No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?
Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent.
Does this include you?
I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.
(this IS Free Republic after all, backing up a bit, are you even familiar with conservatism, and these conservatives???)
And then, as I began to be educated about the left’s tactics and the antics of people like Michael Newdow, I began noticing more in the immediate world around me. The theory put into practice.
Like the Georgia ACLU threatening the school board my kids go to to remove Christmas from the school calendar or face a lawsuit.
Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts and the cafeteria staff being held accountable, (as they should) while the child, knowing she couldn’t have peanuts ordered them anyway, putting her own life at risk while implicating the lady in the cafeteria was NOT held accountable; and the principal banning all peanuts, no more PBJ’s allowed on school grounds, etc. etc. etc. (Obviosuly this failed and was a monumental waste of time, etc. and a stupid response.)
Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.
Towns having to change their logos because they might contain crosses in them, or something “offensive”...crosses banned from cemeteries...crosses banned from inside chapels...it all seemed so surreal, but nevertheless, the more I learned the more appalled I became because it’s true.
And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.
So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.
Students that learn both in private or home school settings perform quite well in science. They understand the science just fine, as do the scientists at dissentfromdarwin.org.
Sooner or later this attack on our Judeo-Christian heritage/culture will have to be addressed by the SCOTUS, and public education will have to be addressed as well.
It’s also no debate the liberal secular model of education is an abject failure.
“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.
Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?
You see it’s not as you assert at all. Not even close. Not only is it NOT common knowledge, but it’s a dangerous indoctrination in place of education with the further indoctrination that nothing’s wrong when there very much IS something very wrong...AND it’s NOT taught in science class.
“No, the point of my argument was scientists are naturally inquisitive, as Edward Peltzer so nicely illustrates, and the conservative/creationists here on FR understand (singing to the choir) but when he is inquisitive, he gets smeared and called a religious kook by the evo-liberals here on FR and elsewhere.”
—ok, I did misread you. I wouldn’t be surprised if Peltzer was smeared for his remark, as I’ve seen a lot of unfortunate cases of smearing for odd things. Like some people being called “liberals”, “godless” or a “Temple of Darwin” follower because they happen to believe the earth is older than 6k years or believe in evolution.
If you really want to see some inquisitiveness, check out Stanley Miller. Just recently I was reading about some interesting experiments he was working on. Almost no one thought that really interesting chemistry occurs in ice, but Stanley was inquisitive and wondered what would happen if some common chemicals were put in ice in sealed test tubes. After 25 years he opened them up and found nucleobases, RNA, and amino acids. When he first tried to publish the results to journals he was rejected - they couldn’t believe the results and said that the molecules had to have formed during the thawing process (must have been from Creationist censors!). So he redid the tests on other test tubes that showed that they really had formed before the thawing. No “intervening and tweaking” going on. Just some common chemicals mixed with ice and let sit for 25 years.
After he died they found tubes tucked away in all kinds of places around his office and lab, all various experiments he was trying.
Miller found just the opposite of what Peltzer was claiming. Very interesting chemistry - the molecules of life - form under a wide variety of initial conditions and without the need of tweaking by grad students.
“SO do you really and truly think these scientists that actually work in the various fields of science they represent are really just of the modern day black helicopter crowd? I mean they just think there’s some made up sky is falling attack on them, their worldview and they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say “it deserves to be heard”? And this is muchado about nothing?”
—The statement they signed wouldn’t suggest that they are the equivalent of the black helicopter crowd, as the statement IS muchado about nothing, and represents no dissent from Darwinism. Such a statement could come from the mouth of Richard Dawkins, or Darwin, or me.
The scarcity of signers might lend support to the argument that they are analogous of the black helicopter crowd however. Create a statement saying “We are skeptical of the moon landings” and you’d probably get a similar number of signers.
“Some people say Ben Stein was just making money off of people in “No Intelligence Allowed”, like the various creation museums btw, and there really isn’t a banning of those that dissent. Does this include you?”
—I haven’t seen the film yet, but I was aware of most of the examples used in “expelled” before the film even came out, and those cases are little more than internet urban legends. To use one example, that of Caroline Crocker, the film said “After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt end.”
She didn’t “simply mention Intelligent Design”, she taught that common descent was false and showed slides with ludicrous claims like “Eohippus is found in the same layers as the modern horse”. Also, her “sterling academic career” didn’t come to an “abrupt end”, she finished teaching the course and was a temp that they simply didn’t rehire and she was subsequently hired by another university, and today is working as a researcher.
There are millions of scientists in the US and I have yet to see a single case of anyone being banned or fired for “dissension” to Darwinism. There may be some actual cases out there - in this sometimes screwy world, and with MILLIONS of scientists out there, I wouldn’t be surprised to find a case or two of someone being fired because others didn’t like his mustache, but I have yet to see one.
“I used to not pay too much attention like you, then I began to notice the various culture wars: Republican vs. democrat, liberal vs. conservative, secular vs. Judeo-Christian values, and the books and articles written by various people, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh’s brother, Ann Coulter, Franklin Graham, his sister and various other conservative folks...addressing these “culture wars”.”
—My story is a bit of the reverse... I used to watch Rush’s TV program and enjoyed it (I was said when it went off the air), and some other such programs. But the more I got into the real world, I began seeing how simplistic and false the worldview was that such commentations were describing. Innventing a “culture war”, “liberal vs conservative” or “christian vs secular”, is a good way to get viewers/listeners and sell books.
“Outside my immediate area I began to notice Christmas trees, indeed all things Christmas being banned in the name of tolerance.”
—As a huge fan of Christmas myself, it does really irk me to hear stories of businesses that stop having Christmas signs, or someone that’s offended by “Merry Christmas”. I’m even irked when where I work calls Christmas break the “holiday break” (or even worse, “winter break”). There has been some hypersensitivity by a few people (very very few - I’m never actually met such a person IRL), and a gross overreaction by some businesses, but the “War on Christmas” thing is silly hyperbole. Even calling it the “minor skirmish against Christmas” would seem an exaggeration. I haven’t seen anything close to what you’ve apparently seen - and I’m in an area that’s far more liberal and democrat than yours (I’m in the Pittsburgh area). I see Christmas signs and trees everywhere (usually starting about 2 weeks before Halloween lol).
My favorite example used as evidence of the “War on Christmas” is when people complain about “Xmas”, saying that it’s liberal or secular way to remove “Christ” from Christmas (even thought X is an ancient symbol for Christ). Ironically, the recent anti-Xmas fad started at a time when Xmas was probably less used than at any time in the past couple centuries. Particulary during the early 20th century it was quite popular. It was very popular when I was a kid and I used to see such signs everywhere, particularly on doors (I think people liked them because you could make the letters really big; if you try putting “Christmas” on a door the letters are rather small and hard to read from the street.) But the popularity of Xmas signs declined over the years (hmm, I just realized - I wonder if that’s why the popularity of wreaths has apparently grown so much, cause it’s so hard to fit “Christmas” on doors?), and then I pretty much stopped seeing them completely - and then some years go by - and THEN a big anti-Xmas campaign starts. lol I just think that’s pretty funny. If someone wants “Xmas” decorations, the best place (and very nearly the only place) to go now is some grandmother’s attic.
If what you are saying about the Georgia aclu forcing a school to remove Christmas from their calendar is true, than I’m completely against the aclu on that one. Being that it’s a national holiday there should be no problem having it on the calendar. Do you have a source for that? I’d like to see what the aclu’s take is on that one.
“Or the kneejerk liberal reaction of a kid allergic to peanuts getting an ice cream with peanuts...”
—I agree it’s a kneejerk reaction, but why is it a “liberal” kneejerk reaction? What has a school’s decision as to what to do about a student’s peanut allergy got to do with “liberal vs conservativism”?
“And of course we come to the subject here, creation vs. evolution, liberals calling anything that criticizes evolution a religious attack on science. Liberals have hijacked this theory and it’s not even debatable.”
—Well, (almost) every attack DOES originate from religious motives instead of good science. And such criticism doesn’t come from (just) “liberals”, just about any conservative christian scientist will say the same thing (e.g. Francis Collins).
“So the issue is, do American citizens deserve the right to teach their children as they see fit with public funds?
My position is allow creation taught alongside evolution.”
—I have some mixed feelings about the subject. I’m a strong state’s rights and local power advocate, and so it does make me uncomfortable to see a local school board set a school curriculum, and then see the gov step in and say “you can’t do that” (although in the Dover case, it was a judge from the local district that made the ruling, so it WAS handled locally). OTOH, I believe students should be given a decent science education that involves learning the scientific method and the leading scientific theories - and so I’m quite happy for the students of Dover and other places where Creationism/ID material has been ruled out, as it’s just really bad science and not advocated by the vast majority of scientists.
(me)“If so, than they should be very happy to know that everything in the statement is common knowledge and taught in science class”.
(you) It’s one thing to be misinformed but to spread around such blatant falsehoods like this needs to be addressed.”
—Which part of the statement isn’t common knowledge? That science calls for skepticism? That mutation and selection aren’t the sole means by which evolution occurs? Anyone that doesn’t know that stuff needs to open up an “Intro to Biology” textbook. Any such textbook from the past 80 years will do.
“Are you familiar with the Georgia school board (not mine btw) that placed stickers on the science texts explaining evolution was a theory and not a fact and these concerned parents were sued to have the stickers removed?”
—Why not put a sticker on every page that says “the stuff on this page could be wrong”? Why single out evolution? Personal religious beliefs is the only reason for doing so. I’m sure the textbook calls evolution “the theory of evolution”, and the book probably doesn’t call evolution a “fact”, and even if it does most scientists DO consider evolution a fact (although by “fact” scientists don’t mean “can’t be wrong”, but instead “beyond reasonable doubt”), and I’m sure that the book expresses that there’s still a lot to learn about evolution.