There is YEC and then there is YEC

Creationists don’t always agree. So what? That doesn’t mean that creationists can be singled out for alone giving out a confusing message, and it doesn’t excuse the misrepresentation of creationist views. (Taken from here.)

My response:

Is there a Governing Authority that speaks on behalf of all Creationists? Is there a ‘Pope’?  Henry Morris?  Ken Ham?

If Creationists don’t always agree then how can there be a charge of misrepresenting creationist views? If someone repeats a statement made by a creationist about creationism and that statement does not happen to agree with your particular brand of creationism, it does not make that statement an across-the-board misrepresentation of creationist views.

The best a creationist can say is, ‘Some creationists believe that, but I/we don’t.’

Unless, you want to go down the Biblical Creationist route….

Advertisements

Posted on Thursday, September 5th, 2013, in Creation vs Evolution, Evolution, Fundamentalism, Misconceptions, Young Earth Creationism. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. /My/ response:

    Is there a Governing Authority that speaks on behalf of all evolutionists? Is there a ‘Pope’? Richard Dawkins? Stephen Jay Gould?

    If evolutionists don’t always agree then how can there be a charge of misrepresenting evolutionist views? If someone repeats a statement made by an evolutionist about evolutionism and that statement does not happen to agree with your particular brand of evolutionism, it does not make that statement an across-the-board misrepresentation of evolutionist views.

    The best an evolutionist can say is, ‘Some evolutionists believe that, but I/we don’t.’

    ——————-

    Yet I’m often accused of misrepresenting evolution to the point that I’m accused of not understanding evolution. How can that be if there is not a “standard evolution” to understand?

    The answer is that although there may be different views about creation (or evolution), there is still a general consensus about most of it, even if there are differences on some of the details (and even some of the more basic points, such as whether it happened slowly and gradually per Darwin and Dawkins, or in sudden spurts, per Gould).

    And the comment about misrepresenting creation was made in response to the claim that creationists say that “one cannot be a True Christian and accept evolutionary theory.” There is no single Governing Authority. But NONE of the leading creationist groups (AiG, CMI, ICR, CRS, etc.) would agree with the claim that “one cannot be a True Christian and accept evolutionary theory”. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to say that this is a misrepresentation without there being a Governing Authority.

    ——————-

    One of the frustrations I have with evolutionists—and it applies on this blog too—is the list of faults that creation is claimed to have, that can equally be applied to evolution, but evolution is given a free pass. My rewording of the blog article at the start of this post illustrates such a case.

    Like

  2. If you have been accused of misrepresenting evolution to the point of not understanding it, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to read up on the topic from reliable mainstream sources instead of quote mining and writing up tu quoque parodies of blogposts. But I have come to expect that from you.

    NONE of the leading creationist groups (AiG, CMI, ICR, CRS, etc.) would agree with the claim that “one cannot be a True Christian and accept evolutionary theory”.

    Not explicitly. They’re much smarter than that.

    The party line is that one can be a Christian and accept evolutionary theory, but the strong implication is that such a person is not a True Christian (TM). He/she is a compromiser. He is denying the authority of the Bible.

    Snide remarks and loaded language speak much more loudly than any Official Statement.

    We keep going round and round the same issues.

    Like

  3. “If you have been accused of misrepresenting evolution to the point of not understanding it, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to read up on the topic from reliable mainstream sources…”

    What makes you think the accusations from atheists and their ilk are valid? A bit of bias, perhaps? And keep in mind that I get a lot of evolutionary indoctrination from the mainstream media, but those critics typically have very little knowledge of the creationary view, because it’s not thrust in their face like evolution is.

    “… instead of quote mining…”

    I have asked numerous people what “quote mining” is, assuming that it’s not just another name for quoting out of context. Given that you have now accused me of it, please explain exactly what it is.

    “…and writing up tu quoque parodies of blogposts.”

    It was not done to parody, but to demonstrate that your comment was merely rhetoric, by showing that it could easily be applied to evolution. But you’ve not addressed that point.

    “Snide remarks and loaded language speak much more loudly than any Official Statement.”

    I have already demonstrated to you that this is more than just an “official statement”, but something that they truly believe, by pointing out that many of those creationists became creationists after becoming Christians, yet fully accept that they were Christians /before/ becoming creationists. In fact that was the case in the last false claim you made on this topic (regarding Jim Mason).

    “We keep going round and round the same issues.”

    Yes, you keep making the same false accusation. I keep demonstrating that it is wrong. You keep admitting that I’m right. Then you go back to making the same false accusation. Now you are making your own snide remarks about clear statements and ignoring the evidence I have presented, so that you can hang on to your belief that creationists are terrible people. So when ARE you going to stop going round and round this same issue? Are you so convinced that you are right that you just can’t admit that you may be wrong? Doesn’t hard evidence count? Seriously, you are acting like creationists are often accused of being, of hanging on to your view on this despite all the evidence presented to the contrary.

    Like

  4. I have asked numerous people what “quote mining” is, assuming that it’s not just another name for quoting out of context.

    What did they say? I’m sure you know what it means. You have access to dictionaries and the internet. You are an intelligent person. You don’t need me to tell you what it means.

    It was not done to parody, but to demonstrate that your comment was merely rhetoric, by showing that it could easily be applied to evolution.

    Tu quoque.

    I have already demonstrated to you that this is more than just an “official statement”, but something that they truly believe,…

    …with a caveat. Don’t forget that.

    One can’t tell with absolute certainty what anyone ‘truly believes’ – however, the words used (compromise, inconsistent. etc) to describe non-YECs do just as much damage that one might as well say that it is synonymous.

    http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-tragedy-of-creation-evangelism-2/

    And, here is where I say thank you for stopping by but I don’t think I will be responding to you again. You’ve been around the creation/evolution debate longer than I have, so I have no doubt you are well-acquainted with all the arguments. You have a fair idea what I’m going to say before I even say it and have an arsenal of counter-arguments ready. You have a website (storehouse) of information after all.

    Like

Go ahead. Tell me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: