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.

[King Prout]

precisely

[Ichneumon]

["I made no denigration of "holy scripture"."[

You are now waffling.

No, I am most certainly not. I'm pointing out that you're completely unable to exhibit basic reading comprehension, even after I have explained to you the source of your error. And I don't appreciate you making more false accusations against me.

You attack a directly quoted part of scripture that says all mankind came from those on the Ark.

No, I did not, as I already pointed out to you in the post to which you are responding. Please, learn to read. If you're still having trouble, get your Mommy to help you with the big words.

You used profanity to describe it.

I used [censored] profanity to describe your false claim about biology. Scripture had nothing to do with it.

Waffle all you want, you attacked scripture and those that hold it true.

Go ahead, tell another falsehood. God loves peope who bear false witness. Oh, wait, no He doesn't.

Now if you don't accept it as literally true, then so be it. However, be honest and stand by your comments.

I am being honest and I am standing by my comments -- the ones I ACTUALLY MADE, as opposed to the ones you HALLUCINATE I made.

BTW - Please stop using childish insults, it just makes you look vulgar and crude.

The only truly childish insults here are the ones you're making, falsely accusing me of a blasphemy I never made.

Here, again, is my explanation of what I did and did not say:

Clue for the clueless: You wrote that five distinct sets of genomes would "ensure sufficient genetic diversity to account for all current races and ethnic groups." No, it wouldn't, not even close. You said this without any actual knowledge of whether it was true or not, you just confidently posted your wild presumption as if it were fact. Under the circumstances, I was rather kind to you. People who do that sort of thing generally need to get rhetorically smacked, if for no other reason than to get them to think twice before doing it again in the future. I called this false claim of yours "utter bull***t", and it is. I made no denigration of "holy scripture". Learn to read.

Again I ask you, learn to read. What I correctly called "utter bull***t" was your false claim about five people being enough to account for all modern genetic diversity. Period. Deal with it. That says nothing about whether the Ark story might be true or not, it just says that *your* notions about it being strictly compatible with modern genetics without additional miracles is, well, horse manure. Genesis stands on its own -- *you* on the other hand need to work up a better reconciliation between genetics and scripture than the one *you* came up with. Don't blame *that* on scripture, since you didn't get it *from* scripture, or say that I'm attacking scripture for pointing out the flaws in *your* non-scriptural claim. Are we clear now?

Look, you're apparently one of those fellows who gets a weird sense of self-righteousness out of feeling religiously persecuted, but I regret to inform you that you're going to have to wait until a real one comes along, because this ain't it.

[King Prout]

beer?

[Sola Veritas]

"Trying to browbeat people by using the Bible in poor quality arguments and then complaining when you are called on it speaks against your sincerity."

It was not my intent to "browbeat" anyone with scripture. In truth, if one doesn't believe in scripture then it would be a useless weapon to beat them with. Also, I was not attempting to prove the truth of creationism by quoting scripture, because as I just stated, it is not a common frame of reference. It would be meaningless as a means of proof to those holding naturalistic only views.

The whole reason I even got involved in this thread is that way back someone was incredious that another poster had indicated that all persons today descended from Noah and his sons. I simply stated that is what the Bible clearly teaches and I didn't expect them to believe it. I was just affirming what the person was incredious about to be correct. It wasn't meant to be an apologetic. Just a simple statement of what scripture plainly states. If you will read everything I wrote, I never said anything about evolution. I just affirmed a belief in scripture that many hold.

Then someone, I can't remember which one, proceeded to use profanity (forbidden on this forum) to describe a clear statement I made directly relating what scripture says. Now you can call me whatever you want, but attacking scripture with profanity is off limits. If what I quoted was so backward, then they should have ignored it - it was a single very small post. However, they couldn't keep from making derogulatory, and profanely so, statements about the veracity of scripture and those that believe it.

I am somewhat bemused that they would even bother. I wasn't talking about what they call "science", which is supposedly their concern. I was briefly quoting "scripture." They are openly hostile towards scripture, a fact I then became interested in nailing down. This doesn't prove or disprove anything relative to evolution or creationism, but it does show where folks values are.

If you don't believe it, fine. Just don't go out of your way to slap those that do. I did not slap them, but I did point out their lack of common decency. Some of these folks just pontificate way too much. Their vanity is distressing. They maintain these enormous lists of all their great "posts" like they were military decorations. I cannot understand what drives them. They maintain some sort of constant vigil looking for someone to even remotely express a faith that would conflict with their "paradigm." Then they pounce and add another "link" to their list of decorations. Is this really "sane" behavior?

OK, I have now written more than I should. I being as bad as those I escew. Time for me to shut up.

[From many - one.]

Do you know the difference between profanity and vulgarity?

You expressed a position that Noah, sons and spouses could have populated the earth is not biologically valid.

You might have said that it was miraculous and probably no one would have called you on it. Biologically it doesn't work.

What do you have against miracles?

[Sola Veritas]

"Are we clear now?"

Indeed we are. You are clearly deeply in love with yourself, and totally dishonest. Is that clear?

[Sola Veritas]

"Biologically it doesn't work"

I disagree.

[wintertime]

And you are forgetting that the teaching of evolution has religious CONSEQUENCES for those children not of your persuasion. ( wintertime)

Such "consequences" have no bearing on the truth value of the theory. It is not the fault of reality that it does not happen to conform with the religious beliefs of a subset of the population.( Dimensio)>

While I agree with you that consequences have no bearing on truth, I disagree with you about government forcing this truth on resistant parents and children precisely because it has religious consequences.

Parents and children do have a constitutional right NOT to subject themselves to either evolution or ID. They also have a constitutional right NOT to associate with those who espouse either. Do you remember the freedom of assembly clause in the First Amendment?

The Amish claimed that government schools undermined the religious belief of their children. They took it to the Supreme Court and won. Amish parents have the constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, even if you disagree with it. If it is true for the Amish it is true for other parents who do not want children subjected to evolution, whether you like or not.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"They also have a constitutional right NOT to associate with those who espouse either. Do you remember the freedom of assembly clause in the First Amendment?"

They also have a right to homeschool.

[Dimensio]

Parents and children do have a constitutional right NOT to subject themselves to either evolution or ID. They also have a constitutional right NOT to associate with those who espouse either. Do you remember the freedom of assembly clause in the First Amendment?

Are you suggesting that information should not be presented in a public school if it may conflict with the religious belief of a student?

[From many - one.]

You haven't acknowledged the distinction between vulgarity (a mild one, at that) and profanity.

What are your credentials for disagreeing with the reproducive rate of humans? If no credentials, where are your premises and calculations?

[Ichneumon]

["Are we clear now?" ]

Indeed we are.

Apparently not, since you persist in repeating the falsehoods I have repeatedly corrected you on:

You are clearly deeply in love with yourself, and totally dishonest.

You are clearly grossly mistaken, and unable to deal with it in an honorable manner, so rather than deal wtih what I actually wrote -- by agreeing, stating your reasons for disagreeing, working to reach an understanding, or by any other honorable method, you choose instead to just blow it off and insult me by making false accusations in the hopes that no one will notice that you failed to directly deal with the manner in which I exposed your various errors.

Is that clear?

Yes, it is entirely clear that you are acting dishonorably, since you have in no way established that I have been dishonest in any way, for I have not, and you have now shown yourself to be incapable of dealing with the fact that you have falsely slandered me, when I have explained in detail exactly what I did and did not say, yet you persist in telling falsehoods about it, and in running away from having an actual discussion about it. You attempt to disingage without admitting your error or apologizing for it by issuing a childish one-line fit of spite. Is this behavior in keeping with your professed moral ideals? It does not appear so from here.

[Ichneumon]

["Biologically it doesn't work"]

I disagree.

...without a shred of supporting evidence or argument...

[Ichneumon]

beer?

What, you're offering to buy?

[King Prout]

yes.
do you prefer cases or kegs?

[Ichneumon]

do you prefer cases or kegs?

Yes.

[Nickey]

Thank you for clarification. I will try to ignore my Christianity more so I can be respectible scientist.

[wintertime]

Are you suggesting that information should not be presented in a public school if it may conflict with the religious belief of a student?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Government schools should be abolished.

Government schools violate the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly, as well as free speech, free press, and free expression of religious belief.

Government schools should be abolished.

Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K=12 education.

Also, government schools can never be neutral in content or consequences politically, culturally, or morally, ethically, and values ( that means religious worldview). The government WILL establish the worldview ( with religious consequences) of the more politically powerful and trash that of the weaker citizens. This means that they violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment as well.

Government schools are compulsory for those with no alternative. Since they are a price-fixed monopoly and burden citizens with high taxes, alternatives are not likely for many. This means they imprison children who have committed no crime. ( violation of the 13th Amendment)

Once in a compulsory government school prison, the government subjects a child to a curriculum and school policies that often undermines the teachings in the homes. This violates the 17th Amendment in that it is parents not government who are to direct the upbringing of their children.

[wintertime]

They also have a right to homeschool.

##########

The government is running a system of price-fixed monopoly schools. When private schools are scarce due to the hostile business climate created by the price-fixed government schools, government threatens parents with armed police, court, and foster care action if they don't send their child to local government school indoctrination camp.

Also....since government schools have the power of armed police to collect taxes. When high taxes burden parents and both are forced into the work place, the government threatens parents with police, court, and foster care if the government schools are not used.

Geeze! Some "choice". Government school attendance or armed police.

By the way,,,,MORE than $10,833 per government schooled K-12 child every year. ( federal, state, and local combined). There are NO private schools in my city that cost this much,,,not even the most exclusive. More is spent on government K-12 education in this nation than on the military.