More Warfare Thesis Lies, This Time From CNN

_{Cornelius Hunter

May 3, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When nineteenth century evolutionist Andrew Dickson White constructed a false history of science, casting evolutionists as the latest in a long history of heroic truth seekers who faced religious intolerance and opposition at every turn, he set in motion a powerful genre that would be difficult to stop. From White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom to the mythical Inherit the Wind, a fictional account of the famous 1925 Monkey Trial that evolutionists use to indoctrinate students such as Judge Jones, to today’s pundits and even President Obama, the false Warfare Thesis, which pits religion against science, is too powerful and alluring to allow the truth to get in the way. And so it is no surprise that with all the news surrounding the new Pope taking charge, evolutionists would be sure to reinforce and remind everyone of their whig history we are supposed to believe. Enter Florence Davey-Attlee and her recentCNN piece where she wrote, among other things that: Read more

Comments

F/N: NCSE's main slander -- ID is "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" -- is corrected in the UD WAC's here. KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

G: You have some apologising and explaining to do, which you have been ducking and doubling down on. When you project willful deception without credible evidence there is a name for such: slander. And that is shown above as well as elsewhere in UD at the moment. KFkairosfocus_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Gregory:
NCSE has done much good against ‘creationists,’ whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion.
The NCSE is a bunch of liars and cowardly equivocators, period. And at least Creationists can make a positive case for their position. And that is something neither you nor the NCSE can do.Joe_{May 8, 2013
May
05
May
8
08
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Gregory, "The DI is no less deceptive than the NCSE. I’ve seen it from the inside, up close and personal. Have you?" I would like to call you out on this Gregory and ask that you prove it once and for all. In previous posts you asserted that you once attended a programme of seminars with the DI and it was then you discovered the truth about the DI's propaganda campaign. You have been asked miltiple times before and (although I should know better) I will ask again: what seminars did you attend and who from the DI was taking each one? Gregory please don't come with that rubbish about it being a secret, and you are not allowed to share it. I remember in a previous post you said that you were advised to give a 'false name, create a false identity, pretend to be someone else'. As if that is somehow a good enough reason for not providing us with information about your week of seminars with the DI. Come on Gregory, we all know who you are, and that you owe nothing to the DI, so why hold back the info that could give a little credence to your arguments? Look I couldn't care less if you turned up for those seminars dressed up as a woman and called yourself Shirley (pretending to be someone else), I just want to know that you were actually there and that the statement you make above can be at least possible. It's time to come out now Shirley, er sorry ... Gregory ;)PeterJ_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Gregory, what is your deal? I partly agreed with a couple of the things you wrote and responded with a reasonable tone to meet you halfway. In response, you launch into attack mode with one irrational sentence after another. I have no interest in your personal definition of some "IDism." And why you think an Abrahamic believer would need to abandon some alleged "IDism" is even less clear. Who said Sternberg was an angel? And no, he did not make a publishing mistake. He took a courageous stance against fanatic materialists, as evidenced by the NCSE's deplorable tactics. He made a good publishing decision -- the kind of decision that so many others are afraid to make. On what basis do you think I desire to be a martyr to some scientism-savior? Your whole approach seems to be a mixture of militantly-prescribed definitions, high-strung antipathy to anyone who disagrees with you, and a strong dose of projection. You keep threatening to leave UD. Please do us all the favor.Eric Anderson_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Eric, you have obviously swallowed far too much IDist propaganda for your own good. It is not 'reality' you are putting forward here with your talk of 'backhand insult.' It is a mirage that doesn't reflect what 'science' means to most people in society nowadays. IDism has become a 'little tent;' many people who once thought it was relevant and resonant have already left it. Now mainly freaks and side-shows remain. The DI is no less deceptive than the NCSE. I've seen it from the inside, up close and personal. Have you? You call it 'the ID debate' (cue ominous voice of solemn respect). Most mature Abrahamic believers have already moved beyond the IDM. Do you consider yourself an Abrahamic believer? If so, why haven't you outgrown IDism already? I've met Sternberg. He is no angel, Eric. He is a flawed human being who made a political publishing mistake. Why do you pretend or desire to be a martyr as a defender of your scientism-saviour, IDism? It is not what you imagine it to be; 'THE Bridge between science and theology.'Gregory_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
NCSE has done much good against ‘creationists,’ whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion. This is perhaps attributable to IDism’s tacit defense of ‘creationism’ under ‘big-little tent’ communicative strategy.
ID is a big tent because it is a limited proposition, not because of some plan or desire to be friendly with certain groups. I agree that some of what might be termed pure 'creationist' stuff should be left out of the science classroom, but that doesn't apply to the design inference, which is a legitimate science-based inquiry. The NCSE, however, knowingly and deceptively lumps everything together in order to push a purely naturalistic worldview, or at the very least a methodological naturalism that intentionally marginalizes contrary viewpoints. Their constant "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" rallying cry, a favorite of Matzke's on this blog and elsewhere, is not an exception to the rule; it is their explicit approach.
And I’m not endrsing E. Scott, but she is a more ‘anthropic’ thinker than any one of the DI leaders I met! She’s an anthropologist by training, after all, even if hers is an anthropology I strongly disagree with.
Well, I agree she is not as bad as some others. And I would even be willing to say as much, as long as it is understood as a backhanded insult and not a backhanded compliment. The NCSE's deliberate obfuscation of the ID debate under her leadership -- despite a multitude of corrections and opportunities to demonstrate a more balanced stance -- shows a commitment to an a priori materialistic philosophy, rather than a commitment to the truth. That coupled with their shameful and deliberate attempt to suppress dissent, even to the point of attempted career destruction (if memory serves, in the Sternberg affair?), caused them to lose any minor remaining credibility they may have had.Eric Anderson_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Eric, Don't you think at least STOQ, referenced in the CNN article, should be supported by IDists? Of course, theirs is not a 'natural science alone' perspective, such as IDism claims to be. It involes 'theology' too! But still, might it not be worth something for the predominantly (Protestant) religious IDists to consider and perhaps throw their support behind, even if it is funded by Templeton Foundation, which broadly rejects IDism, like most reputable international science, philosophy and theology/worldview organisations/associations? NCSE has done much good against 'creationists,' whom you left out to mention, and their lies for their sectarian religion. This is perhaps attributable to IDism's tacit defense of 'creationism' under 'big-little tent' communicative strategy. And I'm not endrsing E. Scott, but she is a more 'anthropic' thinker than any one of the DI leaders I met! She's an anthropologist by training, after all, even if hers is an anthropology I strongly disagree with. Btw, I responded to your request here. Are you planning to respond? It seems futile to insist on the universal designism being proposed by some at UD, but then again, it serves as a perfect dancing partner for Dawkins' universal Darwinism, so perhaps we onlookers should just continue to watch, amused at how often and purposefully you step on each others' ideological toes.Gregory_{May 7, 2013
May
05
May
7
07
2013
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

The NCSE has probably done more to poison the well of public opinion and spread lies about evolution and intelligent design than nearly any other institution. They then stepped into the climate change debate with equivalent propaganda, bringing all their mudslinging and anti-information experience to bear. Eugenie Scott, if your goal was to spread misinformation and impede honest and open discourse on the important topics of origins and climate science, then congratulations on a job well done!Eric Anderson_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

NCSE's Eugenie Scott to retire - May 6th, 2013 http://ncse.com/news/2013/05/ncses-scott-to-retire-0014832bornagain77_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

"Sciences are differentiated according to the different natures of knowable things. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion - that the earth, for instance is round; the astronomer by means of mathematics (that is, by abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself." Words written in the mid 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in the very first 1000 words of the Summa Theologica. No flat earther there and certainly no war with science. The war is simply the creation of atheistic scientism. This quote from Aquinas should be better known. It is a powerful tonic.rsiefker_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

Amazing, An atheist answers a question about Christians honestly. Somebody call the Pope, It's a miracle! Penn Jillette vs religion - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXQMREfc-q0bornagain77_{May 6, 2013
May
05
May
6
06
2013
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

It is interesting to note that Atheists who angrily shake their fist at God in this world and repeatedly invoke deep (infinite?) time as their savior against 'religion', and who fail to make their peace with God in this temporal life through man's true savior, Christ, will, when they enter eternity, regret with all their might that there truly is such thing as 'deep' time. But this 'deep' time will not be in the temporal sense that they imagine it to be.
Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ "When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose, Ellis papers) we could only prove General Relativity's reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal." Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics - quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF1xSErF_f4
Moreover, on top of the fact that temporal time has been shown to have a beginning, time, as we understand it temporally, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest http://www.readersdigest.co.za/article/10170%26pageno=3 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHeWgLvlXI 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony
It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)
Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffery Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven. Barbara Springer "Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I'm trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don't even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people's near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own." Mary C. Neal, MD - To Heaven And Back pg. 71 Dr. Quantum in Flatland - 3D in a 2D world – video http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/9395/Dr_Quantum_Flatland_Explanation_3D_in_a_2D_world/ “I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact. I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!" – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth - quote taken from first part of the following video Near Death Experience Tunnel - Speed Of Light - Turin Shroud - video http://www.vimeo.com/18371644
As well, as with the scientifically verified tunnel for special relativity, we also have scientific confirmation of extreme ‘tunnel curvature’, within space-time, to a eternal ‘event horizon’ at black holes;
Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
bornagain77_{May 4, 2013
May
05
May
4
04
2013
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

Spot two wrong spellings of "archaeologist" is one sentence! I'd post the above as a blog, but I'm committed to uploading episodeas of a long essay on the history of design in theistic evolution at the moment. If that might interest any of you, it's here.Jon Garvey_{May 4, 2013
May
05
May
4
04
2013
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

A timely piece, for me. Yesterday evening I settled down to watch a documentary about the history of archaeology, presented by an archaeologist, which could have been good but was entirely informed by the nineteenth century science-v-religion myth, in which brave scientists sought to refute the harshly imposed dogma of "The Church" that the world was created in 4004. Few would have spotted that using the Church Canon Copernicus to make his point actually undercut it. Nor that most of the amateur antiquarians digging up the past and proposing theories were orthodox clergymen. Anachronistic references to Creationism (a 20th century mindset), failure to note the strong scientific opposition to deep time, failure to note the prominence of the gap theory from 1814 in theology in positive response to Hutton and the other geologists ... it's futile to rail, because that's the myth that's always perpetuated, and will be for a while to come, and is the only plausible one for today's public. But it's galling when you've just emerged from a week of reading primary sources, and you wonder why a presenter of "The History of Archaeology" is so out of touch with the modern findings of academic "History of Science". Here's one example of intellectual blinkers I found instructive. The guy gave credit (rightly) to Queen Helena, mother of Constantine, for being the first archaeologist after seeking, and purportedly finding, the site of the crucifixion under a Roman temple. Thereafter, the presenter used her motivation as a foil to the emerging scientific approach; finally contrasting her approach of finding the evidence to support existing dogma with the discovery of stone age artifacts in the middle nineteenth century which, he said, were "allowed to tell their own story." There's an element of truth in that - Helena was after all a relic-hunter, not a dispassionate scientist. But by the mid-nineteenth century, there was a new professional, and secular, occupation of "science" trying to gain ascendency over those who had previously made most of the scientific running - the aforementioned leisured clergymen, such as Darwin would have been had he not ended up on the Beagle. Deep time had been proposed in the 18th century, pre-adamic man in the 17th (and it dominated the new science of anthropology), and evolution, even for man, had been gaining ground since Lamarck, as it was attractive to Enlightenment skeptics with a direct desire to disprove God, and especially the Biblical God. So by the time palaeolithic tools were being discovered, the desired secular narrative had long been written into which to fit them, just as much as Queen Helena's had. Ignoring the socio-historic setting in both cases would be legitimate documentary making. Comparing it in both would be fascinating and thought-provoking, but maybe more history and sociology than science. What we got (and always get, nowadays) was a 2-dimensional cultural myth to confirm our society's prejudices. There was more true iconoclasm in medieval universities than there ever is now (which reminds me he was talking about the Enlightenment freeing intellectuals from the grip of bishops and kings, rather forgetting that Universities were set up to do just that from the 11th century - sheesh!). And so we ought to suspect, if arachaeologists have that kind of historical grounding, that archeologists will be more likely to dig up the present than the past!Jon Garvey_{May 4, 2013
May
05
May
4
04
2013
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

Its all indeed an attempt to say christians are bad, kids, and tried to stop science and its contributions. lets have a investigation inrto whether Christianity is the origin, opponent, or something else, regarding the gains of mankind in the last 400 hundred years. CNN should do this and get better ratings for once. By the way. I insist theres a female quota in journalism and CNN , for sure,. Is this incompetence revealing why its immoral and against intellectual advancement to have a female quota!!Robert Byers_{May 4, 2013
May
05
May
4
04
2013
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply