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]

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.

I'm sure in some dark, distant universe, the above exchange makes sense, but not in this one.

[miloklancy]

First off it is ridiculous to call people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, fossil thumpers. The most compelling evidence supporting Darwin's theory is not hominid fossil evidence found in East Africa, but genetic evidence showing our similarities with other higher primates such as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. Then again it is also ridiculous to ignore scientific evidence in favor of outmoded midevil religious text too. Also there are many political conservatives who think Creationism is rubbish. There are also liberals who think Darwin's theory is rubbish. The question is as a matter of quality in our education systems, do we want to teach people something (e.g. Creationism) which has absolutely no tangible science to back it up or do we want teach a theory and let me stress THEORY, regarding the development of not only human beings but life in general on this planet. Yes it is possible to teach Darwin's theory to those who do not and will not believe it. That is why scientists refer to Darwin's idea of evolution as a THEORY. You can reject any theory you want, however you are taken more seriously if you look at ALL the evidence and respond to whether or not such evidence is valid.

[BHud]

Just lookin out for ya.
People who dont believe in themselves have lots of problems later in life.

[BHud]

And in further anger, after shredding your beliefs, you resort to personal attacks.
How intellectual of you.

[Dataman]

That was a bit of sarcasm.

[BHud]

Thank you oh so much for clearing that up.
Snow in TX, vast superior ANYTHING at DU...I thought the world was ending.

[bmwcyle]

He is stupid, a fool, not of sound mind, the village idiot, and not very bright. He is a 15 watt bulb in a 75 watt socket. He does not have enough brain power to do anything but repeat his stupidity on the same kind of thread everyday of his worthless life.

[f.Christian]

To: unspun

us...

Awhile back, I asked a God-outlawing, life from non-life, spontaneous evolutionist, just how many species to species
transitional forms must be present within say, a million years, in order to allow for evolution on earth.

Didn't get an answer. Wouldn't look good, since we've never seen even one in our history.


fC...


Even multi trillion of years wouldn't help the evolutionists cause // difficulties !

Evolution is proselytization -- brainwashing // indoctrination ==== mind control !

Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: 'prä-s(&-)l&-"tIz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -tized; -tiz·ing
Date: 1679
intransitive senses
1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
transitive senses : to recruit or convert especially to a new faith, institution, or cause
- pros·e·ly·ti·za·tion /"prä-s(&-)l&-t&-'zA-sh&n, "prä-s&-"lI-t&-/ noun
- pros·e·ly·tiz·er /'prä-s(&-)l&-"tI-z&r/ noun

[mg39]

Thanks. Religious folk, when not slaughtering nonbelievers, tend to be fairly moral and helpful human beings.

[PatrickHenry]

A few more comments on the "Hitler thing." Even if he were attracted to evolution (rather than creationism, as his book clearly shows), as a serious scientific criticism of evolution it would be useless to point out that Hitler was a Darwin fan.

(1) Hitler was no biologist. He fancied himself an architect more than any kind of scientist, and we don't condemn architecture, do we? (Stalin studied for the priesthood, for whatever that proves, which isn't much.)

(2) Hitler was, without doubt, lying scum. If he wanted a pretext for some action of his, he would say anything: his people need "living room;" they lost WWI because Germany was "stabbed in the back;" his national socialism was the wave of the future; the jews were destroying Germany, etc., etc. With all these lies and delusions, why does anyone take him seriously if he sometimes made some remarks about evolution?

(3) Jim Jones was most definitely a creationist. So what?

(4) I've jokingly blamed all horrors of the 20th Century on Thomas Edison. Everything followed his satanic electric light, after all. Hitler used electric lights, etc., etc. So Edison is as much to blame as Darwin, right? Post hoc, propter hoc.

(5) Finally (I could go on and on) why wasn't Darwin himself a mass murderer? Surely, if anyone were "tainted" with Darwinism, it was the man himself.

[BHud]

Oh, really, it's no problem. Non believers, when not swimming on De Nial tend to be great speciments to help.
Do you need a nubmer for some good psycho babble?

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

fC...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule (( constitutional // law // SCIENCE ))** for the assurance technocracy and expert rule (( dictatorship // tyranny // EVOLUTION ))**.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

** .. .. .. my additions !

[BHud]

Oh, really, it's no problem. Non believers, when not swimming on De Nial tend to be great specimens to help.
Do you need a number for some good psycho babble?

[Gargantua]

"Where's the physical evidence of this flood?"

Everywhere you look. From the unusual horizontal erosion-marks around the base of The Sphynx to the Grand Canyon to the fossil layer found in rapidly deposited sediment, all are pure proof of the Global Flood as told in the story of Noah.

Just as the recently discovered, charred remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah verify that Biblical account.

How do you explain that, of all the lost ancient civilizations mentioned in the Bible, only one was predicted to rise again (Israel), and only one did? Take your time, pup, I'll wait for your answer.

Then we'll address the 2,400+ other predictions made in The Bible which have come true. You have not a leg upon which to stand when you defy The Truth of Almighty God.

[BibChr]

Ever ask one "What would have to change in your life, morally and spiritually, if creationism were true?"

--and get an honest answer?

Dan

[Condorman]

I read the links. I found this interesting paragraph:

is not possible to develop a meaningful discussion when the fundamental assumptions of the arguments are so different: on the one hand, the concept of intelligent design beyond the laws of nature is based on intuitive, philosophical, or religious grounds, while on the other, the study and explanation of all levels of the living world, including the molecular level, is based on scientific fact and inference.

Behe's response was essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"

ID is little more than a list of proposed problems for evolution. As jennyp pointed out, even William Dembski points out that ID is still not ready for inclusion in a grade-school curriculum, and has yet to develop a research program.

If a designer plopped down the first organism on Planet Earth, wished it well, and sent it on it's way, very few people would be able to refute you. If, however, you then claimed that the designer stuck around fiddling with the genome for the next billion years, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case. Are genetic changes induced by a designer fundamentally different than changes arising from natural causes? If so, how would we go about identifying some?

[miloklancy]

Okay. Now why don't we try actually taking the evidence for the theory and responding to that. You can't just say evolution is brain washing, when you have no evidence! Also human beings have not been around for very long in a planet with a 4.5 billion history, where life that isn't bacteria came about a billion years ago. The first written history probably dates back to about 10,000 years ago, which is miniscule in terms of the history of life on this planet. Evolution is not purported to happen in 7 days. Evolution is influenced by rates of mutation, disease, and climatical factors in a given population over hundreds of thousands of years. You may ask how do I know this for sure, well I dont. I'm simply putting my faith in qualified authorities who have empirical evidence to back up their claims.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Placemarker.

[f.Christian]

religious holiday for the god (little g) of Darwin worshippers.

It would be sort of like Kwanza for "scientist".


278 posted on 02/14/2003 8:35 PM PST by Busywhiskers


fC ...


Show // tell -- whacky liberal 'science' !

[Dataman]

Ever ask one "What would have to change in your life, morally and spiritually, if creationism were true?"

No, but I've accused some of that and never had a denial. Here's an interesting quote:

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... The philosopher ... is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966 p. 19 [Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley was one the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]