Starrfall on 24/6/2009 at 01:16
As shown (
http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383) here.
Quote Posted by oh yeah, this is the church Kirk Cameron belongs to
This special 280-page edition not only contains an abridged Origin of Species but also has a 50-page Introduction that reveals the dangerous fruit of evolution, Hitler’s undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin’s racism, and his disdain for women. It counters the claim that creationists are “anti-science” by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe—scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler. It has many original graphics and (as it says on the back cover) is designed for use in schools, colleges, and prestigious learning institutions. The back cover lists the above information as well as saying the book contains “Information on Intelligent Design vs Evolution.” We want to get one million copies into the hands of students and professors in colleges and universities throughout the U.S. Let’s see if they try to ban Darwin’s Origin of Species. That would be interesting.
Oh how the tables have turned,
scientists.
You can venture into the first 50 pages of the introduction and drown under the overwhelming waves of sound logical arguments such as:
Quote Posted by Mike Seaver
The eyes of many of God’s creatures are very similar.
Pigs have skin that is incredibly close to human skin—closer
than primates. We both have noses, ears, eyes, liver, kidneys,
lungs, teeth, and a brain. Did man evolve from the pig, rather
than the primate? It would seem so if we are going to be
consistent with the evolutionist’s logic. The pig and man have
many features in common.
It will be interesting to see how many copies they sell! Only one dollar each must buy 50 going now!
crunchy on 24/6/2009 at 01:35
Did man evolve from the pig, rather
than the primate? It would seem so if we are going to be
consistent with the evolutionist’s logic. The pig and man have
many features in common.
ROFL!
A butterfly, a bat and a swallow all have wings. Ergo, they must have all evolved from the same ancestor.
Absofuckinglutely brilliant.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/6/2009 at 01:36
Quote Posted by The Best Book Blurb Ever
It's like a book with multiple personality disorder — two parts that absolutely hate each other; an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century.”
- PZ Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris
Fundies know marketing.
Ostriig on 24/6/2009 at 01:38
Wait, you can just take On the Origin of Species and republish it any form you want? Is it a public domain thing, or what?
Renzatic on 24/6/2009 at 01:57
Yup. It was published mid 19th century. It's been in the public domain for a looong long time.
PigLick on 24/6/2009 at 02:15
I think that guys onto something with the pig thing
demagogue on 24/6/2009 at 02:46
This isn't saying anything that Kirk Cameron & company haven't been saying for years. Anyway, they're not stupid. It's a clear blindspot in their worldview about what evolution actually is. That's what dogma does to people, and everybody is susciptible in one form or another. Ideally they need the kind of crash-course on the topic that would embarass them to absolute silence to insist 'white is black' at evidence they are looking at with their own eyes, and maybe then you can hope to make progress with them if you've brought the whole edifice crashing down.
But I think people that blast these guys also tend to have a blindspot about what they're actually talking about, too ... Because, while they may very much want to, they are not actually talking about science at all. They're talking about the phenomenology of nature, which is itself a valid topic (buried under the religious talk). The problem isn't that they're doing bad science; the problem is that they're doing what could be respectible phenomenology (if they were paying close attention to what they were actually trying to say) but don't know or don't want to admit that's what they're actually doing, so they use the entirely wrong choice of words to do it. They think they're doing science but aren't, so aren't actually saying anything about science; other people think they are doing science but they aren't, so no one is really criticising their point by saying something about science.
When you talk about what a pig's skin looks like vs. a human's, or grouping things by their winged-ness, and especially this business about the psychological and social effects of evolution's propositions, as part of your argument, it's a clear marker that we're not talking about heritability in the genetic sense but self-consciousness of the body or natural-categories in the phenomenological sense. Their ideas (propertly translated) are much more interesting to cognitive science than, needless to say, to evolutionary biology.
Martin Karne on 24/6/2009 at 03:13
I feel like a pig!
And now I know why!!!
:erm:
Yay go ignorants!!!
Starrfall on 24/6/2009 at 03:28
Quote Posted by demagogue
Their ideas (propertly translated) are much more interesting to cognitive science than, needless to say, to evolutionary biology.
Except the problem is that the way they present their ideas is such nonsense to begin with, to "properly transate" them you basically have to ignore what they actually said and make up something sensible to fill in the blanks, like you just did.
Have you all seen the airplane analogy by the way
Quote:
Hinduism: The religion of Hinduism says that if you've
been bad, you may come back as a rat or some other animal.
If you've been good, you might come back as a prince. But
that's like someone saying, “When you jump out of the plane,
you'll get sucked back in as another
passenger. If you've been
bad, you go down to the Economy
Class; if you've been good,
you go up to First Class.” It's an interesting concept, but it
doesn't deal with your real problem of having sinned against
God and the reality of Hell.
(main point being I guess that as a snub to the evolutionists it doesn't do very well)
