in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You “think” they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers?” What is your basis for these “thoughts?”

Okay, Lydian, I’ll give you but two examples since I feel badly you have taken offense. There are others.

#1 – ICR once stated how the author of a book was wrong when it claimed that Darwin’s Finches had “evolved.” ICR mockingly pointed out that the finches did not turn into eagles or mice or anything else. All that happened was that their beaks changed shape as a result of “natural selection” and that no “evolution” had occurred. ICR reassured us that “evolution” was impossible. This characterization of the book was absolutely misleading because the author described how the beaks evolved in shape and never suggested anything beyond that. The author had in fact carefully described how “evolution” of the beaks (call if “microevolution” if you wish, it’s still evolution) had happened by natural selection. By definition, if natural selection happens, evolution happens. Of course, ICR was using the word “evolution” in a macroevolution and/or abiogenesis meaning, and they should have never conflated these meanings with those of the book author. The analogies used and mischaracterization of the author were patently wrong. Either they knew it and did this deliberately, or they were remarkably ignorant. Some months ago I visited their website and saw a few articles that I felt similarly misrepresented the science on origins and evolutionary change.

#2 – For years, ICR hosted public creation/evolution “debates” in which they made every effort to ridicule and antagonize those with whom they disagreed (much like the language used and attitudes expressed here). I never attended one of their debates, but I have spoken with Christians and non-Christians alike who attended the debates and who were keenly disappointed with the unChristlike tactics used by ICR staff. If one simply browses the internet, they will find plenty of reaction to these debates, including assertions made by ICR scientists that were shown to be incorrect, but then repeated again as if they were correct. I don’t know whether they continue these debates today.

I have no doubt that ICR does much good. However, my personal position remains that “they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers.”

For some reason, the only criticism I have ever seen of our fellow Adventists at GRI has come from this website. The criticism is that a few individuals at GRI (I forget their names; I don’t have time to backtrack to see them) tell us that our views are opposed by considerable evidence and that we must excercise our faith in God’s word in spite of what science tells us. I do not understand why more “faithful” readers here do not take offense in these attacks of GRI. I find it interesting that I make a negative statement about ICR and I get criticized roundly, yet others here make negative statements about GRI (for defending your faith!) and get praised for their critical remarks! What is wrong with all of you readers who refuse to speak up in defense of GRI and your faith?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I strongly support the ID work that is being done and I will grant you that Morris is being short sighted in that remark.
The flaw that people like Morris see in ID is that ID is not Christianity, it is not the Bible, it is not a literal 7 day Creation week.
It was never intended to be.It is not a substitute for the Bible model on creation.It is simply observed science fact that is consistent with some models and not with others.

I have read a number of Morris’ books, and he has many good points. ID has both Christian thought leaders and some non-Christian. The main point that I get out of ID is that there are many people who see flaws in Darwinian evolution, and they are not all “crazy” Christian fundamentalists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

When our Creationist friends oppose ID they are simply pointing out that ID is far short of the Bible doctrine on Origins.

It is like say of a Picaso — “well this paint appears on this canvas as if it did not happen by chance — it appears to be complex design not possible by random forces alone”. That comes far short of appreciating the painting for what it is — but it is still ‘minimum truth’ and spartan level of fact.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Any fool can see that life was designed; mainstream science doesn’t even have a credible hypothesis about abiogenesis. It hardly seems necessary to belabor the point. Our efforts should be directed toward geology, and showing that the earth can be as young as biblical history makes it. If the earth is young, there was no time for mega-evolution to happen, so there’s no need to refute it in detail; you kill two birds with one stone.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

All I said was:

You “think” they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unchristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers?” What is your basis for these “thoughts?”

And, “having heard…” –who have you “heard” these things from? “Professional scientists”? Frankly, I’m not all that impressed with what most “professional scientist” have to say on any Biblical subject–or about the people who believe and support it.

I added that I was not a “professional” …. “but what I HAVE read and DO understand in their literature I personally haven’t seen any dishonesty or unchristlike tactics.” I further added that I would like some evidence that this was the case. I still feel the same way.

I am not qualified to argue the “fine points” of evolution with anyone and I really do not wish to.. My sole confidence is in the Word of God. He says , “The evening and the morning were….” I understand that to mean a 24 hour period–which is supported by other Bible texts. Others may consider me simple minded–and perhaps I am–but I don’t know that is altogether “bad.”

On the other hand I do not wish to follow “cunningly devised fables” or recommend something to others that will lead them astray–so I would still like to see where ICR is either “dishonest” or “exhibits unchristlike tactics.” Is that too much to ask?

Please excuse mistakes–it is now past midnight and I have to get up at 3:30 AM in order to get to Atlanta and get on that plane. Bye for now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The flaw that people like Morris see in ID is that ID is not Christianity, it is not the Bible, it is not a literal 7 day Creation week.

It was never intended to be.

It is not a substitute for the Bible model on creation.

It is simply observed science fact that is consistent with some models and not with others. It gives evolutionists the creeps – but as Morris notes it is so far from being Bible creation – that many agnostics and non-Christians easily join in with the ID school of thought.

As Paul claims in Romans 1 the ID fact is so blatant that even non-bible-aware pagans are “without excuse” when they try to ignore it.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If you have actual quotes from Creationists actually doing research or promoting scientific solutions for YEC or YLC that is critical of ICR – provide the quotres. If all you have is endless evolutionist rabbit trail after rabbit trail accusations, and personal bias devoid of reliable fact – then reserve them for the funny papers.

Here is a “funny paper” quote for you:

Some creationists are opposed to the ICR. Gary North “opposes the ICR on the grounds that they” acknowledge the second principle of thermodynamics, and John W. Robbins considers the ICR’s activities a “fraud.” The old-Earth creationist organization Answers In Creation criticizes the ICR, including a critical review by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D of the ICR’s dating claims. – WIKIPEDIA (on INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH)

I don’t have time to look further, and I’m not going to respond to this again. Perhaps someone else would like to share his thoughts on ICR. I take it you yourself agree with ICR’s position on Intelligent Design (ID):

Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, “even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won’t work is because it is not the Biblical method.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Having read enough of ICR’s material, having listened to their spots on the radio, having heard one of them speak in person, and having heard how professional scientists react to them, I think they border on dishonesty (or ignorance), exhibit unChristlike tactics, and offer a very poor witness to unbelievers. I’m actually less familiar with GRI, but from what I do know I am much more impressed by them.

First of all – I have very little regard for the pro-evolutionist compromised voices that either try to marry the Bible to believe in evolutionism, or that appeal to atheism as their highest set of values and hope to omit the history of proven fraud so central to evolutionism from the perception of the public when considering the storytelling of evolutionists.

They have alrady shown themselves to be less than trustworthy – why “go to them” for a character reference for ICR???

If you have actual quotes from Creationists actually doing research or promoting scientific solutions for YEC or YLC that is critical of ICR – provide the quotres. If all you have is endless evolutionist rabbit trail after rabbit trail accusations, and personal bias devoid of reliable fact – then reserve them for the funny papers.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 0  0