Posted on 03/17/2013 12:11:01 PM PDT by eagleye85
Intelligent design is just another form of creationism, creationism is profoundly unscientific, and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms. This, in a nutshell, is the argument of activist Zack Kopplin, a student at Rice University who began his battle against a Louisiana academic freedom law (the Louisiana Science Education Act) while in high school. He is the 2012 winner of the “Troublemaker of the Year Award.”
“Well, this law allows supplemental materials into our school biology classrooms to ‘critique controversial theories like evolution and climate change,’” said Kopplin in a March interview on the Bill Moyers show. “Now, evolution and climate change aren’t scientifically controversial, but they are controversial to Louisiana legislators, and, basically, everyone who looked at this law knew it was just a back door to sneak creationism into public school science classes,” he continues (emphasis added).
As discussed in a previous blog entry, the media likes to condemn as right-wing and fundamentalist the crowd that prefers creationism to evolution. Through the course of an article by the UK’s The Guardian we learn that such laws as those proposed in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma are the product of a religious lobby, further the creationist agenda, and would be a feather in the caps of these two interest groups if these laws were to pass. Readers also learn that these states could be boycotted for their creationist educational laws. Kopplin, of course, is cited in the article for his opposition to the Louisiana law mentioned above. “It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area,” asserted Kopplin to the UK Guardian this January.
This month the media celebrates Kopplin’s “anti-creationism” activism with a full interview on the Bill Moyers show and an interview for the Washington Post. “Today’s fundamentalists, with political support from the Right-wing, are more aggressive than ever in crusading to challenge evolution with the dogma of creationism,” asserted Moyers in his introduction. “But they didn’t reckon on Zack Kopplin.”
“Going to college is tough enough without leading a campaign to stop creationism from being taught in school as an alternative to evolution, but that’s what Zach Kopplin, 19, has been doing for several years,” praises Valerie Strauss in her March 17 article.
“Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve, and creationism is not a scientific alternative,” writes Strauss. “But religious fundamentalists continue to push for creationism to be taught in schools,” she continues (emphasis added.)
In the interview with Moyers, Kopplin rejects several forms of creationism, saying that “Intelligent design specifically rejects evolution, especially on a large scale.”
“Creationists like to break it up into micro/macro evolution. That’s not a legitimate thing,” he asserts. As for creationism, “Essentially, it’s a denial of evolution mainly based off a literal interpretation of Genesis.” Kopplin’s latest vendetta? Voucher programs. ““And so it’s become pretty clear: if you create a voucher program, you’re just going to be funding creationism through the back door,” he said to Moyers. You can real the CATO Institute’s Neal McCluskey’s response to Kopplin here.
“No, potentially serious, negative, unintended consequences could accompany freezing people out of religiously based education,” writes McCluskey. “For instance, traditional Christian morality calls for married, two-parent families, and one of the few things in social science that one would call pretty firmly established is that coming from such a family gives a child a significant leg up. Religious people also tend to have much greater stocks of social capital than the nonreligious, also generally a plus.”
“In light of those things, would it be worth undermining religion because you think creationism is nonsense?”
More proof that evolution is BS. Dinosaurs are not as old as Darwinists want everyone to believe.
That’s true. Science can never prove anything. Science just guesses. The best science can do is guess. A hypothesis can never be proved but it can be disproved with a single test. Soft tissue found in dinosaurs prove that dinosaurs are not millions of years old.
How?
If all dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago, then soft tissue would not be found inside any dinosaur fossils. Soft tissue has been found in dinosaur fossils, therefore, all dinosaurs did not go extinct millions of years ago.
How do you know soft tissue cannot be found in dino fossils that are millions of years old? Why do you believe that?
Yes it is science itself which has disproved the idea that dinosaurs are millions of years old with a single test. Otherwise soft tissue can last millions of years. Do you think soft tissue can last millions of years? I don't. I think it's much more likely that dinosaurs aren't millions of years old at all. Either way, science was wrong. So now the latest scientific discoveries have proved that what scientists have been teaching about the dinosaurs is completely wrong, just like when the idea of a heliocentric solar system replaced the earlier scientific theory of the geocentric Ptolemaic system. Those who cling to outdated and discredited theories such as the theory of evolution are like those who would not accept the evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun. People who "believe" science don't understand science, they just trust that the scientists must know what they are talking about. That's not too smart. People who think for themselves are skeptical and question everything.
I confess, I'm a little lost when it comes to the mathematics of magnetic fields and magnetic moments. One criticism I've read of Humphreys' theories is that he calls anything close to his posited decay rate a confirmation, and I notice at your link that his own figure for "Spacecraft measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field strength" show a wide range whose maximum is just barely within his projection. I'm not sure how impressive that really is.
I also read (Wikipedia) that "Whether the magnetic field changed to any significant degree between the Mariner 10 mission and the MESSENGER mission remains an open question. A 1988 J.E.P. Connerney and N.F. Ness review of the Mariner magnetic data noted eight different papers in which were offered no less than fifteen different mathematical models of the magnetic field." So Humphreys may be cherry-picking the measurements that "confirm" his theory and ignoring others.
Tell me about evolution’s.
I already mentioned the flu. Another is that isolated populations in different environments will evolve into distinct species. This has been observed many times--my favorite example are the lizards which, only 36 years after being introduced to a Mediterranean island, evolved whole new structures in their stomachs. If creation is not ongoing, as you say, it seems like it'd be pretty hard to explain where those new structures came from.
The stock creationist/intelligent design response is that the information for those structures was present in the lizards' genes and just got expressed in the new environment--i.e., adaptation not evolution. My question in response is why intelligent design advocates aren't looking for unexpressed information in various animals' genes and making predictions about what could be expressed in the right environment--that seems like it'd be a fruitful avenue of inquiry and, if successful, would lend a lot of weight to the theory. But somehow, none of them seem to be doing that.
So you think soft tissue can last millions of years? Is there some reason you don’t want to answer that question? Maybe because the answer will make you look very foolish? People who believe whatever politicized “science” the government schools force down our throats also believe that human activity is the main cause of climate change. I’m smart enough not to buy into that BS. You on the other hand just go ahead and believe whatever them gubmint scientists say. You can trust them. You can always trust and believe in government “science” and government schools. Good for you.
Oh so you DON”T think tissue can last millions of years then? That’s good, because that would be pretty funny if you actually believed that.
No evidence supports the argument that the tissue is not dinosaur tissue. Do you care? Or will you in your wisdom reject anything that challenges your preconceived guesses based on nothing but your own personal disbelief?
Where do they find these un-fossilized dinosaur bones?
How will you know the results of such a test whether the results are reliable? There is no control group. The test itself is as much a theory as what it is the test is supposed to be measuring.
Is the objective to actually find the truth, or to manufacture evidence?
You're aware that the evidence you cite is based on evolutionary theory, right?
I can't speak for stormer, but for me, I find it a lot easier to believe that, under the right conditions, fragmentary bits of soft tissue can be preserved inside fossilized bones for 70 million years than that the methods of determining the ages of rocks and fossils developed over the past 200 years are millions of years off. The latter is like claiming the heliocentric theory is right after all; the former is like finding an asteroid that orbits the earth rather than the sun. They're not equivalent challenges.
Haha, that’s funny! You are so psychologically attached to your junk science that you actually believe that soft tissue can last tens of millions of years! That’s pathetic. Y’all are stupid!
Hey, Einstein, would you maybe like to explain how that is possible? Since you are such a scientific genius, maybe you can explain to me how soft tissue could possibly last ten of millions of years and why science was wrong when it said that was impossible. Maybe you can find the answer at the atheist internet chatroom where you “learned science.” BWAHAHAHAHA!
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.