Study in the Creator book.
After my whole little ordeal with my parent's hearing about how I am atheist and the truth about how I feel about the truth, my dad suggested that we study later on the Creator book ("Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?") He has told me a few times that if I have any objections to it I can freely point them out. Well, at first I saw this to be the opportunity to do research, back track the numerable names that they drop in this book, and show the logical fallacies used to support the prevailing theme of Intelligent Design in the book. I’ve already done a little extra research into the book and found many logical fallacies, and incredible scientists that they used to support their claims. I was just wondering if you guys know anything about the creator book that might help me out a bit and if it’s a good idea to bring up all of these things to refute this book (and practically their way of life).
if you google the name of the book - you'll be amazed at the hits.
I found the MISQUOTES to be most damaging.
Its one thing to believe something & want to teach it,
it is quite another to trick someone by being dishonest & misleading.
god's channel? I think not.
There is one minor flaw in Alan's review; Pratt did not hold to six literal days but like the Society and other Day-Age creationists, construed them as "epochs":
If we interpret the term day merely as a period of time, remembering that with the Creator "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day," the six days of creation take on something of the sequence our principal modern units of geologic time display.
Geologically speaking, the period of man's dominance over his environment has been, so far, of only the briefest duration. Man first became a weapon-making creature perhaps a million years ago. But, according to James Breasted's The Dawn of Conscience, the time men began to feel the power of conscience to such a degree that it became a potent social force was only 5,000 years ago.
He also seems to accept evolution and the relatedness of all living things, but wishes to describe the final development of homo sapiens as involving something greater than natural selection:
It is these "transcendent and transcendental features of the earth's evolution" that so impress the geologist when he examines the record inscribed in the rocks; this magnificent procession of life through the ages, extravagantly diverse in its myriad individual forms, but absolutely single in continuity and overall structure; starting with the lowly amoeba and culminating in homo sapiens. In the past, evolution has proceeded blindly. Change has taken place solely as response to environment. Now, in man, life has achieved consciousness. It has acquired spiritual values. It controls its environment and modifies it at will. It plots its own course into the future. And modern man stands at the helm!
Has this geologically recent ascent of man to his present position of dominance been achieved by the glib formula "Survival of the fittest," interpreted to mean the supremacy of the law of "Tooth-and-claw?" Is this the standard of ethical values to which humanity must adhere in the future? Even a glance at the geological record reveals clearly that these questions must be answered in the negative.
He goes on to claim that human evolution is marked not by environmental adaptation (man being indifferently adapted to his ecology) but by the development of the frontal lobes, and intelligence, a spiritual faculty, "man's soul", and a social instinct which allowed man to dominate nature tho lacking in physical adaptations. It's hard to tell from his rhetoric whether he was a theistic evolutionist or not.
"Why are we here? Because we're here; Roll the Bones." -- Roll The Bones, 1991, Rush
Even as a JW I saw the wisdom in those simple lyrics.
Ehhhh Leo when did Alan write that brief synopsis.... 6-7 years ago?
page 9 par 3 has a little bit about intellectual honesty. this was the needle that broke the camel's back for me. after reading their endorsement of intellectual honesty, i knew i was free to go wherever the facts led me, and i did.
apart from that, i think you're already in good hands.
Those are wise words Cygnus. I have already found one thing that is laughably flawed in this book. They mention a man named Maciej Giertych. They only named him when they were talking about millions of knowledgeable and respected scientists believe and the funny thing is, he's not a physicist. He's not a genetists or even a biologist. He was a tree physiologist speaking about an area he has no credentials in. All we have to go by is the possibility that he might have had some genetist friends or read a few science magazines in that area. So ya, the thing is bull, I just don't know if I should put all this damning evidence forth to my parents.
if it will make YOU feel better, then i say go for it. and it is an easy challenge, so you'll do fine with it i'm sure. but if you don't think all the time and energy will help you any, then don't worry about it.
of course, if he is going to MAKE you study it with him, then i say tear the book a new hole.
Ah my mouth was wide open when they mentioned intellectual honesty. The context of the paragraphs around it was fundamentally intellectually dishonest. Just plain sad. And ya he is somewhat forcing me to study it with him. So I might as well.