Two important questions:
1. What 5 key strategies can opponents of evolution use to collapse Darwinism?
2. Will opponents of evolution collapse Darwinism through having sheer numbers of adherents or through superior resources, creativity, foresight and the attrition of Darwinists? Alternatively, will it be though a combination of some or all of these factors?
Three master strategists in history
Some believers of biblical creation are satisfied with incremental gains over Darwinism. Our Question Evolution! Campaign group and other like minded creationists want total victory. In short, the world collapse of Darwinism.
History is replete with examples of various ideologies and religions disappearing off the face of the earth. And make no mistake about it, Darwinism is both an ideology and a religion. Michael Ruse, an atheist and evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
Military commanders and scholars consider these three military strategist to be among the best in the history:
1. The Chinese general Sun Tzu
2. The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz
3. Antoine-Henri Jomini who served under French and Russian armies.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics embody the "Eastern tradition of strategy that emphasizes outwitting an opponent through speed, stealth, flexibility, and a minimum of effort." An essay discussing Sun Tzu declares that Tzu promotes "fluidity, flexibility, surprise,,, and intelligence over sheer military might."
Other key principles of Sun Tzu are: finding ways of conquering an enemy without actually fighting (putting the opposition in no win situations), attacking an enemies strategy, attacking weak points of an enemy, the importance of timing and bringing war to an end as quickly as possible.
Sun Tzu is widely credited for writing the classic work The Art of War which is still studied by military strategist today.
Carl von Clausewitz
Two key quotes of Carl von Clauswitz:
“If you want to overcome your enemy you must match your efforts against his power of resistance, which can be expressed as the product of two inseparable factors; the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will.”
“If in conclusion we consider the total concept of a victory, we find it consists of three elements: the enemy’s greater loss of material strength, his loss of morale, and his open admission of the above by giving up his intentions.”
In addition, Clausewitz was focused on: the massive application of force, "the importance of finding the center of gravity, or the critical point at the critical time, upon which the outcome of the conflict depended" and the unpredictability of war and/or "fog of war".
Because Clausewitz has a focus on breaking the enemies will and civilian leadership is often in charge of the military in the Western socities, Clausewitz wrote about the political aspects of war also.
Antoine-Henri Jomini
Jomini stressed: putting superior combat power at a decisive point, attacking key points, operational warfare and using a minimal of combat power to achieve objectives.
5 strategies to collapse Darwinism
I don't agree with all of the ideas expressed by these military strategists in terms of defeating an opposition and ideological wars are not the same as military conflicts. Yet, there are some similarities. With that being said, below is a list of the key ways that creationists can collapse Darwinism.
5 strategies to collapse Darwinism
1. Strength of resources
Borrowing from Carl von Clausewitz and it is important to have as much firepower as possible. We wrote about this in our articles on the importance of fundraising entitled Winning the creation vs. evolution war with the help of strong fundraising and We are off to the races as far as developing our creation vs. evolution fundraising abilities
In short, we want to we want to "flood the zone" on the public forum as much as possible.
We will do what it takes to optimize fundraising using fundraising best practices and using a variety of methods to fundraising. Millions have been raised to fight Darwinism. We believe that attacking Darwinism involves a well designed, strategic and efficient grassroots effort and other efforts to support it (such as internet evangelism and other forms of evangelism) will be attractive to the Christian community.
We know that secular ideology is weak and worth attacking in a broad way to reach the general public. And this is certainly true in the case of Darwinism. A 2012 study found that people believed in evolution due to having a gut feeling. See: Evolutionary gut feelings, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"
A 2012 Georgetown University study indicating that those who raised atheist by their family have a mere 30% retention rate as far as staying atheist indicates that atheism is a weak ideology. Also, in communist China, Christianity is rapidly growing in both the countryside and in its cities too.
Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz also taught value of timing. Currently, the Western World is buried by a mountain of debt which is causing wide spread unemployment in various countries and financial instability. A growing number of financial experts conclude that the West is going to experience a very significant amount of financial pain and/or that a global economic depression is coming. History teaches us that in times of trouble people often turn to God and question their current views on life. For more information please see: Social unrest in Europe altering its religious landscape
In addition, Western society under financial duress and facing increased business competition from the Eastern World is likely to make cuts in public funding of Darwinist ideology such finding ways to private schooling since it is more economical (vouchers for private schools, charter schools, online education, shut down some public colleges/universities, etc.).
In addition, I believe in the strong use of fundraising because I think it is important to kill off Darwinism as quickly as possible as it is a needless stumbling block to Christian evangelism. This is in accordance of Sun Tzu's principle of ending conflicts as quickly as possible. In addition, Sun Tzu stressed the importance of preparation and having a well supplied army.
2. Attacking Darwinism at key points
Although Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine-Henri Jomini have very different approaches, they all agree on the importance of attacking the opposition strategically and at key points. See: Attacking Darwinism at key points
3. Attacking the enemies strategy
Sun Tzu taught it is important to attack the enemies strategy. For example, indoctrinating students in public schools is a key strategy of Darwinists.
We know that in America most teachers are reluctant to endorse evolutionism in class.
Therefore, we are going to educate children on the many weaknesses of Darwinism through the 15 questions for evolutionists taught through a variety of methods such as tracts, booklets, books, videos, online courses, workbooks, classes, etc. .
Then of course, we are going to encourage students to bring up these 15 questions in class if there teachers are trying to indoctrinate the class in evolutionary dogma. We can also train students to do this in summer camps, churches and other places. See: The high price of NOT asking the 15 Questions for Evolutionists in your classroom
If David has the boldness to defeat Goliath, should not Christian students bring up objections to Darwinism to teachers who are often reluctant to endorse Darwinism in class? Isn't this especially true since the false beliefs of evolutionary thought are antithetical to what the Bible teaches and corrosive to biblical morality. See: Morals decline linked to evolution - university study
In addition, conservative Bible clubs are proliferating across the United States in public schools and other places through coordinated effort of a national Christian organization. It makes all the sense in the world to form a strategic alliance with this group and similar groups via Question Evolution! materials designed with their needs in mind. See: Bible in schools and alliances with Question Evolution! campaign supporters
We do want to thank Richard Dawkins for letting us know about this tremendous opportunity of these quickly growing Bible clubs in schools via his website which has seen declining viewers in recent years. See:
Creation Ministries International blows past Richard Dawkins in terms of their website traffic.
4. Speed
Now that a Question Evolution! book for middle school students is soon going to be completed (we expect it to be completed in 2013), the process of mass dissemination of the Question Evolution! Campaign has started. Since it is a grassroots campaign, recruiting more and more volunteers is key. We have a member of our team who worked for a national employee recruiting firm and he is very good at recruiting people and teaching others.
It is also important to use as many key venues as possible to get the message out such as the internet, churches, mass media, news media, and other venues. See: Our group's plan, strategy and tactics for advancing the Question Evolution! Campaign
5. Flexibility and minimum of effort to achieve goals
We are always gong to be looking for ways to deliver our message faster and more economically. For example, forming alliances and taking advantage of technological advances and/or new marketing venues/channels. This is in line with the thinking of Sun Tzu and Jomini.
Also, people like learning content in various ways. For example, a businessman might like an audio he can listen to in his car. Other people prefer books or videos. Other people like structured online courses. We will endeavor to meet the public's preferences as much as possible.
In addition, Sun Tzu taught the importance of surprise and stealth to keep your opponents off balance. We have a number of things planned we want unleash which we think will be very effective.
War of attrition:
Alex White, a manager for non-profit causes, says that often modern day ideological wars are wars of attrition and there is some wisdom and applicability in this statement. On the other hand, in an information age and various technologies to rapidly get out one's message, the applicability of White's statement is mitigated and is not a blanket statement. It all depends how entrenched an ideology is in various regions and sectors of the populace.
J. Bartholomees wrote: “there will always be one enemy soldier armed with a knife who is willing to give their life to continue the fight”. Unfortunately for evolutionists, post losing hundreds of debates at colleges, universities and other public places around the time of the 1970's, they are now like timid little bunnies who are afraid to publicly debate. We love challenging evolutionist blowhards who make comments on our blog to debates and watching them deflate and cowardly scamper away.
In addition, Richard Dawkins and the British Human Society ducked debating the Christian apologist William Lane Craig and this was reported in major news outlets and in the Christian and conservative press. Furthermore, the ex-atheist Richard Dawkins in a very public way declared himself an agnostic (which many people where not aware of) which was very embarrassing to the atheist community. Dawkins and his publisher seem to want to retain the label of atheist for Dawkins when he is peddling books, however. See: Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?
As you can see, Carl von Clausewit's stressing of the importance of breaking the will of the opposition so their will to fight is removed has very limited applicability in the creation vs. evolution controversy. Unless of course, you think timid little bunnies need their will to fight diminished.
Also, Christopher Hitchens was an atheist sophist who had charisma. Post Hitchens dying the little esprit de corps is gone and now atheists are involved in intense bickering among themselves and trying to launch feeble gimics to repackage atheism and put a new face on atheism (Atheism+, etc.). It is pointless. The atheist Dr. Sam Harris said about the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."
Eric Kaufmann and attrition and immigration
The work of Professor Eric Kaufmann and the scholarship Gordon-Conwell Seminary is very instructive in terms of the battle of attrition between Christians and atheists, agnostics and those who are more secular minded.
In 2012, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) reported that every day there are 800 less atheists per day, 1,100 less non-religious (agnostic) people per day and 83,000 more people professing to be Christians per day (see: Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary - status of Global Mission report).
The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufmann using a multitude of demographic studies argues in an academic paper entitled Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century the decline of atheism in terms of its global adherents is an established trend that will persist for the foreseeable future and the rate of decline will accelerate and affect the Western World. See: Why are the years 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?
Michael Blume, a researcher at the University of Jena in Germany, wrote "Most societies or communities that have espoused atheistic beliefs have not survived more than a century." Blume also indicated concerning concerning his research on this matter: "What I found was the complete lack of a single case of a secular population, community or movement that would just manage to retain replacement level."
For more information, please see:
Comprehensive look at the decline of evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism and the rise of Christianity and creationism
Thomas Kuhn on attrition and scientific paradigms
A review of Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions declares about old paradigms dying out through attrition:
Kuhn argues that scientific “progress” is not linear. New theories and paradigms are not continuations of old ones but replace the old ones and are discontinuous and incommensurable with them. Criticism of earlier science must be made through the eyes of the contemporary. The new ones arise due to the bulk of evidence against the old becoming intolerable; they become paradigms as they become accepted by younger scientists and as the older ones die.The science community does not exist in a vacuum. Scientists are human beings who are affected by their culture and personal worldviews. It is no mistake that the Scientific Revolution occurred in Christianized Europe and that many of the founding fathers of modern science were Christians. And as per the factors of described in Kaufman's work and other factors, we believe that a secular culture is destined to die in the West.
Summary
Bible believing Christians being instrumental to collapsing Darwinism will involve a combination of working hard, working smart and through attrition due to demographic factors.
Question Evolution! Campaign resources and other resources:
Question Evolution! Campaign
15 questions for evolutionists
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15
15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!
Photo and graphic credits:
1. All graphic credits were obtain from http://www.clker.com and are public domain
2. The picture of a military plane breaking the sound barrier is a public domain picture
3. Photo credits,Statue:
| Description |
English: Enchoen in Yurihama, Tottori prefecture, Japan
|
| Date | 27 September 2008 |
| Source | 663highland |
| Author | 663highland |
| License: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. |





_-_filtered.jpg)



This web-site is the most ridiculous bunch of fecal matter I have come across in a long time. Fairy tales should not be presented as facts. Science is a very dynamic and ever-changing process of disseminating the world around us. One must change their understanding as new discoveries are made through research and experimentation. To stand with only rigid ideology is to be left in the past.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia Guy,
DeleteThat is very tough talk. However, we have found that evolutionisst are often filled with bluster and often ignorant about science, the history of science and the philosophy of science. When challenged they typically scamper away like most bullies do.
If you sincerely believe we don't know enough about evolutionism, then why don't you teach us via a live debate with a member of our team who is very knowledgeable as far as the discipline of biology.
Are you willing to have a debate centered around the
15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions) via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people?
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
Although it sounds dogmatic and paradoxical, science is not a democracy. Its veracity is not determined whether an opponent or proponent of a particular model or theory wins or loses in a debate (public or private). It is instead determined by the collective consensus of the experts who have studied the models and theories through and through, and have gathered significant amounts of evidence to support their suggestions. If we'd engage in making 'winning a debate' equal to 'proving a scientific point', then truth is determined by those who debate the best. All you'd need is a good debater versus a bad debater to prove the point that the moon is made out of cheese and was actually made by Simbad on October 4th, 79 AD. Debates, to me at least, should be used only for arguments that concern "grey-area disputes" that cannot hope to be objectively determined either 'true/good' or 'false/bad'. Debating a scientific element is much like publicly debating about the evidence in a murder case rather than appealing to the court: there is an objective truth to be determined, but people use subjective methods to prove a point. Science doesn't work that way, neither do the courts, and nor should they.
DeleteI do support debates of the kind you suggest though, if only to exchange the arguments and ideas two opposing sided can have. And I must say, you accuse CALIFORNIA GUY of "tough talk", while you yourself blatantly generalise that all people who support evolution are "filled with bluster and often ignorant about science, the history of science and the philosophy of science." It's tough talk, but it's also hollow because it doesn't prove your point. It only invigorates people, irritates them at best. In fact, it's nothing better than calling someone names. I don't label you, nor do I label anyone who is doubtful of evolution as a "creatard" as some people would choose to do, because it's simply disrespectful, it doesn't prove my point and it doesn't (dis)prove yours. So for the sake of simple common courtesy, let's not do that.
Bjorn,
DeleteA few points:
1. Please read this article which I just created: Jesus vs. the scientific consensus and evolution - Jesus wins! http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html
2. I think you intentionally misrepresented what I actually wrote.
I clearly wrote: "However, we have found that evolutionisst are often filled with bluster and often ignorant about science, the history of science and the philosophy of science. When challenged they typically scamper away like most bullies do."
I clearly wrote "often" and did not use the word "all". Please do not misrepresent what I write again. Thank you.
3. If you think California Guy's comment exhibited the utmost diplomacy and decorum and did not deserve the response I gave it, so be it. I stand by my response, however,
4. You said:
"I do support debates of the kind you suggest though, if only to exchange the arguments and ideas two opposing sided can have."
Given your misrepresentation of what I wrote, I have doubts about your sincerity. Please show me wrong by accepting the debate offer given to California Guy.
You ask that I stop being dishonest, when all I can do is concede to having made an honest mistake in judgement by expanding "often" to mean "always". All the while you doubt my sincerity, and ask me to prove you wrong when you have no valid reason whatsoever for doing so other than your own misinterpretation of my intentions. Thank you, but I will not accept an invitation that is given with such distrust.
DeleteEven if it weren't posed so venomously, I would still not accept your invitation as I have clearly mentioned they are not how I think they should be used when it comes to science, nor have I mentioned interest in participating myself. The only thing they would be good for is the exchange of ideas although I am beginning to question whether that would even be feasible.
Bjorn,
DeleteI think you are mistaking warranted skepticism for hostility. However, if you were merely negligent in quoting what I actually wrote my apologies.
In addition, you lodged a poor defense of my criticisms of consensus science and its relation to evolutionism. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html
With that being said, evolutionists have a long track record of insincerity, fraud, deceit and twisting people's words to further their agenda. Your lackluster "support" of such debates when called on it is certainly indicative of much of the behavior of evolutionists.
Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote about Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:
"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!" Source: http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm
Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".
See also: Evolution fraud: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
The strategies here look awfully familiar...
ReplyDeleteQuote from this web site on homosexual agenda:
"Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
"Make gays look good."
"Make the victimizers look bad."
"Get funds from corporate America."
Hotdog,
DeleteI think what you are proposing is a stretch.
Here is why:
1. U.S. Supreme Court Scalia wrote of the "homosexual agenda": "Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct"
The Question Evolution! Campaign is a Christian creationist worldwide grassroots effort which is helping to further advance a worldview that has been around thousands of years and was already growing fast in the world and growing in places of the Western World. It is not a revolutionary view trying to erase a traditional view. The Bible year after year is big seller in the world.
2. Who are these "protectors"? I don't what protectors you are referring to, but we don't have to "give" protectors a just cause. Biblical creationism is inherently a good cause.
3. We don't have to "make" Christian creationist look good. Christians have a long history of doing good works whereas Darwinists have Social Darwinism, eugenics, etc. to deal with in their historical closets. Darwinists aren't widely known for good works, whereas Christians are. Can you give me the name of many hospitals that were built which are associated with Darwinism because I know there are countless Christian hospitals.
The Apostle Paul wrote of: "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe". Christians believe righteousness comes through faith in Christ.
4. The Question Evolution! campaign is not some campaign designed and promoted by 2 liberal elitists from Harvard University like the homosexual agenda. It is a grassroots campaign.
5. Bottom line: I don't see how this post relates to two 1980s Harvard trained psychologists promoting homosexual depravity. You didn't do a good job of advocating your case and merely threw down an accusation because I think you realize you don't have a good case.
I would love to see us get rid of monkeys. Half the reason people believe in evolution is the fact that we look a bit like monkeys, not much admittedly, but it's enough for people who have the right kind of imagination. Also, those pictures that show a monkey changing into a cave man and then to a modern person who could even be a Christian don't help.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe all monkeys might be a bit extreme, but at least those ones that look a bit human, like orang-outangs have to go. No one could argue we evolved from an armadillo or a sheep. How stupid.
Jim Birch,
DeleteThe Christian apologist JP Holding on homology (similarities in structure):
"Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the Bible in their time a designer who did indeed possess infinite wisdom and mastery over His creation. It is only because modern persons have arbitrarily decided that a certain degree of what they see as ‘originality’ is a proper means value that the evolutionists’ argument carries any apparent force.
To frame our argument against the evolutionists’ misuse of homologous structures requires us to have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons. Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’
By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation."
For additional information see: http://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-value
So you want 'total victory' over Darwinism, such that no one believes in evolution any more? Despite the fact 'Darwinism' isn't a religion, isn't trying to remove this belief something that one of those authoritarian regime like Stalin or Mao were trying to do? I mean in both of those regimes the government sought to disallow people from believing in Christianity or whatever they believed in. Don't you come from America where no matter how stupid and loony your beliefs are, you are still entitled to believe in them? I mean taking you for example, despite how ridiculous your beliefs are, I'm pretty sure most western atheists would argue that you should be allowed to believe in them. Don't you see it as kind of hypocritical to seek the 'world collapse of Darwinism', when you condemn the actions of others who persecute and prohibit the belief in Christianity?
ReplyDeleteDear Hobbes Cobain,
DeleteA few comments:
1. Darwinism is a religion. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can take the word of a fellow Darwinist who is an atheist and one of the leading philosophers of science.
“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” - Michael Ruse
2. Second, Darwinism is taught through the state and it has become a state religion.
3. Historically, Christianity has triumphed over state religions. For example, the state religion of atheism in the Soviet Union. Also, the roman god of the Roman Empire. To my knowledge, nobody worships Zeus anymore.
Plus, the religions of atheism/evolutionism are shrinking in the world while global Christianity/creationism are seeing explosive growth: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html
4. You wrote:
"Don't you come from America where no matter how stupid and loony your beliefs are, you are still entitled to believe in them?"
Given the barbarous behavior of Darwinist in history and the tactics they have used to try to suppress biblical creation belief, I really don't give out personal information to evolutionist. See: http://creation.com/communism-and-nazism-questions-and-answers and http://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists
Also, there is fair degree of religious freedom in America and we want to improve things by removing governments from subsidizing the religion Darwinism via the indoctrination of school children.
5. Why are you so against my belief that total victory over Darwinism can be achieved? There is certainly historical precedent for Christianity achieving total victory over false religions or states which have state religions.
I am not advocating this be done through violent means but through peaceful means instead. I think you feel threatened because you know that the false religion of Darwinism is bunk and it will end in the future.
6. Just because someone has the legal right to do something, doesn't mean that they should not be persuaded to stop doing something. Cigarette smoking is legally allowed, but that doesn't mean it is beneficial to people.
You need to get used to the idea of Darwinism having to compete in the public square of ideas without the benefit of state indoctrination because that day is coming. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html
who is Michael Ruse and why does he get to decide whether or not evolution is a religion?
ReplyDeleteI think he is wrong and i think you are wrong too.
I don't think you uphold the principles of the messiah you claim to follow
Nye,
DeleteI realize that many evolutionists are very backward and follow a 19th century paradigm , but don't forget you are on the information super highway.
If you don't know who the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse is, I suggest looking it up via a search engine!
As should be clear to anyone with a post 19th century level of literacy, the reason for asking you the question was not to get the simple facts that can be found elsewhere, but to find out what your own particular answer to it is.
DeleteYou obviously hold the man in high regard, quoting him repeatedly on your site, and I was wondering why that is when, based on what I've read about him, he sounds like just another philosopher with some interesting ideas but no particular authority on anything.
you seem to have elevated him to the position of spokesman for all science, and I can't see any reason for this other than the fact he once said something that seems to agree with you.
if I found some quotes by prominent christians in favour of evolution, would they be just as significant?
do you realise that science is built upon disagreement and debate?
in case you would like a better understanding of the quote, here is an article by Michael Ruse attempting to clarify his complicated and uncertain position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html
from the article:
"So the answer to the question "Is Darwinism a religion?" is varied, interesting and insightful. But I bet a million dollars that for the next 10 years it will be the first paragraph and only the first paragraph of this piece that will be quoted and requoted by those who are more interested in using my words for their own ends rather than for understanding what I am really trying to say."
Nye,
DeleteA few points:
1. You wrote:
"As should be clear to anyone with a post 19th century level of literacy"
Actually, in a great deal of evolution advocating American schools, people have low reading skills. And the deterioration occurred after evolutionism was significantly advocated.
History teaches that often societies rise and fall. Of course, this must be disconcerting to your evolutionary/progressive worldview. Progress is not inevitable.
2. Evolution is a religion and a false religion at that. This is easily demonstrable as Darwinism cannot do well under cross examination.
You said, "science is built upon disagreement and debate"
Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
I have a few questions for creationists of my own:
ReplyDelete1 - When was each species created?
2 - Where was each species created? What were the later migrating patters?
3 - How many of each species were first created?
4 - How "old" were the first individuals created? Who was created first, the chicken or the egg?
5 - When created, the first individuals were inserted into existing air, causing an explosion, or was a vacuum created for them to fit in?
6 - Why were species created with a capacity to procreate naturally, instead of just more individuals being created all the time?
7 - How is the fossil record explained?
MOPC,
DeleteYou need to be much more informed before you ask us questions. You are asking basic questions that you could easily find yourself.
For example, biblical creationists assert that created kinds were created in the Genesis account and not species. See: http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers
Also, here is information about fossils and why the fossils support biblical creation and not evolutionism: http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers
We suggest you go to creation.com/creation-answers and study a significant amount of creation.com's 9,000 articles before you approach us again.
Thank you for the links, but after a few hours going through the entire website creation.com, I found it contains almost exclusively negative articles stating that the currently accepted science is wrong, it does not positively state what the facts are in their view. I had previously researched the Discovery Institute's website only to find the same "Evolution is wrong" arguments, withou the alternative view actually being presented. What I look for is the actual history of life on earth as seen by Creationism, without it being concerned with debunkig evolution.
ReplyDeleteMOPC,
DeleteI don't believe and for several good reasons. For example, you can't go through the entire website of creation.com in a few hours. They have over 9,000 web pages of content.
You a merely one of the many disingenuous Darwinists.
But given the current data, I think the Darwinist/atheist/agnostic herds are going to lose influence and/or thin relative to biblical Christianity/creationism for the foreseeable future as global Christianity and creationism are currently seeing explosive growth while global atheism/agnosticism are shrinking in adherents. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html
Next, are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
First of all I DO accept the kind offer of a debate, I would be honored. I cannot find the e-mail link in the Youtube pages given, please send all info to mopcmsn at hotmail dot com, so we can schedule the debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course I did not *read* the entire website, I just said I went through it, i.e. I sought the answers I wanted, to no avail. Of course I may have overlooked something, but those important answers should be put in more prominent places, if they are there at all.
MOPC,
DeleteWe gave you two pieces of contact information. I realize that many atheists/agnostics/evolutionists are rebels that like to things THEIR WAY, but that is not going to happen.
Follow our simple instructions and contact us. We gave you two options to contact us. You have no excuse.
I believe in God AND evolution. Who says we can't believe in both?
ReplyDeleteJohn Hendshaw,
DeleteThose are merely bold words and I don't believe you. I think you are a poser.
Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.