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.

[Oldie]

You are right. It is also funny how many biologists are supposed to believe in "creation science". I have spent all my adult life on university campuses and I have never even met a biologist with real academic credentials who believed in "creation science."

[AmericaUnited]

And what did'nt you understand about what I posted?

[general_re]

Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.

Dear Darwin-Central: Your check bounced. Please eliminate creationism from schools so that I might continue to redeem my frequent-evolution-advocate points. I was only 300 points away from jumping up to the next pay scale, along with receiving the complimentary hibachi/radioisotope fakery kit.

yrs,
G.R.

[MineralMan]

So, you were completely off the topic, then. BTW, it's "fogie," not "folgie." Newton revolutionized Physics, but got it wrong, sadly. His theories work more or less on the surface of this planet, but don't work when things get bigger or smaller than that. He was good, for his time, but wrong.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[f.Christian]

You never answered my question ---

"You think the geologic column formed from the above ? ? ?"

All of it ?

How much of it formed from below ?

No pre cambrian fossils ? Why ? ?

[general_re]

Teleology (the assumption of purposiveness) has been the most scientifically productive metaphsyical assumptions in the history of science.

"Useful" != "True".

[atlaw]

I followed your link, and under the heading "GOOD SCIENCE: A K-6 PLAN FOR EXCELLENCE" I found the following:

"The aims and objectives of "Good Science" curricula are designed to: a) develop the necessary skills in the critical thought and decision-makin,process [sic], as well as the process skills of scientific inquiry; b) develop activity-oriented materials that are cost effective for all home school and Christian school classrooms; c) develop activities that are challenging at the higher levels of learning taxonomy, as well as being intellectually exciting; d) develop a science curriculum that is interdisciplinary in nature; e) develop a clear creation-centered approach that expresses God as the Creator and Master Designer of all things. Man is always man; dog is always dog; frog is always frog; and plants and animals always reproduce fter [sic] their kind. In all activities, the Creator is given redit [sic] for the order and design that is bserved [sic] in the world around us. This scope-and-sequence" illustration for "Good Science—Under the Attributes ot [sic] God" provides evidence of God's creation in both the physical and life sciences."

This curriculum seems kind of thin (what is a "kind" after all), and it clearly preaches the Chrisitan perspective. Do you think this should be the curriculum in a public school science class?

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the absence of science (( design -- Law )) // philosophy // reality // SANITY--- brains and common sense too !

[Junior]

No pre cambrian fossils ? Why ? ?

Plenty of Pre-Cambrian // Vendian // fossils! What!!

[jennyp]

The issue is that if you want to try to criticize a scientific viewpoint, do it in the peer-reviewed science journals where it belongs. Don't try to make science classrooms your battleground -- schoolkids don't have the background to be the jury on that debate, which is probably why creationists are trying to drag their challenge there instead of doing it in front of actual scientists.

BINGO!

Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.
Wm. Dembski, Then and Only Then -- A Reply to Mike Gene, ARN discussion board, 7/26/2002

This is laughable. Dembski doesn't think ID can survive unless they get to them in High School, right when they're starting to learn the basics of mainstream biology. He thinks that by the time they become grad students they'll have been thoroughly brainwashed by mainstream theories and utterly unable to conceive of new ideas that go against the grain.

Ah, but it doesn't even begin there! Dembski has visions of ID being taught even earlier...

Building a design curriculum is educational in the broadest sense. It includes not just textbooks, but everything from research monographs for professors and graduate students to coloring books for preschoolers. It needs to take full advantage of the technologies and media at our disposal -- CD ROMs, Videos, DVDs, computer animation, e-learning, and more. The videos Unlocking the Mystery of Life's Origin and Icons of Evolution are exemplary in this regard. So too is the cartoon book What's Darwin Got to Do with It?, which provides a perfect lead-in for students about to study high school biology.
Wm. Dembski, Becoming a Disciplined Science, RAPID Conference speech, 2002

[VadeRetro]

How do creationists spin the news? They forget to mention that the 200 scientists of the main story are all named "Steve." Agape Press will control your horizontal and your vertical. No adjustment to your set is necessary.

The spin? "We'll concentrate on how desperate they must be to rub our noses in how rinky-dink we are."

[f.Christian]

Pathetic ... worms // shells ---

you're gonna base you're whole (( hole )) world on trivia trinkets --- JUNK !

And shove it down everyone's throat ? ?

Evo matrix -- checkerboard playschool garbage --- TYRANNY !

[Junior]

Ah, typical creationist. You claim there were no fossils. I showed you fossils. Now you claim they're "pathetic." Hey, I don't make these things up.

[metacognative]

If that was funny, maybe it wouldn't sound so ignorant. Creation 'science has many interesting evidences for a young earth. If they were easy to refute, they would be refuted instead of banned by the Established Religion of Darwinites.

[Dataman]

I guess you don't know eiter [sic] then, or else surely you would have answered the question. Feel free to take a stab at it -- note that the word "science" is included in the question, so tailor your answer appropriately.

You are mistaken again. Not all ignorant questions deserve an answer. Note I did not answer all of your questions. Some questions are designed only to detract from the issue at hand, as is yours. If the issue is painful, change the subject.

I'm not sure I should attempt an answer to your question because any attempt at an answer casts a shadow on your education. Although I don't intend to belittle your intelligence let me say that any discipline except evolution lays out a path of understanding that includes opposing theories.

Therefore the first step in developing a systematic approach to any subject is defining terms.

The second step is summarizing opposing theories.

The third step is showing the weaknesses of the opposing theories.

The fourth step is to show why your position is superior.

Now that I've helped you understand the solution to the problem, feel free to apologize for the accusation. Feel free also to implement this approach in the public schools. Wait--- maybe that's why you asked?

[Dataman]

Is anyone here in favor of letting an atheist in Sunday school to teach the possiblity that god does not exist ?

Go ahead. We all need a good laugh.

[jennyp]

If that was funny, maybe it wouldn't sound so ignorant. Creation 'science has many interesting evidences for a young earth. If they were easy to refute, they would be refuted instead of banned by the Established Religion of Darwinites.

Please recite for us the evidences for a young earth that you find most convincing.

[Dataman]

I can't say I find that terribly convincing.

Some of you have well demonstrated an amazing capacity for rejecting truth. Alan Bloom had a pithy quote about it in The Closing of the American Mind, but I've misplaced my copy.

[Saturnalia]

Wow, a verifiable loony called you an idiot.
HOW DO YOU FEEL?