Posted on 03/17/2013 12:11:01 PM PDT by eagleye85
Intelligent design is just another form of creationism, creationism is profoundly unscientific, and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms. This, in a nutshell, is the argument of activist Zack Kopplin, a student at Rice University who began his battle against a Louisiana academic freedom law (the Louisiana Science Education Act) while in high school. He is the 2012 winner of the “Troublemaker of the Year Award.”
“Well, this law allows supplemental materials into our school biology classrooms to ‘critique controversial theories like evolution and climate change,’” said Kopplin in a March interview on the Bill Moyers show. “Now, evolution and climate change aren’t scientifically controversial, but they are controversial to Louisiana legislators, and, basically, everyone who looked at this law knew it was just a back door to sneak creationism into public school science classes,” he continues (emphasis added).
As discussed in a previous blog entry, the media likes to condemn as right-wing and fundamentalist the crowd that prefers creationism to evolution. Through the course of an article by the UK’s The Guardian we learn that such laws as those proposed in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma are the product of a religious lobby, further the creationist agenda, and would be a feather in the caps of these two interest groups if these laws were to pass. Readers also learn that these states could be boycotted for their creationist educational laws. Kopplin, of course, is cited in the article for his opposition to the Louisiana law mentioned above. “It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area,” asserted Kopplin to the UK Guardian this January.
This month the media celebrates Kopplin’s “anti-creationism” activism with a full interview on the Bill Moyers show and an interview for the Washington Post. “Today’s fundamentalists, with political support from the Right-wing, are more aggressive than ever in crusading to challenge evolution with the dogma of creationism,” asserted Moyers in his introduction. “But they didn’t reckon on Zack Kopplin.”
“Going to college is tough enough without leading a campaign to stop creationism from being taught in school as an alternative to evolution, but that’s what Zach Kopplin, 19, has been doing for several years,” praises Valerie Strauss in her March 17 article.
“Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve, and creationism is not a scientific alternative,” writes Strauss. “But religious fundamentalists continue to push for creationism to be taught in schools,” she continues (emphasis added.)
In the interview with Moyers, Kopplin rejects several forms of creationism, saying that “Intelligent design specifically rejects evolution, especially on a large scale.”
“Creationists like to break it up into micro/macro evolution. That’s not a legitimate thing,” he asserts. As for creationism, “Essentially, it’s a denial of evolution mainly based off a literal interpretation of Genesis.” Kopplin’s latest vendetta? Voucher programs. ““And so it’s become pretty clear: if you create a voucher program, you’re just going to be funding creationism through the back door,” he said to Moyers. You can real the CATO Institute’s Neal McCluskey’s response to Kopplin here.
“No, potentially serious, negative, unintended consequences could accompany freezing people out of religiously based education,” writes McCluskey. “For instance, traditional Christian morality calls for married, two-parent families, and one of the few things in social science that one would call pretty firmly established is that coming from such a family gives a child a significant leg up. Religious people also tend to have much greater stocks of social capital than the nonreligious, also generally a plus.”
“In light of those things, would it be worth undermining religion because you think creationism is nonsense?”
While Sunset Crater Volcano was erupting, two lava flows originated at the base of the cinder cone. The Kana-A Flow (outside the present monument boundary in the Coconino National Forest), broke through the eastern base of of the volcano and flowed more than six miles to the northeast, filling a narrow valley. The Bonito Lava Flow came from the northwest base of the volcano, and pooled over a 2-square-mile area.so that's a long way from flowing over the canyon walls. I do see references to lava from other volcanic fields overflowing the walls, but most places date them to hundreds of thousands to low millions of years. The only place I see a 1.3b year date is on another short-term creation site, and it's credited to Steve Austin, a creation geologist whose work has been widely criticized, some might say debunked.
I also wonder what kind of Indian artifacts could survive being buried in lava.
Ok, so if a billion years is too young to be distinguished from essentially zero years, I am at a loss to know when Rubidium strontium dating is useful.
I also wonder what kind of Indian artifacts could survive being buried in lava.
I am under the impression that lava starts off very hot and then cools until it comes to a stop. From film I have seen of lava flows, it seems to have a black crust on the outside as it slows. Perhaps some artifacts could have survived being caught in this crust, such as an arrow head.
Hey Steve Austin has super sight and can run 60 miles per hour! Don't argue with him ;-).
The problem is in the very short term. For example, the 1000 year old lava flows in Arizona.
Cardenas Basalt - 1.1 billion years http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301926894901082
Uinkaret lava flow - 1300 years http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1209-01-
Indeed, this 1000 years is essentially 0 years for dating something with a 50 billion year half life. I would hardly expect them to tell them apart, since 1000 years is such a tiny fraction of 50 billion. However, I might have expected that perhaps 1.3 billion could be distinguished from 0, since it is 2.6% of the half-life...is it your thinking that it should be or that 1.3 billion is still too young?
Now, evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial, but....
Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve.
Creationists like to break it up into micro/macro evolution. That't not a legitimate thing,...
It seems to me this article is rife with tautologies and circular reasonings. Another way for this young man to say, "Intelligent design is just another form of creationism", is to say "Intelligent design is just another way of saying creationism because it is creationism", because I make the statement. He gives no reason or epistemic reason why, he simply asserts, then moves on. Or, "evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial,", could be stated, "evolution and climate change aren't scientifically controversial because I say science and climate change are not scientifically controversial." He gives no explication as to why, but rather simply asserts. You get the idea. The same can be said of the other quotes which I highlighted from the article. However there seems to be controversy on this thread from what seems to be thoughtful people on both sides of the argument.
You, being on the evolution-side of the controversy, I would ask you a question which I believe long ago I asked. Do you know that it is true that evolution accounts for the diversity of life on earth." If yes, please offer a warrant to the readers of this thread.
Evolutionists, by definition, are naturalists materialists. They believe all there is, is matter, energy, space, and time. To be consistent, they must admit this. There is no such thing in the materialists worldview as an abstract, invarient, entity.
So, let us consider evolution. The Darwinists says that evolution occurs by small genetic changes, over time, naturally selecting for survival qualities. (You would agree?) Now, in order for our species (Homo sapiens) to have evolved natural selection would have had to select for survival of the species. Natural selection does not care for beauty, truth, vice, virtue. It selects for survival. Now, for you to think through the theory of evolution and conclude that evolution is true and does account for the diversity of life and the proper function of the biological entity and all of its organs you must agree that the brain (cognitive faculties) must function normatively. (For example you would not say that the brain of a Down's Syndrome Baby functioned normatively and therefore would, under nature's rules, be selected out, according to your theory). However, natural selection does not select for truth but rather for survival benefit. You would agree? So my question to you is, "If our brains developed for survival skill and not truth (in fact truth may be a limiter against survival), then how is it logical to believe anything is true?" And I would ask, "If the brain must function normatively (as it was designed to function) to understand the universe arounds factually and truthfully, why would assert the brain developed to function normatively from an evolutionary standpoint? Remember the universe evolved and biological evolution developes mindlessly, purposelessly, remorselessly, and pitilessly. Evolution does not entertain output of species. It selects for surviival. That is what your worldview teaches. What warrant can you offer that you can feel confident that anything you believe is true, as an evolutionist? Does logic exist...then warrant it. Does rational thought exist....then warrrant it. Does mind exist...then account for it epistemically. Give us a reason to believe what you believe. Does reason exist....then warrant it for us.
I’m not in the position to evaluate, but those that are believe that result. The main point is that it is important to match the test to the situation.
For the record, you did not offer any warrant that evolution is truth. You offered no explication that you have any reason whatsoever to believe anything due to you explaination of how evolution 'produced' our cognitive faculties which can assess for truth; thus why do you believe anything? These are not small questions for the materialist naturalist. He must either account epistemically for them of abandon his assertions,.....if he wishes to be consistent.
My formal education is not in philosphy. All disciplines require a philosophical application to those diciplines. I will listen to anyone who is reasonable and consistent, but consistency seems to evade many evolutionists. I would think the young Rice University student needs to firm up his views of what is true and what is not true, seek to apply some consistency to his statements, and, if not, be prepared for questions like I asked you.
Suppose I have a theory that bowling balls always do whatever people command them to do. To demonstrate my theory, I match the test of holding the bowling ball in front of me, telling it to fall, and then dropping it. My theory is then validated when the bowling ball falls. A skeptic proposes that I change the test to tell the bowling ball to hover in the air instead of fall. I laugh at the skeptic, and tell them they no nothing of the scientific method. That would be the wrong test for the situation, say I.
Where can be found the dictionary containing this definition?
Well the are philosophy of naturalism, and the theory of evolution are correlated rather than always concurrent...however the context of his post was the kid the article was about, who has made it clear that his version of evolution is of the dogmatic scientism kind which casually presumes abiogenesis and materialism as unjustified priori. Your nit is a distraction rather than a contribution to serious discussion.
Whoever controls the terms, controls the debate.
When the debate is dumbed down to sound bites this is true. When the discussion is thoughtful and interested in finding truth, the person making a point should try to define his terms enough for people to recognize what he is saying, but not be required to digress as a means of distracting from his point.
Rather if his point of view is wrong, counter arguments should give a valid reason, rather than try to wrestle with him semantically.
Well that is what I am doing with my bowling ball. Of course bowling balls obey commands, so I would never use a test that would show otherwise. Likewise, of course the dino bone is too old for C14, so using a C14 test is meaningless.
What you don't seem to understand is that bowling ball command theory is absolute fact. It can not be falsified, because tests that would falsify it are inappropriate.
But in a peer review environment, you don’t get to choose.
Exactly! The protected paradigm wins!!!!! Yay!!! Bowling balls obey commands and that is all there is to it!
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.