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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 741-756 next last
To: Dataman
I just don't like to expend too much energy // words to expose a farce (( evolution )) !
141 posted on 02/24/2003 4:16:15 PM PST by f.Christian (( + God *IS* Truth + love *courage*// LIBERTY *logic* *SANITY*Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | 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?

Actually, there are plenty of theoretical models. All matter is inherently non-living. The elements that compose all living things(carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorous) are, by themselves, classified as non-living. Combined together under the right conditions, is when you see the building blocks of life that begin to replicate and engage in symbiosis amongst each other. Eventually endosymbiosis and specialization occurs which is just a natural logical step forward from the aforementioned. All this really takes is time.

There is enough evidence to prove that it's probable.
142 posted on 02/24/2003 4:18:33 PM PST by Thoro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: All
A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
300 Creationist Lies.
Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
Creation "Science" Debunked.

The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].

143 posted on 02/24/2003 4:22:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
I hope you aren't wearing your hip boots. I can't speak for religion but I can speak for Christianity.

You didn't give him enough time to get his hip boots on before you made your claim to speak for Christianity.

144 posted on 02/24/2003 4:24:31 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ggekko
If ID theory was as ridiculous as its oponents suggest they would have no fear about letting it be taught in schools. The miffed, Ex Cathedra tone coming from these groups makes it look like they protest too much.

How about allowing teachers to teach the "flat earth" theory? What about "Earth, Air, Fire, and Water" instead of the periodic table of the elements? You think those may raise a few protests also?

145 posted on 02/24/2003 4:29:44 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
You said: "[A]ny discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories. Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms."

In the curriculum that Remedy directed me to (one that is admittedly for K-6, and therefore rudimentary) there is the admonition that students be taught the following: "Man is always man; dog is always dog; frog is always frog; and plants and animals always reproduce after their kind."

Since "the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms" (and assuming that "kinds" are fundamental to not only a grade school understanding of Creation Science, but also to advanced studies in Creation Science), perhaps you could define a "kind." And Dataman, this is not an attack. You have to realize that in a debate as in science, it is appropriate to ask for definitions of terms that are not otherwise self-evident. You have identified this as a prerequisite yourself.
146 posted on 02/24/2003 4:30:23 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
I do not adhere to theistic evolution (nor Darwinian evolution in general). My point was that I find many evolutionists use the theory to dispatch the Creator completely as incompatable with true science. I have view science as the exploration of a fantastic creation that has an Author. I do think there are many earnest people who accept both evolution and a creator God and, thus, would view science as I do. I just don't agree that evolution was God's vehicle for creation.
147 posted on 02/24/2003 4:35:10 PM PST by USMA83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: USMA83
I resolved the issue to my satisfaction years ago through the works of Dr. A. E. Wildersmith, Dr. Henry Morris, and others.

You realize, of course, that this means that you're getting your "information" from people with an avowed bias, and a track record of error, misrepresentation, and dishonesty?

And that Morris is a young earth creationist who believes, against all evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

I guess the notion of science being the exploration and understanding of God's creation is passe.

It must be, if people prefer to learn "science" from creationist sources intead of from *scientific* sources...

Demonstrating most of Morris's scientific errors would require a great deal of background material, but his dishonesty can be easily demonstrated by comparing some of his "quotes" against the original material that Morris cites for "support".

The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm., with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved [...] strongly suggests that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization.(19)
-- Henry Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth, p. 12
The words are Morris's. Footnote 19, which he provides as alleged *support* for his characterization, is an article in the journal Geology by Buccheim and Surdam. Here's what that article *actually* says:
The abundant and widespread occurrence of skeletons of bottom feeders, some with soft fleshy skin intact, strongly suggests that the catfish were a resident population. It is highly improbable that the catfish could have been transported to their site of fossilization. Experiments and observations made on various species of fish have shown that fish decompose and disarticulate after only very short distances of transport (Shafer, 1972).
They had actually concluded the *exact opposite* of what Morris claimed of their work. So you make the call -- was Morris being dishonest, or just bone-headedly sloppy? Neither option inspires confidence, does it?

Here's another:

"Ross and Rezak say: 'Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many years ago'"
-- John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, "The Genesis Flood", page 187
Whitcomb and Morris provide this "quote" as alleged support of their assertion that the Lewis thrust is a "bedding plane" (flat, undisturbed layers of sediment). But let's check the original quote:

"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in certain zones they are intensely so. From points on or near the trails in the park it is possible to observe places where the beds of the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the softer younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east." (Ross and Rezak 1959 p. 420) (The text quoted by Whitcomb and Morris is bold).

Hmm, look at that -- again, the *actual* source cited by Morris in "support" of his claims actually says *the exact opposite*. Additionally, he dropped the word "millions" from his quoted portion without leaving any indication at all (e.g., with "...") that he had removed any text. The reason for the sneaky change is obvious: Morris is a young-earth creationist who believes the Earth is only 6000 years old, and he couldn't let his thesis be tainted by quoting any sources that obviously greatly disagreed with his notion, because that might make his audience wonder about its veracity...

Morris is not to be trusted, either from an honesty standpoint, or a competence standpoint.

For a lengthy examination of only a *single* kind of gross error in geology which Morris repeatedly makes, see . It should make the quality of Morris's "scholarship" pretty clear.

As for A. E. Wilder-Smith (not "Wildersmith", by the way), he seems a much more honest person than Morris, and less prone to bone-headed scientific screwups, but his failings are fatal nonetheless. Wilder-Smith was of the "ivory tower philosopher" school of creationists, who believed that by sitting in an armchair and thinking hard about "basic principles", one could arrive at lofty conclusions which were necessarily correct. Needless to say, the failures of Aristotle and Plato using this method should be instructive -- sooner or later, you need to get out and do a reality-check against the real world. One of Wilder-Smith's bigger boo-boos, for example, was his conclusion that evolutionary methods could not produce "novel" information and/or solutions. Wilder-Smith worked this out in detail in a book he wrote, "The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution" (1970). In it, he specifically concludes that even computer simulations of evolutionary processes would result in a situation where, in his words, "The biologists have mocked from a distance and denied the result proclaimed by the mathematicians -- that the theory will not work but merely jams the best machines."

Gosh, he sure sounds certain of his conclusion.

Too bad it's quite simply flat wrong.

The short rebuttal is that genetic algorithms in computer programs, by following the same evolutionary principles laid out by Darwin, have consistently produced all manner of fantastic results, and are today a very fruitful field for the production of solutions to "hard" problems.

The long rebuttal, which examines in details many of Wilder-Smith's errors, can be found here.

148 posted on 02/24/2003 4:42:00 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
It must be depressing when spin is all you have left.

If you think it's just "spin", then you clearly haven't read the statement. Try doing more research before you engage in your own "spin" next time.

149 posted on 02/24/2003 4:43:29 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
First two chapters of Genesis. That's it. Memorize 'em and you get an "A".

Yes, and for the so-called "theistic evolutionists", Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female'"

And Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:13: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve".
150 posted on 02/24/2003 4:54:18 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
[ummm... no. try again. science is self correcting and eternally critical.]

I weary of evolutionist platitudes.

And I weary of your simply declaring your "is not!" responses without actually bothering to support them. Oh look, here you go again:

Your statement is plain and simply false.

Uh huh... Nice try, but stamping your feet doesn't prove your case.

If it were true, the article that started this thread would not have been posted.

That's a mighty strange "reasoning" process you've got there, son. "Because someone posted an article to FreeRepublic, science is provably non-introspective!"

Needs work.

As it is, evolutionists are intolerant of criticism directed toward them or their precious fairy story.

Are you really this off-base, or are you just trolling? Science is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM. School classrooms are not the proper place to have that debate. It's not like this is a hard concept, do try to keep up and stop shouting "Eureka!" over the most mundane things.

BTW, self-correcting implies error. If evo were truly self-correcting, it would adjust the theory rather than blackball the critic.

It does adjust the theory, quite often -- and then creationists gibber and dance and giggle, "ha ha, evolution is so screwed up they have to keep fixing it!". You've seen the posts as often as I have, don't deny it.

Critics are not blackballed. The current article, as you would well know if you were as smart as you like to believe you are, is another issue entirely. Anyone who wants to criticize any aspect of evolution is entirely welcome to do so in the peer-reviewed journals which such criticisms are not only allowed, they're welcome. Again, though, school classrooms are *not* the proper place for such arguments, for a variety of reasons (most of which the creationists understand full well, which is why they're trying to force their way into there).

If you can document either of your silly assertions, now would be a great time to do so -- or retract them, if you're honorable enough to do so.

[that's what peer review and the scientific method is predicated upon. mistakes are made over the millenia, then they are corrected with better science.]

Another stale platitude.

Another empty snide remark.

The peer review process is as clean and pure and the Justice Department's investigation of itself under Janet Reno.

So you say, without a shred of support. Typical.

"Peer" has been restricted to those friendly to the evolutionist propaganda.

Horse manure -- this only shows that you haven't a clue how the process even works. It's not like there's a sign-up sheet or membership card which can be denied.

Support your slur, or retract it. Or leave it lie, so we'll know that you have no interest in defending your reputation.

First you need to understand that the truth does not need to be corrected. Only falsehoods need to be corrected. Christianity, therefore, could not be self-correcting.

Wow, speaking of "stale platitudes"...

151 posted on 02/24/2003 4:57:49 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Y'all can teach evolution in schools if you want, It won't bother me, but don't try to pass it off as Science. Evolution can never be science.

I'm sorry, but the part where you actually made a case in support of your simple declarations seems to have gotten lost in transmission.

Please re-transmit, and be sure not to lose the part where you correctly define what makes something a "science" or not. There will be a short quiz later.

152 posted on 02/24/2003 4:59:18 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: libertylover
I don't really see much of a conflict unless you try to tell me all this happened only 4000 years ago.

Couple Jesus' words in Matthew 18:4,

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female'"

With Luke 3:23-38,

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Do that and you have some problems with your "theory" - that is if you still believe in the One whose geneology is listed...
153 posted on 02/24/2003 5:00:45 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
How about a semester's worth of the lack of scientific support for evolution?

Why would you want to lie to schoolkids like that?

154 posted on 02/24/2003 5:01:29 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: USMA83
If you accept the following:

- that the universe is about 14-15 billion years old;

- that the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old;

- that life on earth originated approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and that for approximately 2 billion years consisted only of one celled bacteria;

- that modern man has been around for less than 100,000 years;

then you have to accept that the Genesis version of creation bears at best a tenuous relationship to reality, don't you?

Further, the fact that all living beings have extraordinarily similar DNA militates in favor of some genetic connection, doesn't it?

I will spot you the leap from mud to life. I have no strong opinion about that one way or the other.

155 posted on 02/24/2003 5:01:48 PM PST by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Oldie
I have spent all my adult life on university campuses and I have never even met a biologist with real academic credentials who believed in "creation science."

Well that explains it - you have spent your adult life on university campuses. Just between us, you may want to leave that out next time. It reinforces certain... er, should we say, stereotypes.
156 posted on 02/24/2003 5:03:17 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Evolution is creative biological sociology (( ideology )) and it should be taught under anthropology (( pre history -- writing -- science )) ...

Creationism _+_ froglok ///// estudio (()(( underling bonus % -( breathmints!

There, I've completely demolished your position. Now go take your medication, you're obviously overdue.

157 posted on 02/24/2003 5:04:01 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
What are WHACK religions?

I think those are the ones where people whack each other with sticks trying to drive out the devil.

158 posted on 02/24/2003 5:04:46 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
OK Jenny, Have you heard about the bacteria that was 're-vitalized after 250,000,000 years at the bottom of salt deposits? Or the blood cells from a tyrannosaurus yielding whole proteins after 65,000,000 years Let's start with those
159 posted on 02/24/2003 5:14:43 PM PST by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Thoro
"Actually, there are plenty of theoretical models....All this really takes is time."

With all due respect, science couldn't prove any theory if it had forever-and-a-day.

160 posted on 02/24/2003 5:26:05 PM PST by F16Fighter (Democrats: 'Hating and betraying America's heritage is our "right."')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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