Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

[Dimensio]

but some of his evidence was faked (The moth or butterfly, I forget which)

Are you referring to the pepper moth example? An illustration of natural selection was shown regarding a population of pepper moths in London (I think that it was London). During the industrial revolution, the trees became covered in soot, which made the typically white pepper moths easier to spot by predator birds. The population of white moths dwindled but a previously smaller population of black moths (until then a genetic anomoly) thrived because they suddenly were able to blend in against the sooty trees. Once the air was cleaned up, the trees returned to their original colour and the populations reversed (I think that is the gist of the story, someone correct me if I am wrong).

A few creationists, either incredibly dishonest or very stupid, used the fact that dead moths were glued to bark samples as "proof" that the research was faked. Nevermind of course that the images of two moths, one black and one white, against two different bark samples was merely illustrative and never presented as a 'live' snapshot, since it would have been incredibly difficult to obtain the needed shots in the wild (because animals typically won't pose upon request).

[RaceBannon]

God didnt explain the big bang theory like that because God didnt make the universe in the order that evolutionists claim He did.

All who claim to believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time should stop and think of that.

[Last Visible Dog]

You are either sadly misinformed, or you are "bearing false witness." To claim that ID has nothing to do with creationism is an out and out, bald faced lie. The ID movement loves to have people like you in the world though, since you would be one of their success stories. I can see them now, "Hey! We got another one believing there's actual science behind our shady christian movement!"

Yeah. Right. There is only one theory of cosmology that includes design and it is owned by "Creationists"

You really don't know what you are talking about. Creationist have a movement called "Intelligent Design" (notice the capital letters) but this not the only theory of cosmology that includes design. See what happens when you spend so much time arguing against straw men of you own creation.

[Dimensio]

Schools should simply explain both theories

I'm aware of evolutionary theories (there are more than one), but I'm not aware of a duality. What is this "other" theory?

[Sonny M]

see post 217. That being said, Let me clear this now. I am not a creationist. My gripe, has been that we do not encourage kids today to study into a field more. If someone wants to do research on evolution, and many people who support evolution do, they are automatically stigmatized as being creationists. The theory is not perfect,especially considering how much scientific progress has been made since his death, I would like people to either fill in on all the holes, and get something, solid and perfect, that is a fact. I feel like the choices I am given, are , as I mentioned in an earlier post. What does 2+2=, is it 5 or 3?

[Dimensio]

Creation will win, for the clear evidence approves it

I don't suppose that you could point out some evidence for "Creation"...

[f.Christian]

How about tradition (( religious liberty )) ...

modern ---

post modern (( evolution )) ====> tyranny (( science nazis // experts !

Anarcho-loons for short !

[js1138]

Thereafter, each chapter looks at an icon of biological education. Two icons - evolving peppered moths and "Haeckel's embryos," which look alike - are fakes used to teach evolutionary concepts, he argues. The other icons, he says, are cynically used despite heated debate over their validity in specialized fields. These icons are: the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs, the Archaeopteryx fossil, Darwin's finches, the four-winged fruit fly, fossil horses, and the "ultimate icon" - human evolution.

"There is a pattern here that demands an explanation," Mr. Wells says.

There most certainly is. ;^)

[ThinkPlease]

I don't think very many public schools have a sociology or comparative religions course...the only place left to introduce these theories would be science or maybe world history or even geography. I can't see a problem if they're introduced as a theories.

But, as far as I know they are not scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory any more than Flat Earthism or a Geocentric worldview. If you could share with me a scientific theory of Creationism that has some basis in fact, I would be greatly appreciative.

[stuartcr]

The creationist theory.

[Sonny M]

I wish you had told prentice hall and several other grade and high school text books that, they have been using them as actual proofs and not visual images or examples and present them as live snapshots, and have done so for years. Now, I do not believe this was done with intent, alot of text books are just careless, The history books we have today, aside from the PC stuff, are horrid with fact checking.

[ThinkPlease]

I totally agree. (including evolution as cosomology)

I suspect that your definition of cosmology is not the same as mine. Would you share yours?

[Aric2000]

Evolution is science, it says nothing about creationism, creationists are the ones that started this little argument.

If you wish to believe in creationism as the ONLY way for Jesus to have to had to come back to save us from original sin, the please do so, and have a great life, but do not expect science to change it's views because it might hurt your faith.

Evolution is science, creationism is the LITERAL use of gensis as the true story of creation, and religion.

Keep your religion in the churches and in the homes, and science will teach about it's latest and greatest theories so that children can learn critical thinking skills, although, in public school that is frowned upon, critical thinking, that is.

Now, you are preaching to woman, who has come to her own conclusions, she has critical thinking skills, but YOU have decided that YOU have the right answer, and that she is wrong and must be saved.

Perhaps, YOU are the one that is wrong and needs to be saved, maybe she is right, and has the one true answer, and all of your preaching, if it indeed changes her mind, will condemn her, just as you are condemned, if she is right and you are wrong.

I just love it when people start this stuff.

YOU MUST BELIEVE LIKE ME, because I am right!!!

Are you so sure?

[Sonny M]

Remember the old saying, when you "assume".......

[Aliska]

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

We don't know if he intended parables to apply to the entirety of the bible or to his teachings only.

He didn't seem to think manna in the desert was a parable, or did He? Or that Melchizidek was merely a symbol. Or that there was no exodus. Or that the water from the rock was merely a figure, an allegory, a metaphor. Or Sodom and Gomorrah wouldn't really be judged on that day because they were merely fictitious to teach a spiritual lesson.

[Stultis]

and get something, solid and perfect, that is a fact

Science can't do that. ALL scientific claims are subject to revision. This is even true of scientific facts.

[stuartcr]

Sorry, I almost always have a hard time understanding you.

[Last Visible Dog]

I did not make up ONE little bit of that post.

When I say that creationists have said it, I mean it, I never said ALL creationists, you are the one that put that in there.

Based on your own words you claim you are in a position to tell us what a typical Creationist thinks. Your words:

Your typical creationist lives in a very fragile world; if any part of his carefully-constructed world view is questioned, it threatens to bring the rest of his psyche crashing down around his shoulders.

While it is true you did not say you know what all Creationists think, you did say you know what most Creationists think. Unless you did a long exhaustive scientific study of what Creationists really think - you made it up.

Orthodox Darwinists, gotta love that.....LOL

I wouldn't call it love. zealots are zealots.

[PatrickHenry]

Testing new tagline.

[Sonny M]

By the way, another Freeper, knows what I am talking about and clarified it in post 221, and I gave back what I thought in 231, that should clarify.