I have no words.
You aren’t supposed to think about it very hard. Just let the truthiness sink in.
3 Likes
Good points, Merv.
I saw it the other day. I felt depressed.
I looked at other articles on Creation.com by the same author. She seems very very angry. And she seems to want everybody else to be just as angry at the Christian she condemns. (Perhaps she even thinks them not Christians at all.) I noticed a lot of twisting of words.
I assume the original author meant “This only true God does not ONLY exist in our time and space…” Perhaps it could have been better stated. But to say that this is deism and a creator who is “removed from his creation” doesn’t seem to grasp deism at all.
When I look at the many anti-Biologos articles by that angry author at Creation.com, I felt it was more vendetta than honest reflection. She seemed to ignore the many beliefs shared in common. There is an attitude at Creation.com and its Facebook pages that seems driven by bitterness, even before they started focusing on Biologos.
I recently read an article about CMI bragging that they employ “more PhD scientists than any other Christian organization”. Yet, that boast is never quantified. I would think that there are Christian universities which employer more scientists. Or does Creation.com define “Christian organization” so narrowly that CMI easily “wins” the competition.
It just doesn’t feel like an elevated platform for producing a favorable impression from readers.
Let’s face it: That applies to virtually everything one sees on some websites!
(Indeed, that explains why they tend to have such an aversion to clickable links. It is rather difficult NOT to notice what so many have observed. I think some risk going overboard when they call such ministry websites indicative of “cults”. But it is hard to miss the similarities in some of the cult-like tactics, including the fears of exposing their readers to anything educational.)
Unfortunately, I can only say I am ALMOST shocked at the creation.com response. It is consistent with their character to ignore the message and instead, tenaciously focus on trivial and inconsequential items to “rally the troops” against the evils of the heretical Evolutionary Creationists.
1 Like
I’ve had AIG fans explain the racism to me this way: “If we assume that we descended from Africans with dark skin, that requires that they were LESS EVOLVED than we are. So that is an obviously racist statement of white superiority!”
I know that that will provoke laughter but millions of people assume the Theory of Evolution is about a Scala Natura and all that came before was inferior to what came later.
Of course, it never occurs to them that by their logic, today’s Africans would thereby be “parallel” in time and therefore equal in “degree of evolution.” (I know: I shouldn’t try to make any sense out of the senseless.)
On the other hand, another YEC website explained that “If evolution is true, all humans evolved on different branches of the tree of life and therefore differences mean that some will be superior and others would be inferior.” Hmmm. I asked him if the differences between him and his wife had established who was superior and who was inferior but I didn’t get an answer.
With those who are content with such thinking, I don’t think there is much thought beyond the current argument. That is because in their “home team environment”, they can count on everyone agreeing with them. As a result, I’ve seen the most absurd things accepted by audiences without critical thought. (After all, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”)
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.