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.
What is this, "friendly" fire? I suggest you do a bit of research yourself.
Too bad you only made yourself look ignorant.
Ah, LBB's back, so Con X-Poser will probably disappear for awhile. We've given you plenty of evidence on this and other threads (remember "29 Evidences of Macroevolution?"). I forgot, you don't do links because they might lead you to think.
BTW, creationism doesn't win by default. If you ain't got nothin' you aren't even in the running. We know you're a YEC (you deny it, but your posts betray you). What is your evidence for a young Earth?
Your statement exhibits unbelievable naivete. Nobody believes except (maybe) some of you unteachable darwinists.
Let me illustrate your naivete:
An equivalent statemen would be "Creationism is extremely tolerant of criticism -- IN THE RIGHT FORUM."
I'm sure the kissers of Charlie's feet would accept that.
As for the rest of your post, it's typical fingers-in-the-ears "IS NOT! IS NOT!" stuff of which you accuse me. Remove the lumberyard from your own eye before you point the finger.
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.
Sometimes, yes. Usually the prospect is screened from the process and blocked by close-minded evos such as Dini. If they do change their minds and reject evolution, they are purged from the system.
Support your slur, or retract it. Or leave it lie, so we'll know that you have no interest in defending your reputation.
My reputation needs defending with you like Bush's reputation needs defending with the democrats.
It's hard to tell with you evos-- whether you are just plain ignorant of the information out there or whether you want to see if creationist can find it. I suspect the former because when we present it your view loses. Read it and weep:
For first, researchers must bare their methods and results to the scrutiny of their peers. In this way, the prestigious scientific journals decide what gets published and, hence, what breakthroughs we hear about. But a report out this month from a well-respected international collaboration of scientists will reveal that this time-honoured system of peer review, which has existed in some form for at least 200 years, is possibly bunk.
According to Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group: "If peer review were a new medicine, it would never get a licence." As he explains: "Peer-review is generally assumed to be an important part of the scientific process and is used to assess and improve the quality of submissions to journals as well as being an important part of the process of deciding what research is funded.
"But we have found little empirical evidence to support the use of peer-review as a mechanism to ensure the quality of research reporting, and there's even more depressing evidence about its value in deciding what should be funded."
Jefferson adds: "Our review focused on biomedical research, but there's no reason to assume that the inefficiency of this system would not pertain across other scientific disciplines." Jefferson's team scrutinised 135 studies, designed to assess the evidence that peer review is an effective method of deciding what should be published.
He said: "We had great difficulty in finding any real hard evidence of the system's effectiveness, which is disappointing, as peer-review is the cornerstone of editorial policies worldwide."
He added: "Scientists compete with each other for space to publish in the most prestigious and most widely read journals, space is allocated by editors, and peer-review plays a big part in the process. Publishing is the key to advancement and research riches. Nobel prizes have hinged on peer review, yet it may be seriously flawed. The problem is compounded because scientists can't agree about how the quality of peer review should be measured."
Much of the material shown posted as "responses to critics" on this website was originally submitted to several science journals for consideration for publication. In every case it was turned down. Below I have included the correspondence between the journals and myself. Names of journals and individuals have been omitted. The take-home lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails.
I have. See my previous post.
Someone's saved you the bother: 300 Creationist Lies.
You're asking the wrong guy. It wasn't my idea.
I must say that I really have come to appreciate this statement as it so aptly captures the Young-Earth-Creationist style of posting. Like the Captain Kirk/f.Christian mental image, it is both amusing and devastatingly accurate.
I doubt f. is inclined to be meaningful. I suspect he is a liberal disruptor posting what he thinks creationists sound like.
Look, atlaw, there is no definition of "kind" that the evos will accept (I do get to the skeptic sites occasionally). Therefore are you are asking me for a definition which you have rejected before it is given?
However, evolutionists admit the problem and accept the concept of "kind" inasmuch as they admit the lack of transitional fossils. Transitions between what?
Does it say if he calculated what the odds of producing a proton were?
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.