Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[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.

[BHud]

Creation boy?
Why do the evolutionists here always come off sounding like some kind of import from the Democratic Underground?
A little tact, eh?

[BibChr]

Oh, dirtboy's my longtime bud. I make with the generality.

Dan

[mg39]

You believe in no myth? I thought you were religious.

You say I'm trying to bait you, but that's only because I dispute your superstition. Sorry, but that's not baiting (tho it may be blasphemy).

"Moralphobe." Another awkward coinage on your part, and equally erroneous.

You are free to stay in the dark ages, but humanity has grown up. Thunder is not caused by angry gods, or God going bowling up in the sky, or anything else supernatural, but you can delude yourself as you wish. It's harmless enough, except for all those religious wars, religous persecutions, religious inquisitions, religious terrorism...

[f.Christian]

Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . .

only an idea // mood // feeling - - -

an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !


To: f.Christian

Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.


71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))

DOGMA masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets < pedagogical dogma > c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

[BHud]

"Evolutionists think creationists have little or no evidence in support of the worldwide Flood revealed in Genesis. However, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that it is the Flood's results seen in the vast geological structures all around them. Ever since Scottish geologist James Hutton (1726-1797) and English attorney Charles Lyell (1797-1875) popularized the concept of uniformitarianism, uniformitarian geologists have believed that the geologic record can be explained by present geological processes and rates. Recently, more and more geologists admit that major parts of the geologic record are the result of immense catastrophic floods, occurring intermittently over long periods of time. They have postulated a world-inundating tidal wave caused by an asteroid impact as an explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs. The Bible, however, tells us that they perished in the Flood. We assume their survivors from Noah's ark did not flourish well in the post-Flood climate and became extinct along with a growing number of other animals.

When Immanuel Velikovsky wrote Worlds in Collision (1950), and Earth in Upheaval (1955), he went against the conventional uniformitarian wisdom of the day. Although he was not a creationist, he believed strongly that our solar system and our planet were shaped by cataclysmic events.

Two German evolutionary geologists, Werner Tollmann and Edith Tollman, defended their belief that there was a mountain-covering world flood about 10,000 years ago. According to them, a massive comet broke into seven pieces and slammed into the world's oceans. [Tollman] The Tollman's have already identified five marine impact craters and are looking for two more because some ancient flood accounts (non-Biblical) mention seven glowing objects in the sky. The creationist family magazine, Creation ex nihilo, had an article on this (16:1, pp. 46-47)."


http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Cyclothems_images/cyclothem.jpg

[bmwcyle]

Your posts are just consider that of a fool. You waste my time.

[BHud]

I'm sure you are generally seen as a Master Baiter, but, no thanks on the bait. Your intentiosn are clear.
Try a Mentos for the troll breath, eh bub?

[mg39]

"eh bub?" That's Beezlebub to you, pal.

[Junior]

So, for support, you've dredged up two 18th century geologists and a certifiable kook. You know, you could have come up with something a bit more recent. Did you, by the way, read the link I posted on what one would expect to find if there were a world-wide flood?

[PatrickHenry]

You waste my time.

I know. A direct quote from someone you called an evolutionist, demonstrating that he was, in fact, a creationist, is a waste of your time.

[Dataman]

PatrickHenry is wrong as usual.

All you have to do is look at the pictures.

It seems like the people who were butchered by Hitler had no problem understanding his evolutionary motives. Hitler made it very clear that his mythical race of supermen were the only ones that deserved to live and that the rest hadn't evolved as far. What kind of a closed mind can deny Hitler's ties to evolution? The same kind that denies the holocaust.

[BHud]

Delusions of Grandeur as well.
And a serious self confidence problem, as you don't believe in yourself, by prior admissions, and this post combined.
Seek help, man.

[Junior]

Gee, Pat, you caught him with his pants down. What did you expect? A lot of these guys don't realize we've been traipsing along these paths for the last four years now and there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to creationist arguments. Hell, that's one reason I compiled The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- just so we can document the struggle, as it were.

[Dataman]

Why do the evolutionists here always come off sounding like some kind of import from the Democratic Underground?

Actually that's good. It lets the lurkers know how vastly superior their reasoning power is.

[Gargantua]

"Just out of curiosity, what would the curriculum in a Creation Science class consist of?"

The Truth, as spoken from the Mouth of Almighty God. The one true God in whom we (Americans) "trust." The Almighty Creator who bestowed upon us the individual rights enumerated in our Founding Fathers' documents, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution.

Why do you ask?

;-/

[BHud]

IOW, since it shredded your beliefs, you want nothing to do with it.
Typical.
If ya didn't want counter evidence, ya shouldn't have asked for it.
Now quit wasting my time.

[Dataman]

PH wastes everybody's time.

Ask him to put you on his "do not call" list.

He won't respond to me anymore which is just fine.

[mg39]

For a guy who subscribes to the supernatural belief system of desert dwelling tribes who existed millenia ago, whom themselves adopted and adapted the supernatural beliefs of even earlier primitive societies, you're pretty witty.

[Junior]

It didn't "shred my beliefs." I understand that science has advanced considerably since the 1700s. That you appear to be stuck 300 years in the past speaks poorly of your education.

[bmwcyle]

PatickHenry hangs on these threads to prove there is no God. He is worthless to himself and America.