheld Young Earth Creationism.

Ask yourself why he felt it necessary to lie–to pretend to scientific credentials he never had and never will–to cover up his lack of knowledge and evidence.

Take a lesson from the ease with which his lies were exposed.

There’s simply good evidence for some propositionss: multiple, independent lines of evidence that all meet at the same point, even though they depend on multiple different objectively-verifiable physical principles, which can be replicated by multiple, competing independent investigators (and, many times, by interested lay people).

And then there are propositions for which there is no good evidence. The only way to attempt to uphold these propositions–ultimately, beyond attempting to discredit one isolated line of evidence here and one finding there, attempts which get all crossed up, because they require numerous inconsistent, self-contradictory claims about the underlying physical processes–is to lie.

When you come right down to it, do you believe that (your concept of God or Jesus) would want you to lie–or be lied to, as “Doc” Martin has attempted to lie to you here–in order to avoid confronting the evidence and the facts?

Or do you believe that He would prefer you to act honestly, and to interact honestly with others, even if doing so requires you to corageouly face reality and to deal with facts and evidence that appear to run counter to some particular, limited, imperfect interpretation of His word?

Think really hard about the example of Michael’s behavior on this thread before you answer, please.

If you do, maybe you will have learned something new, deep, and vital about your own faith and beliefs.

Unintentional Irony?

Seems to me that the folks trying to ride this thread to their preferred destination - Read Your Bible - have had some problems of their own.

“Dr.” Michael Martin has misrepresented his credentials, and gotten himself banned from the Thumb. And his sycophant sidekick, Evolution?, has been caught plagiarizing.

Point is, if you lads were hoping to take our minds off of creationist scandals (anybody remember Ted Haggard?), you’re doing so is in itself a parody worthy of Monty Python.

Dave

P.S. Get your final comments in, this thread will be History by later today…

“He said” - “She said”

No, E.

It’s more like He says “Look at the pretty lights”, She says “Come back here behind the curtain, I’ll show you how all the machinery works”.

I don’t know how old you are, but you seem young. As you go through life, there will be many, many times where one person will tell you one thing, and someone else will tell you something different, and you have to decide. You will find out that all arguments are not created equal.

Watch closely how people answer the hard questions. Salesman A says “Of course we have that — it says so right here in our glossy brochure!” Salesman B suggests - no, insists - that you come down to the factory and see just exactly what goes inside the box. There’s a difference.

Science says “good question”, then goes and tries to find the answer, to the best of human knowledge. That’s its 500 year track record. Religion says that asking it in the first place is a sin and you should stop now before you get into trouble. So who’s gonna find those answers first, E?

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

The Bible also says that the sun goes around the earth (Judges 5:31), unicorns exist (Deut 33:17) and, my favorite, bird blood on your right ear is a convincing cure for leprosy (Lev 14.2-52).

The Bible is a book about morality, E. It is full of parables and anecdotes and stories intended to instruct people in the everyday spiritual life of bronze-age nomads.

But it’s not a science textbook. It’s not supposed to be a science textbook. It’s demonstrable grasp of science extends rather neatly to the edges of what was known about the natural world in 1000BC, but no further.

To the Bible, the Earth is a flat disk (Psalms 33.14) which does not move (82.5) is orbited by the sun (19.4) and populated by unicorns, satyrs, and dragons (Isaiah 34.14, 37.7).

Surely, whatever you think of us sinful evolutionists, you cannot believe that God filled your head with 4 pounds of brains — arguably the single most precious thing in the entire known universe — just so you could stick in the sand and pretend that you can’t analyze the mechanics of the world around you.

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

Great! (and I really mean that)

That is the very core of science!

You’re not supposed to trust anyone. Every single thing has to be proven, has to stand on its own. You can’t duplicate the experiment — then it doesn’t exist.

So E, I’m really OK with it if you don’t want to believe me. But at least be honest with me and hold the other side up to the same standard and ask them to show you the money too. The real stuff, not some biblical passages and mathematical innuendo.

Because that’s all ID really has. Some obscure math that can’t be explained but ID insists it can (Dembski), some protein structures that have been explained, but ID says they can’t (Behe) and some passages from the bible (2 Timothy 3.16 and Romans 1.20) which say, in effect,this is the truth because we say so. Now be a good little boy and stop asking these questions.

Science has a boxcar full of bones, a genome full of history, a planet full of stratigraphic evidence, and oh, yes, even a written history of the Egyptians that leaves no room for a flood.

But honest and hold both of them up under the same light. You’ll see the difference.

Science will still be here when you get back. It’s been a century and a half, we’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

“He said” - “She said”

No, E.

It’s more like He says “look at the pretty lights”, She says “Come back here behind the curtain, I’ll show you how all the machinery works”.

I don’t know how old you are, but you seem young. As you go through life, there will be many, many times where one person will tell you one thing, and someone else will tell you something different, and you have to decide. You will find out that all arguments are not created equal.

Watch closely how people answer the hard questions. Salesman A says “Of course we have that — it says so right here in our glossy brochure!” Salesman B suggests - no, insists - that you come down to the factory and see just exactly what goes inside the box. There’s a difference.

Science says “good question”, then goes and tries to find the answer, to the best of human knowledge. That’s its 500 year track record. Religion says that asking it in the first place is a sin and you should stop now before you get into trouble. So who’s gonna find those answers first, E?

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

The Bible also says that the sun goes around the earth (Judges 5:31), unicorns exist (Deut 33:17) and, my favorite, bird blood on your right ear is a convincing cure for leprosy (Lev 14.2-52).

The Bible is a book about morality, E. It is full of parables ad anecdotes and stories intended to instruct people in the everyday spiritual life of bronze-age nomads.

But it’s not a science textbook. It’s not supposed to be a science textbook. It’s demonstrable grasp of science extends rather neatly to the edges of what was known about the natural world in 1000BC, but no further. To the Bible, the Earth is a flat disk (Psalms 33.14) which does not move (82.5) is orbited by the sun (19.4) and populated by unicorns, satyrs, and dragons (Isaiah 34.14, 37.7).

Surely, whatever you think of us sinful evolutionists, you cannot believe that God filled your head with 4 pounds of brains — arguably the single most precious thing in the entire known universe — just so you could stick in the sand and pretend that you can’t analyze the mechanics of the world around you.

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

Great! (and I really mean that. If everyone thought that way maybe we’d elect politicians that were actually worth a crap. But I digress.

Doubt is the very core of science!

You’re not supposed to trust anyone. Every single thing has to be proven, has to stand on its own. You can’t duplicate the experiment — then it doesn’t exist.

So E, I’m really OK with it if you don’t want to believe me. But at least be honest with me and hold the other side up to the same standard and ask them to show you the money. The real stuff, not some biblical passages and mathematical innuendo.

Because that’s all ID really has. Some obscure math that can’t be explained but ID insists it can (Dembski), some protein structures that have been explained, but ID says they can’t (Behe) and some passages from the bible (2 Timothy 3.16 and Romans 1.20) which say, in effect,this is the truth because we say so. Now be a good little boy and stop asking these questions.

Science has a boxcar full of bones, a genome full of history, a planet full of stratigraphic evidence, and oh, yes, even a written history of the Egyptians that leaves no room for a flood.

But honest and hold both of them up under the same light. You’ll see the difference.

Science will still be here when you get back. It’s been a century and a half, we’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

Isn’t “Dr. Michael Martin” the same person who called himself an author, Greene or something like that, as well as a host of other names?

I mean, he always seemed familiar, kind of a hyper creationist who knows AIG-type things only, and who churned out huge numbers of clicheed comments whenever he went onto a thread. These same tactics and styles came from both Martin and that other name. As the “author”, he claimed that he had “talked with ophthalmologists” who told him the eye was too complex to have evolved (something like that), which he thought was an excellent argument against evolution.

It looks to me like he learned something, like sticking with one name, and claiming to be both doctor of theology and doctor of genetics. Not that he seemed to know much about either one.

Anyway, yes, the irony of fraudulent practices used to defend the fraudulence of certain creationists is only lost on certain other creationists.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on November 6, 2006 1:37 PM.

Time: God vs. Science was the previous entry in this blog.

Well, well, Wells: Jonathan Wells reacts is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter