Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?
AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

Posted on 02/24/2003 1:25:18 PM PST by Remedy

More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.

The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]

Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.

"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."

Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.

"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."

Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 741-756 next last
To: jennyp
Most of the geologic column and above ground (( plates )) were formed and extruded from below ...

some of the layers below were forming at the same time as layers above ---

reducing the geologic time by over 2/3rds ---

Evolution is impossible -- HOAX -- never happened--- at any time period anyway --- long or short !

No proof (( transitionals )) // evidence either !
121 posted on 02/24/2003 3:39:58 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"Goddidit" *is* where they stop thinking.

I'd like to show where the evos stopped thinking but one has to start to think before one can stop.

One of the ultimately stupid-est tenets of evolution is that everything happend through natural processes, yet so many exceptions have to be made to these natural processes that it becomes a series of miracles without God.

One incredibly cephalic evo stated that "if it happened, it was natural. Therefore everything happened naturally."

With thinkers like that you have no need for dummies.

122 posted on 02/24/2003 3:40:38 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MoGalahad
Creationists do not stop at "god did this"

Yeah, they do. 'Intelligent Design' is merely a devout wish that at some time in the future there might be a theory. There is no current body of valid scientific work in the field of ;'Intelligent Design'.

123 posted on 02/24/2003 3:44:53 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone
Either viewpoint requires faith.

Horse manure. Creationism requires "Faith" in the "capital F" sense -- belief in the absence of (sometimes in opposition to) any evidence. Science, including evolution, requires only "faith" in the "confidence in something" sense. Evolution has abundant evidence available which any person can examine, verify, and judge for themselves. By describing both *qualitatively* different kinds of belief with the very same word, you disingenuously blur the very real difference in the nature of the two outlooks.

Darwinism is not reproducible science. Darwin may claim to be consistent with Scientific fact, but it is not based on reproducible Science.

Oh, puh-leaze. Of course it is. There are countless reproducible experiments and observations in evolution. Furthermore, a science does not need to be able to "reproduce" everything in order to be valid science -- cosmologists can't experimentally make stars, planets, and solar systems, but that doesn't mean it's not a proper science.

People who make the "reproducible" complaint about evolution both don't understand how many evolutionary principles *are* reproducible, and overestate the requirement for reproducibility in the sciences.

Reproducible *experiments* are only one way that findings can be independently verified. There are many others which serve just as well.

Finally, what truly makes something a science is not whether it can be "reproduced", but whether it explains observations, makes specific predictions about future observations or experiments (experimental results are just another form of observation), and (key point here) whether it is *falsifiable* -- it must be open to some sort of conclusive disproof if, indeed, it turns out not to be correct.

My college science classes required an evolutionary viewpoint to attain a passing grade, period.

As it should be -- in a science class. Whether you like it or not, evolution *is* the scientific viewpoint at this time. Not teaching it in a science class -- or giving a passing grade to someone who rejects learning it -- would be a dereliction of the teacher's duty to teach science.

You couldn't introduce other faith-based view points, based on science, if they differed from Darwinist dogma.

If you could actually come up with a "faith-based view point based on *science*", then you'd have something original. Feel free to present it, if you have one.

No Creationist wants to eliminate free and open discourse. No Creationist wants to prevent introduction of Scientific evidence on the origins of the Universe and man, even if they disagree with the theories offered with that evidence.

With all due respect, you're quite naive. There most certainly *are* creationists who want to do those exact things.

However, Darwinists can't tolerate dissent, because much of their "science" rests upon a foundation of half-truths, misinterpretations, and lies.

Gosh, really? Feel free to point some out, if you think you have some.

Note -- be very, very careful before you reply. If your material comes from some creationist source, it's very likely erroneous.

In fact, your very assertion shows signs of having just as poor a grasp of science as the specific "anti-evolution" points usually do -- far from being unable to "tolerate dissent", the whole *scientific method* is based on *strong* dissent. The entire peer-reviewed publishing process in scientific journals is geared towards inviting as *much* dissent as possible. Scientists publish papers so that they can see whether their work will be able to survive everything that everyone else can throw at it. It's easy to spot a non-scientist by the way that they aren't even aware of this process. Believe me, if "much of evolution rests upon a foundation of half-truths, misinterpretations, and lies", then most published papers on evolution would have been savaged by other members of the scientific community long before the creationists could ever get around to it. Exposing shoddy, unfounded, or mistaken work is *exactly* what the scientific method is designed to do.

So if you actually have some flaws in mind that have somehow escaped the scientific community, do *please* let us know what they are. Go for it.

124 posted on 02/24/2003 3:45:40 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Saturnalia
``I was a communist for 30 years ...

and I listened to so much of this . . . demagoguery (( link )) - - -

that now, with my democratic views, I can no longer stand it,'' Itar-Tass news agency

Hi everyone . . .

I am f.Christian - - -

a falling down recovering evolutionist // liberal // globalist - - -

not any more since . . . FR saved me (( link )) === now I hate the stuff // lies ! !

125 posted on 02/24/2003 3:45:46 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Steel and Fire and Stone
No Creationist wants to eliminate free and open discourse. No Creationist wants to prevent introduction of Scientific evidence on the origins of the Universe and man, even if they disagree with the theories offered with that evidence. We'd just like to have the same "1st Ammendment" rights that the rest of the Scientific world has

Is '2+2=5' protected speech in a math class?

Science is not subject to the first amendment. You may deplore the law of gravity, but if you fall off a tall building, you'll die anyway.

126 posted on 02/24/2003 3:46:58 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
His theories work more or less on the surface of this planet, but don't work when things get bigger or smaller than that.

So you're saying that if I calculated the dynamics of the solar system using Newton's equations of motion, I'd be badly wrong?

127 posted on 02/24/2003 3:48:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Most of the geologic column and above ground (( surface plates -- valleys )) *features* (( hills // buttes )) - - -

were formed and extruded from below ...

some of the layers below were forming at the same time as layers above ---

reducing the geologic time by over 2/3rds ---

Evolution is impossible -- HOAX -- never happened--- at any time period anyway --- long or short !

No proof (( transitionals )) // evidence either !


Very young earth !

128 posted on 02/24/2003 3:50:28 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
>>schoolkids don't have the background to be the jury on that debate, which is probably why creationists are trying to drag their challenge there instead of doing it in front of actual scientists.<<

Excellent point. Get 'em when they're young and you have a good chance of keeping them for life.

129 posted on 02/24/2003 3:54:39 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Science is the study of how things work when there is no supernatural action.

Actually, this is incorrect. If there were "supernatural" monkeying with with the world, science would be able to detect it by observation, and would be able to determine many things about the times and manners in which such supernatural exceptions to "everyday" laws occurred. It would, in a sense, be able to learn quite a bit about such "supernatural" occurrences.

Contrary to popular belief, science does not presuppose non-supernatural causes for everything. That would, indeed, not be scientific. It just looks that way sometimes because so far, there's no clear evidence that anything "supernatural" is taking place or has taken place. Observations are so far consistent with "ordinary" causes and effects. At this point an extraordinary hypothesis like "it appears a miracle has occurred" would require either extraordinary evidence, or a large accumulation of smaller evidence.

But there would be nothing unscientific about concluding that supernatural forces were at work if that's what the evidence indicated.

130 posted on 02/24/2003 3:54:42 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
'Intelligent design merely says, "god did this", end of discussion. It is just not useful. '

Science can't figure out how one simple single cell was able to materialize out of non-living matter, but evolution should be taught as "probable" in the classroom?

Until 'Science' can provide a sniff, even one iota of proof that the Universe overcame infinitesimal-to-the-nth-degree odds to "evolve" any life over the millenia -- much less a culmination resulting in homo-sapien, it's fantasy best-case scenerio remains laughable crock of sanctimonious, delusional horse dung.

131 posted on 02/24/2003 3:57:24 PM PST by F16Fighter (Democrats: 'Hating and betraying America's heritage is our "right."')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Ah, typical creationist. You claim there were no fossils. I showed you fossils. Now you claim they're "pathetic." Hey, I don't make these things up.

I started to reply to some of these posts, and then promptly refrained for exactly that reason. Their fingers are in their ears and they're screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA!" at the top of their lungs.

Comparative embryology(ontogeny showing phylogeny), comparative anatomy(homologous structures and vestigal organs), the sequencing of cytochrome c(going quickly from memory here) molecules showing a common genetic code among all organisms, and evidence that there was sufficient geological time to account for small gradual changes accumulating into something significant, unfortunately, seem to have no place in this conversation.

Oh, and the findings of Mendel was the beginnings of the science of genetics, which also fits into the theory of the origin of species diversification. I was surprised to see his name brought up to prove creationism when it actually helps prove evolution.

Evolution does not remove God, especially since the end results of evolution(us) are not guaranteed. There's a significant amount of chance involved. However, there is sufficient scientifical evidence to prove that God created a perfect rational universe, and I don't understand why some people become emotionally upset by that. You'd think they would be ecstatic.
132 posted on 02/24/2003 3:57:49 PM PST by Thoro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought BUMP!
133 posted on 02/24/2003 4:05:02 PM PST by unspun (The right to bear and deliver FREEPS shall not be infringed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
If you don't believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, believing in both evolution and creation isn't inconsistent.

Easy for me not to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, because I know that man is a small, relatively new, and imperfect part of God's creation, while the universe is ancient, enormous, and hard to understand.

God and the universe are just too vast for us to grasp, now, and when the Bible was written.
134 posted on 02/24/2003 4:05:28 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Science can't figure out how one simple single cell was able to materialize out of non-living matter, but evolution should be taught as "probable" in the classroom?

We haven't been able to figure out yet how the Shuttle crashed, so let's stop teaching physics.

Until 'Science' can provide a sniff, even one iota of proof that the Universe overcame infinitesimal-to-the-nth-degree odds to "evolve" any life over the millenia -- much less a culmination resulting in homo-sapien, it's fantasy best-case scenerio remains laughable crock of sanctimonious, delusional horse dung.

Neither you, nor any creationist, has the slightest clue how to calculate these 'odds'. And scatology is no substitute for argument.

135 posted on 02/24/2003 4:05:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
SAVE ME F.CHRISTIAN!
Learn me to speak in tongues, just like yall do!@!
136 posted on 02/24/2003 4:06:17 PM PST by Saturnalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: libertylover
I agree with you. I believe that God created an evolving universe, billions of years ago, long before our solar system came into existence.
137 posted on 02/24/2003 4:07:10 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Marathon
Evolution can not explain how on top of mountains cambrian plates // fossils were placed there --- I have (( earlier threads )) !
138 posted on 02/24/2003 4:07:20 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook
139 posted on 02/24/2003 4:09:05 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USMA83
If God created an evolving universe, how is studying evolution not studying God's creation?
140 posted on 02/24/2003 4:09:17 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 741-756 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson