Thomas McDonald's False Pretension Earth's Antiquity Is Atheism
Todd Greene
--- In Maury_and_Baty, Todd Greene wrote:
|[snip]
The Age Of The Earth
by Thomas H. McDonald
Atheists also "believe" that the Earth orbits the Sun
rather than the other way around. And they're right.
Christians also "believe" that the Earth is billions of years
old.
So what relevance does the statement "Atheists believe that the
Earth is billions of years old" have to the matter?
Zero.
What is
relevant to the subject is the scientific evidence.
And, of course,
Thomas McDonald totally ignores the science.
(The accurate, truthful way
to represent this would be to say something like "The idea that the Earth has
been around for millions of years comes from geological science, and atheists
and most Christians and other people accept this idea for this reason." But
Thomas did not state the truth about this because with the rhetoric that he's
using he is deliberately promoting the deception that the geological science
about the antiquity of the Earth doesn't really exist because he's promoting the
lie that the antiquity of the Earth is merely an atheistic belief promoted by
atheists to promote atheism.
|[snip]
Check out the following January
14, 2008 in the online edition of the Clarksville, Tennessee
newspaper:
Creationism has no place in public school science
classes
by David W. Shelton
| A growing movement among evangelical and fundamentalist
|
Christian groups is working to bring the teaching of
| Intelligent Design and
Creationism into public schools.
| This is disturbing on so many
levels.
|
| Should matters of faith be taught in schools? Of course
|
not. Proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design
| have frequently
claimed that "evolution" is little more
| than a belief as well. Some even
assert that "evolution
| is a religion" because of that.
|
| But what
is evolution? Put simply, it is "change." Now,
| there's still plenty of
discussion on how that change
| occurs since we learn more information every
day. But
| the reality is that the world changes. Species change.
| The
nature of the earth has changed.
|
| My Christian faith has long been
rooted in the grace of
| God and His love for all of us. However, I do not
believe
| that there is a literal six-day creation period. While
| some
people insist that the earth can not be more than
| 6,000 years old because
"the Bible says so," I maintain
| that the Bible is not now, nor has ever
been a science
| book.
[...]
| To even accept the six-day creation requires
one to
| stretch their imagination and to completely set aside
| basic
laws of physics. According to Scripture, the sun
| was created after the
earth, and the stars were created
| after the sun.
|
| That's simply
not possible, and what's more, it's not
| what we're seeing from the Hubble,
Spitzer, and other
| space telescopes.
[...]
| I believe
Scripture not only declares the glory of God,
| but it also challenges us to
explore the universe around
| us... His creation is magnificent, stunning
even. Yet no
| matter how staggering a sight might be, we can know that
|
the glory of the living God is far greater. We don't
| have to believe in a
six-day creation period or even a
| young earth to know that God is indeed a
master
| craftsman.
And notice at the bottom of the page where the author bio
states that David W. Shelton is currently pastor of Christian Community Church
of Clarksville.
David Shelton is just one specific example of the fact -
the FACT - that there are many people who believe not just in God, but
specifically in the Christian concept of God, and who also believe in the
divinity of Jesus - in other words, they are NOT atheists (and anyone who
describes them as such is lying) - who reject young earth creationism because it
is a false idea about reality (as we've learned about through scientific study
of reality, just as we learned that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than the
other way around).
Now, here is the question for Thomas McDonald: Why did
you write false rhetoric in which you falsely pretended that Christians do not
accept the geological science about the antiquity of the earth?
Will
Thomas deal with the facts of reality, and correct his error, and alter his
rhetoric accordingly to make it match the facts about this? Or will he instead
follow the standard young earth creationist practice of defiantly ignoring the
facts and deliberately promoting false ideas by continuing with the false
rhetoric?
We shall see.
Re: Thomas McDonald's false pretension
Earth's antiquity is atheism
Excerpt from:
| But Creationism in all its many forms ignores that there
|
are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found
| find great comfort in
the idea of a Creator that is
| consistent with science. There are great
benefits when
| science and faith respect one another and find a common
|
meeting ground. Parents wouldn't have to worry their
| child's beliefs might
be undercut by science, or over
| written by a state- mandated religion.
Moreover, it's far
| from a fringe idea. The Roman Catholic Church accepts
the
| age of the universe and the validity of evolution.
| Similar
statements have been made by the United Methodist
| Church, the American
Jewish Congress, the United
| Presbyterian Church, and many others. Most
importantly,
| these Christians find enormous inspiration for their
|
beliefs in the mysteries science reveals and resolves.
In the Maury_and_Baty and coCBanned discussion groups (as
well as elsewhere) I have in the past posted excerpts from official statements
made by Christian religious organizations in which they state that they accept
the fact that biological evolution (and, implicitly, the antiquity of the world)
is part of professional science and is a well-confirmed result of science
research.
Will Thomas demonstrate at least some minimal level of respect
for the truth and correct the obvious falseness of his rhetoric on this? Or will
he take the typical route of young earth creationist deceitfulness and defiantly
ignore his denial of the reality that millions of Christians accept the
antiquity of the world because it's
what we've learned about the real world
through our scientific examination of it?
We're waiting.
- Todd
Greene
----------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER
TAKES
When science and faith find common ground
by Steven Andrew, DAILY
KOS
(Austin American-Statesman, 1/16/2008)
The age-old, simmering
conflict between science and religion is threatening to boil over in Texas with
the usual battle lines being drawn around evolutionary biology and public
education science standards. Here's a thought: Instead of a long and potentially
bitter stand-off between science advocates and creationist proponents, why
doesn't Texas skip that mess and go straight to a reasonable compromise? Instead
of arguing about fossils, radiometric dating methods or constitutional law, I'd
ask those skeptical of evolution what better natural evidence for the brilliance
of a Creator could there be than myriad complex processes unfolding over
billions of years through countless steps in exquisite order spanning the entire
cosmos?
The usual unproductive detour of argument goes through a series
of wearily predictable steps: The last time the creationist lobby successfully
influenced several well-meaning school board members in the small Pennsylvania
town of Dover to promote Intelligent Design Creationism, the case ended up in
federal court. There, a Republican judge appointed by President Bush heard sworn
testimony from both sides at length. Judge Jones' ultimate decision could only
be described as a blistering rebuke against Intelligent Design Creationism. The
external anti-science forces which that had converged on Dover then conveniently
melted away — leaving local taxpayers holding a $1 million legal bill.
We
could discuss the Constitution, most especially our cherished Bill of Rights,
which wisely forbids government from taking sides in a purely religious debate.
Or the feelings of local parents, many of whom gladly assume responsibility for
their child's religious upbringing and don't take kindly to outside
interference.
Some of the most popular forms of Creationism attack not
just biology, but geology, astronomy and physics with an endless array of
recycled talking points, most of which were refuted before most of us were born.
In that vein, we could discuss the fossil evidence for transitions between major
classes of creatures; the difference in science between a theory, hypothesis,
and fact; the genetic evidence
for common descent engraved in the nuclei of
every chromosome of every living thing; the evidence from geology and astronomy
that we live on an ancient planet in grand universe stretching billions of
light-years across space and time. But Creationism in all its many forms ignores
that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who have found find great
comfort in the idea of a Creator that is consistent with science. There are
great benefits when science and faith respect one another and find a common
meeting ground. Parents wouldn't have to worry their child's beliefs might be
undercut by science, or over written by a state- mandated religion. Moreover,
it's far from a fringe idea. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the age of the
universe and the validity of evolution. Similar statements have been made by the
United Methodist Church, the American Jewish Congress, the United Presbyterian
Church, and many others. Most importantly, these Christians find enormous
inspiration for their beliefs in the
mysteries science reveals and
resolves.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Challenge is a quarterly
apologetic journal that is used mainly to debate the evangelical
atheistic/skeptical movement that permeates our country today. There is no
charge for the electronic journal and you can either view it on the challenge
website or request it an it will be sent to you free of charge. If you
want the paper version of Challenge please let me know. We won’t be making that many, but we
will make them up for those who don’t use computers. There will be no charge for the paper
version. For the electronic version please send an email to jerry@challenge2.org. If you want the paper
version you can send a request to that address or the following regular
address: Challenge, P.O. 237,
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Challenge