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.

[whattajoke]

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.

ain't that nice... I hated calculus, but my criticisms fell upon deaf ears. oh well, maybe my kid will be able to take the easy way out.

[Remedy]

Body by Design - Biology Curriculum, Anatomy, Physiology

[Dataman]

Creationists do not stop at "god did this".

They know that. It's just easier for them to mock than to think.

[whattajoke]

First two chapters of Genesis. That's it. Memorize 'em and you get an "A".

I really hope you are being sarcastic. But then again, if you're not, at least you're showing the true intent of anti evolutionists.

[Commander8]

I saw one of Ken Ham's lectures on video, it was pretty neat stuff.

[Remedy]

See media bias link in post#1

[Dataman]

Will this propsed disclaimer apply to all scientific theories, or just evolution?

Only blind faith religions like evolutionism that are dressed up as "science."

[whattajoke]

Dataman,

I know it hurt your brain to come up with those Steinham-esque colloquialisms, but they are just plain wrong. You find one "comparative anatomist," or geneticist who believes in the literal creation myth, and I'll eat my shirt.

[Ichneumon]

but rather wanted a disclaimer placed in the textbooks that stated that evolution was only a theory, and not necessarily scientifically established fact.

If so, then it's clear that they don't understand the meaning of the words "science", "theory", or "fact", and have no place trying to impose their ideas about them onto science classrooms.

For primers in what all is wrong with the "only a theory" canard, see:

Evolution is a fact and a theory

Five major misconceptions about evolution

Scientific proof?

The general anti-creationism FAQ

Evolution and philosophy

[atlaw]

Hey Dataman. The real world has been hectic of late, so I haven't been able to freep as much as I'd like.

I'm serious, though. I am supposing that the "threat" to the "evolution-only" advocates that is being posited here is either Creation Science or Intelligent Design. Sticking to Creation Science, I really am curious -- what would its curriculum consist of? And yes, I am woefully ignorant of the opposition's position.

[whattajoke]

peer reviewed, that is.

[Dataman]

Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism.

Sound familiar? Afraid of criticism? Evolution is like a tropical flower in Churchill MB. Even if you protect it from the elements it will soon die.

[Remedy]

>>>First two chapters of Genesis. That's it. Memorize 'em and you get an "A".<<<

That would be better than an artistic rendition of rock to man.

[whattajoke]

good question... one which has no answer. Since creation myths are a dime a dozen. geeze, even the bible has a couple competing ones!

[Dataman]

You find one "comparative anatomist," or geneticist who believes in the literal creation myth, and I'll eat my shirt.

Get out the salt and pepper. Lets start with the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, a Monk. You don't have to stop with your shirt.

[whattajoke]

Afraid of criticism?

ummm... no. try again. science is self correcting and eternally critical. that's what peer review and the scientific method is predicated upon. mistakes are made over the millenia, then they are corrected with better science. show me where religion does that, and i'll have my shoes for dessert.

[Dataman]

And yes, I am woefully ignorant of the opposition's position.

And so are many others who feel free to criticize that of which they are ignorant. Why? What gives some of you the built-in superiority to pontificate the truth about matters of which you are ignorant?

[whattajoke]

Gregor Medel? He of the mid 19th century? Wow, good one. So next time someone says the earth revolves aroung the sun, you counter that with some 11 century star gazer? Sheesh.

[MineralMan]

"I really hope you are being sarcastic. But then again, if you're not, at least you're showing the true intent of anti evolutionists.
"

Well, I thought the sarcasm was obvious, but I guess not. I'll try to remember my /sarcasm \sarcasm switches from now on.