You claim that “[p]eople were once told that the Earth was flat” – who told the people that and when?

Here, John, in “Hare we go,” about 40 seconds in:

(In English: Columbus: “The world! She’s a-round, like my head.”

King Ferdinand delivers a mallet blow flattening Columbus’s head.

King Ferdinand: “The world, she’s a-flat like your head.”)

Dear hard-core creationist Micky, since you are bent on rejecting explanations of who Christians are, why they should value science rather than try to kick sand in in its face, and what it means to be human that credits the God of the Bible, why do you pretend to be searching for truth in Origins research?

The Origins debate is controversial because only because creationists wish to restrict God to something they can control; creationism has no support from the Bible. Clearly you are not interested in truth or finding out what being human is really all about. Indeed, you have designed a set of constructs (irrational rejection of methodological naturalism in science) that rules out using the reason that the God of the Bible asks us to use always, especially in investigations of the origin of life and the universe. You think you are being clever while you tell yourself that God left no mysteries and dances to the creationist tune, and deceive others and even yourself into joining your dream world by spreading fears of a false looming [pick one: world war, genocide, Nazi totalitarian government, communist totalitarian government, imposition of increased library hours, requirements that people attend the opera and a few plays, reading assignments over the summer including The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, eugenics, lack of eugenics, increased science standards for high schools, end of the designated hitter rule, requirements that people who call themselves Christian actually read the Bible and follow the theology in it, membership in the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, cole slaw, kimchee, single-payer health care system] if anyone dares to study biology, God’s creation, and evolution theory, or just gets a little ahead of you in understanding what evolution is (which isn’t difficult since you appear never to have read anything on evolution). You fear that your cult will be dumped into the dustbin of history if there is not your rule of intellectual tyranny and ignorance in society. You are blinded, fool. You are an intellectual and religious hypocrite who speaks of openness, freedom of enquiry, and seeking the truth, yet you are utterly opposed to Jesus Christ who is Truth, and seek to substitute creationism for His Word, and even His words.

Get thee behind us. Then follow. Your chances at salvation will be improved if you study the topic before you spout off.

You claim that “[p]eople were once told that the Earth was flat” – who told the people that and when?

Dear hard-core atheist, since you are bent on rejecting explanations of who we are, and what it means to be human that credits the God of the Bible, why do you pretend to be searching for truth in Origins research? The Origins debate is controversial because it touches the core of what it means to be human. Clearly you are not interested in truth or finding out what being human is really all about. Indeed, you have designed a set of constructs (methodological naturalism in science) that rules out the God of the Bible in investigations of the origin of life and the universe. You think you are being clever while you tell yourself that there is no God, and deceive others into joining your dream world by spreading fears of a looming Theocracy if Evolution is dumped into the dustbin of history to secure your rule of intellectual tyranny and ignorance in society. You are blind fools. You are intellectual hypocrites who speak of openness, freedom of enquiry, and seeking the truth, yet you are utterly opposed to Jesus Christ who is Truth.

Well, I also have a dream. I have a dream that one day your stranglehold on academia and the media will be utterly demolished, and school children will learn about Science, Evolution, and Creation with freedom to think for themselves and make their own decisions.

So the creationists who see the movie will feel smug that Darwin’s racism falsifies the theory that has his name attached to it.

Darwin’s racism is a figment of their imaginations. Imaginary disproof that doesn’t work against a science proposition. No wonder they felt they had to be deceptive to get people with real academic chops to interview for the movie.

Creationists are unable to grasp a simple but basic difference between theology and science. It is possible to argue against, say, the truth of Islam by showing that Mohamed was a bad person or held evil beliefs. This is a valid theological argument. But you cannot argue against the evidence for the theory of evolution by impugning the character of one of its proponents—or even of its founder. You can only falsify a scientific theory by controverting the evidence for it.

So the creationists who see the movie will feel smug that Darwin’s racism falsifies the theory that has his name attached to it. Even though a scientist would say that even an admission by everyone on the planet that Darwin were the devil himself, would have no effect upon the theory.

I challenge you to refute ANY point covered in Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s publication ‘Refuting Evolution’ How about ‘By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible’
Be Careful! you may not want to go there. He stopped dragging his knuckles serveral moons ago! Please, don’t bother to respond unless you are able to reply with ANYTHING tangable or thought provoking that even you can believe.

The producers of this video used subterfuge to neither gain information about how the participants actually felt nor about the reality of the situation. They used subterfuge so that the participants would actually be present to be quote mined. The producers were completely aware that the participants would not have participated otherwise, as the participants would have been fully aware of the likelihood of their opinions being grossly distorted.

Subterfuge for the purpose of lying and misinformation, in short.

If a journalist goes to report on a skinhead convention and neglects to tell the people at the door that she is not a racist, is she “lying, pure and simple?”

But if a skinhead goes to a journalists’ convention and neglects to tell the people at the door that he is not a journalist, he is presenting a falsehood.

Is there a hierarchy of falsehoods? Scripture does not excuse telling falsehoods to promote ignoble ends, to hide the truth, or to propagandize against science.

What in heaven’s name could be the excuse for such a false face, Lars? Why would Christians need to go undercover against science?

Here we have people who claim to be Christian, hiding their intentions, editing the remarks of the people they hoaxed in order to make the statements appear contrary to what the people actually advocate, making their mere presence on the film lend credibility to a hoax. There’s a warning in scripture against this film: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

This film is nothing more than vain babblings; you defend opposition to the movie on the basis of what you falsely call science, Lars. This is embarrassing to all Christianity.

We have moved on. You might want to as well, as it is clear that you will continue to defend their actions.

My last word on this issue.

“Subterfuge” is a fuzzier term. One could imagine situations of nondisclosure for morally good reasons, which some people could nevertheless label subterfuge. In that case, categorizing an action as subterfuge does not help us determine whether it was morally wrong or shameful (in regard to e.g. your Matt 5:16 quote). It would be like applying a layer of mud before measuring something with a ruler. Or making goalposts out of smoke.

My interest is in whether your original statement is true: did they lie?

“They presented a false impression, i.e. they lied.”

That seems to me a very succinct summary of equivocation on your part. Omission of information is not “a lie, pure and simple” for which “there is no other word.” Since you continue to defend that statement with equivocation, you lose credibility as an honest witness.

Wouldn’t it be more honest to say in your headline “Creationists conceal position from historians”?

I should add that the fact that your home page displaying a banner for Expelled seems to indicate a certain disdain for historical accuracy on your part.

That would be a convenient excuse to ignore my argument. If I took the same approach to your blog, I would say that your post begins with a link to expelledexposed.com, which seems to indicate your agenda and bias. So it’s not surprising your are attacking CMI.

I should take that banner down though… it’s pretty old.