Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
There is not an atheist political movement regarding evolution? From the beginning with Darwin there was the Young Guard and the X-Club.
We hear about the ‘Wedge Document’ all the time but what about the ‘Bright Movement’ ?
The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Creationism is not science, nor is ID, to teach them beside an actual scientific theory, is changing the definition of science to young minds that don't know better.
Here is a good example of what you are saying.
The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.Lets see what else they say.
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?
Anytime preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.
To which you replied:
They hold high positions at universities and write books that are required reading in some universities.
Horrors!
It is not science. It is not research.
People who believe they have found the "Truth" (for whatever reason), do not keep looking for it and actively reject any contradicting fact or truth, no matter how obvious to everyone else, when it pops it's ugly head up, as it must inevitably do.
Materialist Evolutionist-a non-teleological position that affirms that only apparent, not real design, exists in the abiotic and biotic realms. Causes for the creation and subsequent development of these realms are attributed only to natural processes."Weak" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Weak" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms the recognition, but not empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Corporeal Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the biotic realm by a being(s) with physical bodies, having designed biological complexity at some point during the past 4.5 billion years, with or without using universal common ancestry (e.g., panspermia and Raelianism, respectively).
Intrinsic Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realm by a Being who is wedded to/one with the universe, and who has causally acted since its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Deistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic realm by a transcendent, Deistic Being who has causally acted only during its initial formation. Natural processes are the only factors that have brought about and shaped biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
"Strong" Theistic Evolution-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed biological complexity via universal common ancestry during the past 4.5 billion years.
Old-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity during the past 4.5 billion years.
Young-Earth Creationism-a teleological position that affirms recognition and detectability of real design in the abiotic and biotic realms by a transcendent, Theistic Being who has causally acted both during and after its initial formation, having designed discontinuous biological complexity approximately 6,000 years ago. As mentioned above, ID is not included among the teleological positions in Table 1 or Figure 2. Its definition is given here, followed by a rationale for its location on the Nested Hierarchy of Design
Intelligent Design-a teleological position that affirms recognition and empirical detectability of real design in the abiotic and/or biotic realms.
form here
Whomever wrote this has a problem with comprehension.
What Shermer was saying is that religion, all religion, whether Christian or not, is a result of the societal values that evolved along with larger group sizes based on the physical evolution of the human species. Shermer through his statements quite clearly removes the need for a supernatural God, because our morals are the result of our physical evolution. In other words, we created God, he did not create us.
I doubt very much that most Christians would conclude that Shermer is agreeing with their belief system when he completely removes the need for a God.
The author of the blurb you quoted and linked needs to rethink at least one statement.
And you fear what? Creation science?
Again, what does this have to do with the theory of evolution being science?
There are all kinds of religious and nonreligious groups out there, but none of them are doing science.
Science is objective, it looks at the evidence, and follows it to a conclusion, whereas a group that has an agenda, takes the conclusion, and fits the evidence to it. Having a conclusion at the front end, is not science.
Creation science, is an oxymoron.
There is a conclusion, creation, therefore it cannot be science.
When you start a project with a preconcieved conclusion, you are not practicing science, you are practicing propaganda.
I'd say they were like modern renaissance men, both scientists and theologians. Rather in the mold of Newton.
What percent of professors are atheist?
Do the atheist professors present different material than the theist professors?
Are grads hired based on the type of professors they have or the material they have been taught?
Would the theist professors sit idly by while the atheist professors taught material they disagreed with scientifically?
During a 4 year degree, what is the probability that a student will have only atheist professors?
You are aware that both theistic and atheistic professors agree when it comes to teaching the SToE?
According to historian James Moore (1982), however, around 1840 a new movement of young middle-class reformers calling themselves "Naturalists" appeared. This group as young adults typically changed their creed from Christianity (which they felt was morally bankrupt) to one based on "Nature." They were "poets and lawyers, doctors and manufacturers, novelists and naturalists, engineers and politicians." The group included such well-known individuals as George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Francis Galton, J. A. Froude, G. H. Lewes, Charles Bray, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Tyndall, F. W. Newman, A. H. Clough, Harriet Martineau, F. P. Cobbe, and, of course, T. H. Huxley. Moore shows that the central feature of this new creed was the redefinition of human nature, society, order, law, evil, progress, purpose, authority, and nature itself in terms of the Naturalists' particular view of Nature, as opposed to the Christian Scriptures. In fact, they tended to attack the Christian Scriptures as the true source of societal evil. God, if he existed, was to be known only through the Nature which he made. Thus, according to Moore (1982) and Young (1980), "positivism" was not primarily a methodology for science, but a religious movement that sought to replace the cultural dominance of the Established Church.Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.
The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the world views of its proponents. The "Naturalism" that initially proposed and supported Darwin's mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley's "X" club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.
source
Creation "science" is not science. See post #822, above, for one example why.
And contemporary ID, the illegitimate stepchild of creation "science" is exposed completely by The Wedge Strategy.
If not, go back to your room. Us adults have real things to discuss.
= = = =
LOL! ROTFLOL!
Welll, clearly the Pope of Scientism has spoken. The Papal edict, has been issued! All the nonbelieving serfs must kowtow in subservient submission!
"real thing" to discuss? LOL. extrapolations based on wishful thinking based on CHAOTIC CHANCE PLUS TIME and BRAZEN assumptions about millions of years ago--10's of millions of years ago and more . . . when there were no human observers . . .
And the assertion is that THOSE pontifications
are MORE REAL than mine!
ROTFLOL! Must be in training for stand-up comedy.
WRONG AGAIN! DING, DING, DING! WRONG AGAIN!
Linda Moulton Howe is probably the best expert.
As extensive research has demonstrated, the hoaxers produce quite a minority of the crop circles.
But I've cited the VERY SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED FACTS BEFORE--FACTS PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWD JOURNALS.
Supposedly the priests of scientism respect peer reviewed journals in truly scientific journals
EXCEPT WHEN THE ARTICLES CONTRADICT THEIR DOCTRINES OF FAITH IN 'CHAOTIC CHANCE PLUS TIME = ORDER' NONSENSE.
So, it's clear that their assertions and contentions are bankrupt. They no more respect peer reviewed journals than they respect Shrillery's farts. They only respect their own specific doctrinal arrogance, smugness and pontifications.
No real surprise there.
Such ignorance about crop circles coupled with such strident hostile, derisive pontifications. Evidently in the realms of the religion of scientism, pontifical bombast correlates highly in a positive direction with the level of ignorance about the topic.
So you also prove you don't understand TToE.
Really, I mean it. There are grown-ups here discussing grown-up things.
Go start a Religion thread where you can post your all-capital proclamations of willful ignorance until the cows come home.
The CR/IDer Trifecta.
" Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.
Charles Darwin started his travels aboard the Beagle very much a Christian and a supporter of Paley's complexity from design argument. He did not go into his work with the idea that his faith would be challenged and didn't become an agnostic until, and because of, the death of his daughter. The development of Origin of Species was based on years of meticulous work not some preconceived idea that it must fit a Naturalistic philosophy.
"The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the world views of its proponents. The "Naturalism" that initially proposed and supported Darwin's mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley's "X" club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.
The mechanism of natural selection was proposed simultaneously by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace who was not a naturalist but a spiritualist.
Darwin's ideas about evolution were used as a tool by Naturalists, Darwin's ideas were not derived from the Naturalist philosophy.
You don't believe them, but insist on some extraterrestrial or other extraordinary cause.
You better bring some real evidence to the table.
And some explanation why these suddenly appeared, and have increased in complexity, and are only found in certain areas.
They grow wheat in Kansas, and the Palouse, and a lot of other countries. Where are all the circles in those areas?
I think you better start producing some data.
So you also prove you don't understand TToE.
Really, I mean it. There are grown-ups here discussing grown-up things.
= = = =
PROVE?
Is THAT the sort of thing you accept as proof? No wonder TToE attracts such a construction on reality? LOL.
What a farce of logic and reason! And probably with a straight face!
Grown ups? Coulda fooled me! LOL.
I wonder if I'd need all of one or two fingers to count the differences between this "evidence" and the claims of who's is longer around a campfire populated by 14 year olds.
However, tweaking your sensibilities does lose attractiveness eventually. LOL.
Eventually, you'll come across some maturity you'll find not only difficult to be so derisive about--but IMPOSSIBLE to be derisive about. That should be an interesting moment.
Thankfully, all on this thread will be aware of it.
Not sure how such is engineered but It's my understanding that it is persistently. LOL.
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.