WellTraveledProg
New member
That's the assertion of Dr. Jason Lisle, of answers in genesis.
Commenting on an article of Dr. Lisle's, the commenter said:
"Either Lisle is completely unfamiliar with the relevant literature, in which case he is incompetent, or he is lying to deceive the gullible. "
Lisle's response?
"...you have unwittingly acknowledged the truth of biblical creation in your previous sentence. Only in a biblical creation worldview would it make sense to criticize someone for “lying to deceive the gullible” (because such an action is contrary to God’s command as revealed in the Bible).
However, in an evolutionary worldview why would lying be wrong—particularly if it benefits my survival? You may not personally like it, of course, but on what rational basis could you declare that anything is fundamentally, objectively wrong? Objective morality is only meaningful if biblical creation is true."
So, ipso magico facto, Lisle claims that accusing somebody of lying to deceive the gullible isn't really accusing somebody of lying to deceive the gullible, it's actually acknowledging biblical creation! Therefore anybody that accuses him of lying is automatically supporting him! Yipee!
What do you think? Is calling someone a liar proof of biblical creation?
Or can somebody be a liar *and* biblical creation can still be wrong...?
full exchange here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/04/23/feedback-the-moons-regression-and-density-waves
Not that Lisle's argument is valid anyway, but the alert reader will notice that the commenter said he was a liar as a statement of fact only (as in "not telling the truth"), and made no value judgment as to whether lying was good or bad, invalidating Lisle's argument anyway...
Commenting on an article of Dr. Lisle's, the commenter said:
"Either Lisle is completely unfamiliar with the relevant literature, in which case he is incompetent, or he is lying to deceive the gullible. "
Lisle's response?
"...you have unwittingly acknowledged the truth of biblical creation in your previous sentence. Only in a biblical creation worldview would it make sense to criticize someone for “lying to deceive the gullible” (because such an action is contrary to God’s command as revealed in the Bible).
However, in an evolutionary worldview why would lying be wrong—particularly if it benefits my survival? You may not personally like it, of course, but on what rational basis could you declare that anything is fundamentally, objectively wrong? Objective morality is only meaningful if biblical creation is true."
So, ipso magico facto, Lisle claims that accusing somebody of lying to deceive the gullible isn't really accusing somebody of lying to deceive the gullible, it's actually acknowledging biblical creation! Therefore anybody that accuses him of lying is automatically supporting him! Yipee!
What do you think? Is calling someone a liar proof of biblical creation?
Or can somebody be a liar *and* biblical creation can still be wrong...?
full exchange here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/04/23/feedback-the-moons-regression-and-density-waves
Not that Lisle's argument is valid anyway, but the alert reader will notice that the commenter said he was a liar as a statement of fact only (as in "not telling the truth"), and made no value judgment as to whether lying was good or bad, invalidating Lisle's argument anyway...