Creationism is not Lying, School Freedom is not Warping Minds and Carreers forever!

... on Bias of Alice Roberts · Creationism is not Lying, School Freedom is not Warping Minds and Carreers forever!

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:37 Being honest with children includes being so about the "overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution"?

Only from the side of adults who believe that!

Being against creationism in schools is privileging the honesty of certain adults over the honesty of other adults.

Specifically, being against creation science in Christian private schools denies certain parents and teachers to be honest and inform thoroughly (while parents still have the opportunity to be honest and inform less thoroughly at home), in favour of the honesty of other teachers, whom the said parents would often enough and reasonably enough, qualify as evolutionist fanatics.

Richard Ikin

How can anyone inform children honestly and thoroughly about something which is clearly nonsense and, to be truthful, a downright lie? There is NO evidence for any part of the creation myth, just as there is no evidence that any events described in the bible actually happened, and teaching children that it is fact, not myth, is dishonest and irresponsible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Richard Ikin History is based on narrative evidence.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

5:20 "but if it does harm"

The presenter seems fairly sold out on Alice's bias on the matter. She showed no evidence creationism in general (outside Scaramanga's school or former such) is doing any harm.

andy moore

The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm.

Gedorfmi Barah

If a child emerges from a Faith school with an A-Level in Creationism, fails to get a good job where education is needed, (s)he has been harmed.

kirsten mills

Lying to children about science which creationism does is harmful. It creates ignorance and blind faith it is very harmful

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@kirsten mills I tend to agree with most what you said, except:

"which creationism does"

Did you mean, which evolutionism does, and that very massively? slender hope

@andy moore "The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm."

Not very serious harm, though.

Rob Skiba is doing fine ...

​@Gedorfmi Barah "If a child emerges from a Faith school"

Note, "child" ...

"with an A-Level in Creationism,"

What age do you usually get A-levels?

Why would Creationism be the onlysubject taught in a faithschool?

"fails to get a good job where education is needed,"

Do you mean, where Evolutionism is needed?

"(s)he has been harmed."

By those requiring Evolutionism, certainly ...!

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes he is doing very well.

I learned so much about genocide and ethnic cleansing from the Old Testament (Joshua). All of it seemingly sponsored by 'god'.

Now that was serious harm!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Have you looked into what Canaaneans were doing before that happened?

Like, you are aware, Phoenicians and Carthaginians are Canaaneans, and what Molochism is?

I mean some people are OK with bombing Dresden bc of Hitler or Nagasaki bc of Hirohito ... that's nothing compared to Molochism.

Besides, the Canaaneans got time to leave rather than get killed.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So you justify ethnic cleansing then?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Not in general terms, but God can make exceptional forms of death penalty, using either Flood waters or men as executioners.

Has it occurred to you that this is not creationism, but a question of deflecting from the subject of historical truth to that of ethic acceptability?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The problem I have with all this is that God created man in his own image then decided that he had got it wrong then chose to start again more or less from scratch.

Is this an appropriate use of power for 'good'? Is God perfect, is God Love or is he just an all powerful entity messing about with his creations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore You are seriously confusing the question of harm with the question of whether you think it is sensible.

No Creationist able to add 2+2 and get 4 was disabled after exposition to Creationism. No man able to be decent to you was first exposed to Creationism and then unable to remain so - unless hurt by non-Creationists (like you are, hoping it's not like you do).

This does not the least change bc parts of the Christian dogma seems strange to you.

Now, this one is not too hard to answer.

God is love.

This means, from us, God is asking love.

Asking love means giving the beloved a choice.

And that means, the one getting a choice may abuse it.

Sometimes God has had to protect those who responded in some way to His love by hurting those, including massively killing those, who didn't, but didn't even give normal responses to human love either.

Flood? If you see the reference to "eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage" in Matthew / Luke prophecies of end times, it would seem to mean cannibalism, vampyrism, gay marriage.

We have seen vampyrism and gay marriage in culture lately and we have seen cannibalism in the news.

We have also seen marks of cannibalism on a few men from Atapuerca or dental calculus of some Neanderthal men in Belgium. Like, imagine people as cannibal as New Guinea before the missionaries, and as armed to the teeth as US just before the Flood, what would God do? One option is, send a Flood. He did.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I was told that according to creationist thinking the Earth is only 8000 years old. So Neanderthals could not have existed and are just a hoax invented by evolutionists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore "I was told that according to creationist thinking the Earth is only 8000 years old."

Most creationists would say 6000, I'd say 7219.

"So Neanderthals could not have existed and are just a hoax invented by evolutionists."

Non sequitur. Neanderthals did exist. A Neanderthal carbon dated to 40 000 BP (38 000 BC) really is from around the Flood in 2957 BC. Meaning the carbon samples from then had a headstart of 35 000 carbon years, meaning the carbon 14 level was c. 1.4 pmC.

Your low ability of assessing Creationist thought seems to imply you were somewhat hurt in relation to it, somewhat pushed to disdain, about like Yanissaries were educated to disdain Christianity. Could it have been by your evolutionist school?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why do creationists insist on questioning the validity of science? Is that what you were taught at school?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Why do Evolutionists insist on questioning the validity of the Bible? Is that what you were taught at school?

Seriously - I think it is.

You are by citing these authorities elevating "science" and "taught at school" to religious levels.

Too bad for you.

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If there is a creationist God there is no reason to assume that the Bible is in any way a valid document.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Your logic is obscure.

Even if?

There are plenty of reasons to assume the Bible's historic books are more or less valid documents even without makng assumptions about God.

If I approached Genesis as an Agnostic (which is too late for me to do, I became Christian before reading Genesis either in Bible Pix or a bigger Bible), I'd find it one fairly good argument for the God of Genesis. Note, by Agnostic, I here use the word in its etymological meaning, not as synonym for "soft atheist".

If, then because of that?

That is a hard one, would you mind explaining what you mean?

andy moore

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why should I believe the bible's version of creation rather than any other explanation. The bible does not seem particularity consistent anyway given only selected tracts made the final cut..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@andy moore Genesis is so much more than just the creation story.

Genesis 1 is what you can consider as revealed by God to some prophetic author, rather than observed (ok, God's behaviour at Babel, but the result was observable). Genesis 2 - 50 all depend on human observers, and mostly not acting alone with God or getting revealed what God does, but interacting with each other.

Genesis 12 - 50 concerns five generations of one large family. Obviously, the family members themselves observed their own and each other's behaviour.

Most of it would be very acceptable to atheists as a purely human story. Some would make an atheist ask "did Abraham go nuts?" or "did Jacob go nuts?" Or, "how did Lot hallucinating coincide with his getting out just before a volcanic eruption?"

There are some few obvious exceptions to this rule, this being the very obvious reason why atheists would want to stamp all of it as creation myth. Genesis 1. Flood. Babel. Next major supernatural events you can't explain is Exodus - crossing the Red Sea on dry sea floor, 2 million surviving in the desert on mannah. Being sceptic about those, is that really worth being so gullible about all human gullibility except your own?

See also this article on CMI:

Study: Biology professors are biased against Evangelicals
First published in a CMI newsletter, June 2020
by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI-US
Published: 22 December 2020 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/bias-against-evangelicals