…And we have now officially passed more than a year without any response from RTB or anyone affiliated with them. Or any creationist at all, for that matter. Welcome to August. See you in September.
1 Like
Just perusing the old posts in this thread, I came across this:
Joshua, still sure about that much?
4 Likes
I can certainly understand John’s frustration. His article is very well written. I consider it as a great example of Peaceful Science at its best (and I appreciate Joshua for featuring it prominently and helping to edit it towards an irenic tone.) It certainly deserves a response—or at least something like: Faz Rana has succeeded Hugh Ross as President and CEO of our organization and this has delayed a number of projects during a complex transition. (Obviously, that is not a quotation—just my assumption of what can happen when the founder and CEO of such an organization steps down from management.)
Even though the organization has always been called “Reasons to Believe”, it seems at times like the core driving force which keeps them financially viable is helping people to deny evolution even as the evidence for evolutionary processes continues to grow in overwhelming proportions. I don’t keep current on their projects so perhaps my assumption is unfair. It’s just that most everyone I know who is a fan of the organization seems to rely on it as a way to justify their denial of the Theory of Evolution while avoiding (in their opinion) the best known embarrassments of the major YEC ministries. [However, I agree with John that, in actuality, many of their arguments are little different in their essence.] RTB could continue to be an science-focused apologetics ministry without being so anti-evolution and progressive creationist—but their survival and business model may well require it. How could they concede even a few of John’s main points without major blowback from their supporters? (I hate to be so cynical but one can see why they wouldn’t want to give John’s article a bigger audience.)
In an ideal world where we all had more time and funding, it would be great to produce a Youtube video presentation of John’s review of the book. That might make his points a little bit harder to ignore. Or perhaps I’m too idealistic.
5 Likes
Alas, I think you’re simply being too charitable. I think that the notion of “science-focused apologetics” is bound to fail if it is coupled to this type of religious belief; it can only work with more nuanced and well-considered forms of religious belief. Inevitably, if one defends creationism, one will have to resort to dishonesty. And to someone who is dishonest, what upside is there, or can there ever be, in attempting to engage in a dialogue about these things with @John_Harshman ? If dialogue can only expose one’s dishonesty, well, better to have no dialogue.
1 Like
Time passes, but nothing changes. Another month, another bump.
2 Likes
October arrives, and nothing to see here. But we do gain incremental evidence that creationism is cargo cult science, uninterested in real examination of data or real discussion of evidence.
2 Likes
I got busy and missed several months of reminders, so let this stand in for the November, December, January, and February notices: RTB has never responded in any way, which suggests that they are not actually interested in science except as it can be force-fit, though distortion and quote-mining, into their preferred scenario.
6 Likes
Still here, still waiting. Well, technically, one waits in expectation that something will happen. So I’m not really waiting.
2 Likes
In reviewing this thread from long ago, I was reminded of a forgotten gem:
3 Likes
Every so often, and at progressively longer intervals, I recall this thread as evidence that RTB is not, despite all claims to the contrary, interested in science or in dialogue with scientists.
5 Likes
Been a while, but I just happened to think about RTB, and that led me back here. Bump.
6 Likes