Home » Intelligent Design » Barbara Forrest up to her old tricks

Barbara Forrest up to her old tricks

As you link to read the following by Barbara Forrest, ask yourself if ID proponents are really that big a threat to the body politic and if in fact it isn’t the dogmatic materialists, such as Barbara, who pose the bigger threat to our democratic institutions. Also ask yourself who is drawing on public funds to promote his/her point of view (hint: the notorious “Wedge Strategy” is not tax-supported).

www.centerforinquiry.net…Forrest_Paper.pdf

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Barbara Forrest up to her old tricks

  1. the ID creationist movement threatens both the education of the
    nation’s children and the constitutional separation of church and state, which protects the
    religious freedom of every American (Forrest and Gross, 2005). Despite political and legal
    setbacks … and, ultimately, American culture and government,
    thereby undermining foundational elements of secular, constitutional democracy.

    Yes friends, the world will end if ever ID comes back into the schools like it was in the beginning.

    Educated fools like Forrest seriously need de-programming from their secular humanist cult. Such a level of clear paranoia and hyperbole are shameful. It sounds much akin to the witch hunts of the MaCarthites.

    Seriously, all current democracies are doomed to fall if ID is brought back into the public education system. God help us! Gasp!

    Forrest and cie. are pathetic fear mongerers who don’t understand the least about the origins of the north Am democracies nor the Judeo/Christian values upon which they were founded.

    America was not founded upon secular humanism nor by secular humanists.

    She chatters on and on about the infamous Clause (the #1 Darwinist refuge in the almighty constitution) and government neutrality, ever failing to see the there is no neutrality in Darwinism nor Darwinist controlled public systems.

    She then has the nerve to say, “ID poses a danger to constitutional government and, by extension, to a free, open society”. Ha!

    Ask yourself, “Who is being persecuted here? Who is being witch hunted?” And, “Who is being discriminated against and banned in this ‘free, open society’?”

    She ought to get her head examined by a good shrink who knows religious cult de-programming.

    All you have to do is take her document, find/replace all occurrences of with and vice versa, and you have a reasonable testimony to the real truth.

  2. Barbara Forrest does not seem to be aware of just how insidious this Bible thing is.

    For starters, the Christians own the big bang. We point to Ms. Forrest’s favorite verse John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word”. If one examines the Greek, one recognizes that “in the beginning” should properly be translated “before the beginning”, indicating that the Bible teaches a true beginning. Secondly, big bang theology also points to Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void. And God said, ‘Let there be light.’” Now, Biblical scholars have pointed out that “the heavens” can be properly translated as “space”, and “the earth” as matter. When the God said, “Let there be light” this is the introduction of electromagnetic energy. We now clearly see that Genesis 1:1-2 teaches that there was a beginning, that God created space and matter. When the Bible teaches “without form and void” it accurately defines a singularity, and lastly electromagnetic energy is released with an eloquent description of the big bang. The icing on the cake is the fact that the big bang was first proposed by none other than a Catholic priest. The big bang, therefore, is clearly a religious teaching which must, of constitutional necessity, not be taught in our schools.

    But it is much worse than that. The Bible also teaches, “thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not lie”. For Ms. Forrest to be true to her anti-Biblical commitment, these tenet’s of morality must be abandoned. (I have no evidence that Ms. Forrest practices what she preaches regarding killing and stealing, but at least she is philosophically consistent with regards to lying.)

  3. Barbara is just upset that her state-sponsored materialist religion is being challenged with good old-fashioned evidence.

  4. There’s so many things to shoot at in Forrest’s diatribe one hardly knows where to begin. So, I’ll just boil it down to one question that I wish Bar or one of her cohorts would answer: What does a worldview free science classroom look like?

    Her obvious concern and worry is that “fundamentalists” (whatever the definition du jour of that term is supposed to be)want to coherce their worldview on un-suspecting school children. But what of the worldview already being coherced on these same unsuspecting children?

    If Bar or any of her Darwinian cohorts have a plan for a worldview free science curriculum, I’m all ears. Otherwise, the only question is which worldview ought to be presented and why!!

  5. I really like the following quotes.

    “There is much more such evidence to show that ID is not science. ID has been thoroughly analyzed by competent scholars, and their research debunking it has been published.2″

    Reference 2 is as follows

    “2. In addition to numerous books about ID, readers may consult a number of Internet critical reviews of ID books and original articles dealing with all aspects of ID. The wellknown are Talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/), Talkdesign.org (http://www.talkdesign.org/), Talkreason.org http://www.talkreason.org/), and the Panda’s Thumb weblog (http://www.pandasthumb.org/). The National Center for Science Education also a repository of ID news and related literature (http://www.ncseweb.org/).”

    So that is what she means by “published evidence”.

    “Contrary to popular opinion and to media coverage that incorrectly asserts that ID is not based on the Bible, ID is every bit as biblically based as the creationism that preceded it.”

    She quotes Phil to support this “we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.” That is theistic. That is not the same as “biblical”.

    The redeeming feature of the exposition is that even interested parties will soon grow tired of the hollow rhetoric.

  6. idnet.com.au, “The redeeming feature of the exposition is that even interested parties will soon grow tired of the hollow rhetoric.”

    Oh, I hope so.

  7. “Contrary to popular opinion and to media coverage that incorrectly asserts that ID is not based on the Bible, ID is every bit as biblically based as the creationism that preceded it.”

    Barbara Forrest is a sola scriptura atheist, which means that she believes that all claims to theological knowledge, though all false, must be grounded in Scripture. For this reason, every claim to immaterial non-empirical knowledge must, by its very nature, be ultimately derived from Scripture. So, even if one offers the kalam argument for an efficient cause of the universe, that is a “biblical claim” since the person who offers the argument would not have offered the kalam argument if he didn’t believe in God anyways. This, of course, is the genetic fallacy. But Forrest simply does not care, since she knows that her constituency–the self-appointed guardians of “reason”–are more driven by their hatred of faith than their love of good thinking. Sadly, this means that she does not mind contributing to the intellectual corruption of her fellows for the sake of her cause. Thus, she shows no respect for those she pretends to love.

Leave a Reply