An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE,3 proudly stated:'it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.'
'You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, N[on]O[verlapping]M[agisteri]A is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. (emphasis added)'
I.e. so never mind such archaic concepts as truth: the important thing is that they accept evolution!
- Evolutionist: it's OK to deceive students to believe evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 24 September 2008(GMT+10)
Well, the tactics of AronRa at the beginning of his Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series does a bit the same, though not quite. Or rather, it exaggerates the possibility of dissociating Catholicism from Creationism, though I did not find NOMA while rereading the script of 1st FFoC.
Somewhat surprisingly, his friend Tioliah dissociates herself from the present Pope as strongly as possible. On one of her videos. So, Catholics should not trust the Pope while denouncing abortion politicians and voting for them for that precise reason, but they should trust him when denouncing creationism. Or are Tioliah and AronRa in wild disagreement about how much Catholics should trust Benedict XVI?
Telling us to trust him when agreeing with them and not trust him when not agreeing with them is very obviously behind their stance, and our answer is as obvious: we do not need militant atheists (AronRa is such) or modernist favouring atheists (Tioliah is such) to tell us when and when not to trust the Pope.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
(not signed, probably composite authorship)
The Creationist site gives us a list, I quote some items I do very much not agree with:
'The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.' This is not so. The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood. The Masoretic Text (on which almost all English translations are based) preserves the correct chronology. See Williams, P., Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, CEN Technical Journal12(1):98-106, 1998.
Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 argues there was a non-flooded place, besides God can create both dimensions and other worlds. Also an earth 7200 - 7500 - 7800 years old (Roman, Byzantine, Russian Septuagint "Ushers") is better agreeable with the 9000 year series of dendrochronology, the one leading up to today - less matches for old rather than perfect are needed (deliberate or otherwise). Though Vulgate gives a chronology closer to Masoretics. Rome has both its Martyrologium and its Vulgate, and Martyrologium for 25 of december has a chronology that is from Septuagint.
'Geocentrism (in the classical sense of taking the Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural.' We reject this dogmatic geocentrism, and believes that the Biblical passages about sunset etc. should be understood as taking the Earth as a reference frame, but that this is one of many physically valid reference frames; the centre of mass of the solar system is also a valid reference frame. See also Q&A: Geocentrism, Faulkner, D., Geocentrism and Creation, TJ 15(2):110-121; 2001.
I do not. Especially not as as Joshua's day makes a very moot exegetic point in the Galileo controversy. If it was the earth that stopped rotating, it was the only miracle on record where effect uttered by miracle worker and effect really accomplished do not coincide.
Unless one would make Jesus a liar of the Bora Zivkovic type, or not knowing what he was doing, when he told demons to get out of people - and one supposes all that happened was something like schizophrenia, unknown then, healing.
Some progressive Lutherans of XIXth C. - denying existence of demons - in Sweden took this line about precisely the Exorcisms of Christ. It was called the accomodation theory - i e rather than getting close to Arianism, they accused Jesus of "small" or "inconsequential" dishonesty to accomodate to false but current popular superstition.
Also, if it was earth stopping, that would at least on one reading require something like an extra miracle for nobody to feel any jerk. Only miracle on record with a miraculous but hidden antidote to a humanly at the time unexpected sideeffect, if true.
'The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.' To develop a Scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated 'science' is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric 'knowledge' that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word 'science' originally meant 'knowledge', from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning 'know'. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as 'knowledge' in this passage.
Of course we believe that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God's action in Creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, 'science really means knowledge', because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).
On that reading, thank you, it is far more likely to refer to Heliocentrism than to Evolution, since Gnosticism gives us the reverse of a wysiwig universe. And Geocentrism is in an obvious sense wysiwig. [Acronym for "what you see is what you get"]
'Light was created in transit.' Some older creationist works, as a solution to the distant starlight problem, proposed that God may have created the light in transit. But CMI long ago pointed out the problems with this idea.
It would entail that we would be seeing light from heavenly bodies that don't really exist; and even light that seems to indicate precise sequences of events predictable by the laws of physics, but which never actually happened. This, in effect, suggests that God is a deceiver.
For example, when a large star explodes as a supernova, we see a neutrino burst before we see the electromagnetic radiation. This is because most neutrinos pass through solid matter as if it were not there, while light is slowed down. This sequence of events carries information recording an apparently real event. So astronomers are perfectly justified in interpreting this 'message' as a real supernova that exploded according to the laws of physics, with observations as predicted by those same laws.
This is very different from creating Adam as fully grown, looking like a 20-year-old (although incredibly youthful looking), say, although he was really only a few minutes old. Here, there is no deception, because God has told us that He created Adam from the dust, not by growing from an infant. But God has also told us that the stars are real, and that they are signs (Genesis 1:14), not just apparitions from light waves.
Geocentrism makes the star distances a very moot point, hence eliminates the problem. Also eliminates the explanatory argument offered, I agree with all their causes to reject it. Heliocentrism is also, as just mentioned, suggesting of a deceiving creator of the visible universe.
Galileo did recant the last year of his life. His old friend Pope Urban VIII - friendship dating before the second trial and that trial the Pope was not judge - had given the argument: God can create any universe he likes and he can make it look anyway he likes.
The obvious corrolary for a Christian is that God being honest creates a universe which does not look the opposite way to how it works.
The Adam created physical age 33 (the perfect age, since the age in which Christ sacrificed his life), suggests a certain other solution for dendrochronological problem. Some trees have to have some thousand year rings to be perfect examples of their kinds.
There is another reason, more appropriate, for God being no deceiver: Adam had no fake memories of growing up.
'NASA faked the moon landings.' This NASA hoax claim is an example of where CMI reminds readers that we are pro-Bible rather than anti-establishment for the sake of it.
First, it is biblical to trust multiple eye-witnesses (cf. Deuteronomy 19:15, and one impeccable witness is the late James Irwin, who was a staunch biblical creationist and walked on the moon. Also, Australia must have been in on the alleged hoax; the huge radio antenna at Parkes Observatory, New South Wales, was used to relay the signals from the moon, since it was on the Australian not the American side of Earth (cf. the Australian film The Dish, 2000). We can also shine powerful lasers to certain spots on the moon and detect reflected light of the laser frequency, possible only if someone had been to the moon and laid out retro-reflectors in those spots.
Second: the hoax claims show faulty understanding of science (cf. Mythbusters episode #104 (0702), 2008):
- CLAIM: Photos should show parallel shadows with only one light source, the sun; non-parallel shadows prove it was a studio set with multiple lights. Actually, because of the irregular lunar topography, parallel shadows can look non-parallel in the perspective of the film.
- CLAIM: Astronaut in the shadow of the spacecraft was easily visible, which would not have been possible with only one light source. This forgets another source: moonlight! Reflected light from the lunar surface would make the astronaut easily visible. Also, Earthlight is much brighter on the moon than moonlight is on earth, because Earth is much higher in both surface area and albedo.
- CLAIM: Photos had no stars, hence they were in a studio. No, a camera set for optimal performance in the bright light of the lunar surface would not be sensitive enough to show stars.
- CLAIM: Footprints would not have been left in sand without moisture to hold the sand in place. True on earth, where water tends to round out sand grains. The lunar grains were angular and held the shape.
- CLAIM: The flag fluttered, so there must have been a breeze. No, the astronaut twisted the flagpole to plant it in the moon soil; this caused fluttering, which persisted for a while since there was no air resistance.
- CLAIM: Moon walks were done in studio set. But the closest we come to such movements is in an airplane falling so fast that it simulates lunar gravity, 1/6 that of Earth.
- Physical arguments:
- A fluttering continuing because there is no air resistance is a bit curious, since in that case the flag would wrap one way. It is air that makes the fluttering movement, since that is composite rather than simple movement, it being the latter that goes on and on according to Newton's concept of his first law, which equals uniform movement to repose.
The last argument misses that a studio set could use elastic stilts - and there was a video with such giving the moon walk effect - that could be edited out of the picture. I have seen a video with such used, giving that effect.
If lunar grains were angular and held shape, and astronauts did not fall down very heavily, since having only 1/6 of gravity, how come there were footprints formed in the first place?
The perspective argument should be checked by some optician, expert in optical illusions.
- Moral arguments:
- I would not trust a Protestant, maybe prejudiced against the Catholic Church precisely on Galileo case, as an impeccable witness. Good, as good as any other, or just a bit less in this case, but not impeccable. Also, they did not make any sworn statement before a court, as far as I know. And even before court, a cloud of false witnesses has been known to occur - like Jesus before Caiaphas.
I admit there is a case for saying it is very hard not to believe the pictures and the statements as true.
But if NASA and Australians were both in a hoax, they did not risk anything. Unlike the Apostles, who risked death. They have even been contradicted about their witness - there is a video where Armstrong is confronted with someone calling him a liar in front of people. Or was at least. Unlike the Apostles, since no witness was produced claming to have seen them steal the body. As for the guards, they said "while we were asleep".
It was that man who contradicted Armstrong who risked something, namely mental institutions. When such things are around, and when they abound, truthfulness can become a question of the social positions involved in a question.
- Then again:
- A Geocentric does not need lunar landing to be fake in order to defend Geocentrism. If they did walk on moon, their shots of earth would be shots taking from an object in daily orbit around earth - the movement of moon each day, as opposed to its lagging behind each day adding up to a month between same positions in relation to sun - and so not be any thing like optical proof of earth's rotation. Although it would seem so.
Also, if Geocentrism is strictly true, and moonlanding also, they would have been experiencing on the moon - with one sixth of our gravity - exactly the speed Heliocentrics claim we experience from daily rotation added to the speed of orbit around the sun (ignoring to add speed of sun around galaxy!), and that with the ordinary weight we have.
So, moonlanding argument is rather on my dubious list. Still, that is a disagreement with their take. And argument for moonlanding is at least less proven than argument for resurrection.
As a side issue on the scientific exegetic one, an objector gives a hint that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. Though his conclusion is the wrong alternative:
'Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin.' This is not stated in Scripture and even contradicts important points. The language of the NT indicates physical descent, which must be true for Jesus to have fulfilled the prophecies that He would be a descendant of Abraham*, Jacob*, Judah* and David*.
Right answer: Jesus inherited all genetic material from Mary, except for the male sex. Similarily Eve had "inherited" all genetic material from Adam, except for the female sex. Though in her case "inherited" is the wrong word, since she was not actually born. Therefore her genetic material included no Original Sin. Possibly meaning there is no genetic unbalance for traits like anger and sexuality, she was indeed perfectly chaste. And free from every other spot. Here is an old Coptic CHristmas hymn, Greek translation.**
Bibliothèques et Mairie du III
Arrondissement de Paris
St Romanus' day, 28-II-2012
*Abraham: GEN+12:3, 18:18, 22:18; MATT+1:1; LUKE+3:34; ACTS+3:25; GAL+3:16;
Jacob: NUM+24:17-19; MATT+1:2; LUKE+3:34;
Judah: GEN+49:10; MATT+1:2; LUKE+3:33;
David: PS+132:11; JER+23:5; ISA+11:10; MATT+1:1,6; LUKE+1:32-33, 3:31; ACTS+2:29-30; ROM+1:3.
**Twitter link from tweak: http://ijjzh.tk