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.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Sorry about the double post.

[jennyp]

P>You said "250,000,000 year old bacteria". That's 250 billion years old.

Uh, no, that's 250 million...

250 billion would be 250,000,000,000.

No you're wrong! It's 250 Billion. Only you godless commie evos think it's 250 mil... er... um... oh. Nevermind.

[Condorman]

Wow, that didn't take long... heheh...

I wish all my questions were answered that fast...

[Condorman]

Blast! I was off by 73 minutes. (See 601)

[Buckeye Bomber]

That was nice. Instant answers!

And you were wrong! 73 minutes makes all the difference! Your point is invalid. That is a stupid opinion and you are a stupid person for having it.

I'm stealing material from the Daily Show, but that's alright.

[Condorman]

Daily Show, huh? What's a stinkin' liberal like you doing trolling on FR, then? Huh? Answer me that, Monkeyboy!

[Buckeye Bomber]

Oh man, I blew my cover. I knew the sense of humor would give me away. Oh well, back to the Underground. ;-)

You've won this round, gadget....

[Condorman]

Go-Go Gadget Placemarker!

[edsheppa]

Yes, leaving out the central point of that statement is not misleading. AC's version of a 9/11 headline: Fire causes building collapse in New York.

[edsheppa]

But to be fair, this type of hoodwinking is not as slimy as creationists usually are.

True, however it is of a piece; they pursue rhetoric not science. The question they ask themselves isn't "is this argument convincing" but "how can I make it sound convincing?"

[guitar Josh]

I'm not changing the question, I'm just asking more questions.

[guitar Josh]

Okay, I now realize that these single-celled organisms can “clump”, or whatever you want to call it, and technically, that is new life. But again, here lies the problem: when cells clump, they still comprised with the same DNA code. It’s like the slime mold example that Doctor Stochastic brought up. These cells do make slime mold, they do reproduce, but the end result of the spores the slime sends off is more slime mold, not an advanced version of slime mold, or something new all together.

I look at it like this: Let’s say that my cat needs a new liver, but one isn’t available. As far as I can tell, science couldn’t take come of my femur cells, have them divide, clump them together, and come up with a cat liver. And as far as I can tell, that is basically what evolution states: 2 or more cells joined together and reproduced into something totally different, kind of like my cat liver story. Hope that makes sense.

[Lurking Libertarian]

And as far as I can tell, that is basically what evolution states: 2 or more cells joined together and reproduced into something totally different, kind of like my cat liver story.

That is not at all what evolution states, which is perhaps why you are having trouble with it.

[AndrewC]

Yes, leaving out the central point of that statement is not misleading. AC's version of a 9/11 headline: Fire causes building collapse in New York.

Don't blame me for your inability to follow links. The information is there. It is plain to those who take the time to read. Despite your Ad Hominem subterfuge it is your fault for failing to understand something easily apprehended.

[Boiler Plate]

I did, however, describe the nature of the folks who make a habit of making quixotic crusades against evolution with various attempts to "disprove" it. To date, as I said, those attacks have been almost without exception perpetrated by the foolhardy. I stand by that statement.

No Ichy, you don't stand by it. Seeing as you have yet to prove it, all you do is repeat over and over hoping no one calls your bluff and when they do you run. Thus far you are the only liar, fraud and fool in these debates.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dimensio]

So do you believe that the school science cirriculum should include the Biblical account of Creationism? If so, what of the creation accounts of other religions (and I am not speaking of Judaism or Islam, because I already know that they are the same as Christianity).

[gore3000]

Please highlight the portions of the exchange you believe to be fabricated.

It is just semantic garbage trying to pove that black is white as is usual with lying evolutionists. You and your friends went on for over a hundred posts totally off topic just to bash me with ridiculous nonsense.

All that your exchange shows is that you and your friends are totally lame and unable to discuss your theory like normal human beings and just go around attacking opponents to divert from the truth which is that evolution is garbage.

[Dimensio]

I have credible arguments, but I just wanted to point out how stupid Darwinism is through ridicule.

Argument from ridicule is a logical fallacy. Your ridicule stems from argument from incredulity, which is also a logical fallacy.

Your failure to understand evolution and your ridiculing your oversimplified concept of what it is does not falsify evolutionism. The only stupidity brought to light by your "argument" is your own.

[Dimensio]

Your posts are just consider that of a fool.

In other words, PH just completely refuted your assertion, so you will ignore it.

Mind you, evolution is not falsified just because unpleasant people might accept it as fact. Asserting as much is quite stupid.

[guitar Josh]

Check out my post # 487. All of that applies to you too. Okay?