Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[From many - one.]

Sorry, I missed you on the ping.

[King Prout]

thy portion shall be as large and as warm as had you never sneezed over the pot.

go in pasta.
ramen.

[trashcanbred]

...considerable amount of dispute over the aging of fossils (some fossils have been recently found with soft-tissue) how does that support your position?

There isn't considerable amount of dispute over aging of fossils. The only ones disputing it is people like yourself. And the soft-tissue issue means what? Go ahead and Carbon 14 date it if you think it is less than 5000 years old. What do you think you will find?

LiteKeeper, have you noticed I have been justifying my position quite well yet when I ask you a question you seem rather mute? I guess you don't really have any scientific proof to back up ID so... better for you to keep quite about it, right?

[js1138]

Sorry, we oppose certain interpretations of science.

According to the Discovery Institute, the key thing they disagree with is empiricism.

[King Prout]

pithy.

[js1138]

How's this: according to Behe, testifying under oath, you would have to change the definition of science to admit ID into the realm of science.

I presume this would be the same kind of change that would allow finding valid instances of ESP, proof of real UFOs, pyramid power, homeopathic medicine, and such.

[King Prout]

yeah, I recall the trial transcripts.

I believe you might wish to edit your second sentence.

[js1138]

There might be real spaceships among all the UFO noise, but I doubt that an honest investigation will find it. When the visitors want us to know about them, we'll know.

Personally, I'd bet my life against a hundred bucks it ain't gonna happen in the next 30 years.

[LiteKeeper]

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it. You have not done that. So, your accusation that I have no scientific proof begs the question: many of us have repeatedly presented the results of scientific inquiry on this forum. And repeatedly all we are told is that it isn't scientific. Yet it is work done in science labs and in the field by tenured scientists with the appropriate PhDs. And yet it is rejected.

You tell us repeatedly that creation science is not truly science becuse it can be falsified - and yet we are repeatedly told that it is all false.

So, I am just curious to know what you think the so-called evidence is that we have presented that is false, even though it can't be falsified.

I have never seen an evolutionist on this forum take what evidence has been presented by us and deal directly with our assertions. As I said above, you simply dismiss it out of hand. That amounts to neither good debate, nor scientific inquiry.

BTW - not a single creationist has ever said that it is sufficient to say, "God did it, end of story." That is absurd and totally false.

[js1138]

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it.

It is rather difficult to quantify the creationist position, since it seems to have unique properties for each individual. There is no unifying statement of history equivalent to the biologist's assertion of common descent, or the geologist's estimate of the age of the earth.

[King Prout]

I presume this would be the same kind of change that would allow finding valid instances of ESP, proof of real UFOs, pyramid power, homeopathic medicine, and such.

the point I wished to make was that science, as it stands now, does allow finding VALID instances of all of the above. The type of change Behe would have would remove the empirical standards.

[trashcanbred]

My original request was for you to present what you believe the Creationist position is, even if you disagree with it

Wrong. I started this conversation at post #3

I still don't understand how creationism is science. Do we teach that gravity is an intelligent hand pushing you down? Scientists don't normally give up and say "Well... I am not sure of the answer so it must be designed that way by some unknown (or known) intelligence". That doesn't seem to be science to me

Your response was Post #29 was:

Go study creationism before you make stupid remarks about it.

[From many - one.]

I'm up for your challenge.

Give me a piece of evidence for Creation without evolution.

[From many - one.]

My tongue hurts.

[Coyoteman]

I have never seen an evolutionist on this forum take what evidence has been presented by us and deal directly with our assertions. As I said above, you simply dismiss it out of hand. That amounts to neither good debate, nor scientific inquiry.

Actually several posters address creationist claims in detail on occasion. Ichneuman comes to mind (so ping to him).

The problem is, your evidence goes back to the bible and to your belief in it and in its accuracy.

"Evolutionists" generally rely on materialistic data and interpretations (just the sort of thing the Discovery Institute rails about in their Wedge Document).

So in many of these threads when "evolutionists" challenge the scientific claims of creationists we see one of two results:

• First, the evolutionists are accused of being anti-god, anti-religion, atheists, nazis, or worse.

• Second, when backed into a corner with scientific data and theory, creationists often resort to 1) permutations of science that would fail in the fourth grade, 2) quoting the bible (Elsie comes to mind, so I am pinging him), 3) stubborn disbelief, or 4) artful dodging.

An alternate approach would be to say that your evidence is junk science at best, but most evolutionists are more polite than that. I have seen hundreds of threads where folks have posted a great deal of science, both text and links, only to have it ridiculed as spam, too long to read, nothing but links, nothing but text, not applicable, wrong, or some such. It is very common to have responses that are merely curt dismissals of well-reasoned and widely-accepted data and theory.

Hope this discussion helps.

[LiteKeeper]

it seems to have unique properties for each individual

No it doesn't. That is a cop out. Go to Answers In Genesis , the Discovery Institute, or the Institute for Creation Research or even Access Research Network for a consistent, clear statement of what creation science is all about. It is NOT a uniquely individual set of properties.

True Origins

Ashby Camp's Link page

[phantomworker]

That's funny. How many did you miss?

[js1138]

You are correct that my sentence was poorly worded. What I intended to convey is that the changes to sciences required by Behe and the ID movement would make the current claims valid.

[LiteKeeper]

The problem is, your evidence goes back to the bible and to your belief in it and in its accuracy.

Wrong!

[King Prout]

I suspected that was so, and concur. thank you for clarification.