Posted on 08/10/2004 3:57:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Creationism is the most insidious plot ever devised by Satan. It so runs in the face of evidence that its adherents come across looking like benighted fools to the world, and since creationists claim to be the only true Christians, it paints the latter belief system with the same brush, thus discrediting it. Rational people, who might otherwise be attracted to the message of Christ, reject it out of hand because they see Christians as backward bohunks who reject all things modern.
Well said Junior. Creationism clouds the perception of the GOP by others, notably foreigners. And it costs votes for sure. I am all for a strong division between science classes and religion/philosophy classes. In the latter experts could teach about the metaphoric/metaphysical significance of the book of Genesis, which I, being a biochemist, rate highly, only not in a literal sense.
Tks for posting.
To insist that "creationism" is the realm of flat earthers and 6 solar day "young earth" advocates is just as stupid and ignorant as the most ranting fundamentalist.
Further, to demand that high schools teach a naturalistic "microbe to man" flies in the face of mounds of evidence from the fossil record, stellar physics, statistics, biophysics, and biochem.
Finally, just like I don't give a damn for being consigned to the ranks of heresy by some ignorant religious howler, I also don't bow at the altar of some academic bombast who dresses up his naturalist philosophy as "science" and sneers at all who would challenge it.
You want to keep "religion" out of the classroom? That is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen. The very assumption that scientific "laws" exist is replete with religious/philosophical assumptions. All academic disciplines have their basis in assumptions that are ultimately religious (or "philosophical", if you wish) in their nature. To refuse to address these areas because some naturalist who occupies an academic post will sneer is the position of an imbecile, not a seeker of truth.
Screw em. The truth can stand the scrutiny.
I don't mind young earth types, but I sure don't like to go to natural museums with the militant ones.
A report in the Kansas City Star speaks of the elections of Kathy Martin and Steve Abrams to the Kansas State Board of Education. This is important to Intelligent Design because both elections turned on the issue of evolution. Martin and Abrams were opposed to an "Evolution Only" paradigm, while their opponents were for it. Bruce Wyatt, the incumbent who was defeated by Martin, ran his campaign entirely on that one issue.
Martin, is a brilliant, but very humble and experienced public school teacher. Her campaign message was that the public education of our children should be run by "those who know their names." She recognizes that Public Education has many other issues to deal with than Evolution and tried to steer the campaign debate so that it would not be focused entirely on the "E" word. However, her opponent and the media kept bringing it back to evolution and intelligent design and what a horrible decision the 1999 board had made when they "downplayed," evolution.
Well the public spoke. In both cases "Evolution Only" was defeated. This is significant because it also reflects a defeat of the media that seemed to try their best to hinder the election of Martin and Abrams.
~John Calvert
===============
If you should ever want to graduate the ranks of the invincibly ignorant, read only (of the scores of recent books by immaculately-credentialed scientests) Michael Behe's small & non-taxing book, "Darwin's Black Box", & get back to us.
Re: the lead article. I read it & looked for the way to write the editor this question: if the School Board "conservatives" advocate presenting both prevailing theories of origins (intelligent design/no intelligent design), a reasonable man would assume that the "liberal" position would be that only the no-design theory should be presented. What, then, was the position of the late lamented "moderate" School Board members? Leave it up to the individual teacher? Teach neither? Teach half of each theory? Half-teach both?
Searching for the Letters/OpEd page I stumbled onto one titled "Apindex". Apparently the "Kansan" also favors moderation in teaching spelling.
Right. Besides making Republicans and conservatives look ridiculous -- our principle concern on this website -- there is of course the unfortunate public relations disaster for Christianity. I know it's not particularly persuasive for most, especially in Kansas, but it's still significant that the Catholic Church rejects this foolishness: Message from the Pope, 1996 (re evolution), as do many other mainstream denominations. But I don't want to hijack this thread into a discussion of religion. It's a science thread, and I hope it stays that way.
Good luck. LOL!
Welcome (again?) to FreeRepublic. I see you've signed up today, and you assume that no one here has ever heard of Behe, and that we haven't had dozens of threads debunking his "science" of ID. When you've reviewed the archives and brought yourself up to speed -- if you haven't lived through them in realtime under some earlier screen-name -- then you get back to us.
LOL! Are you serious? Did someone hijack your PC and write post #1?
Oh, dear. Although I highly doubt you are new to FR, Behe has been so thoroughly debunked it's almost a bad joke bringing his name up in defense of ID/Creationism/whatever. As far as the other three or four "immaculately credentialed scientists", go ahead and list them. I am curious to see if there are any new names.
I also wanted to let you know that your use of the term "invincibly ignorant" is so ironic it borders on genius. Hat's off.
I keep hearing more and more scientists are jumping on the ID bandwagon. Funny thing is thay all seem to use the same few names. LOL!
I see that since you signed up (yesterday, not today as I had earlier said) you've only posted once -- to this thread. Most curious. And who's this "us" to which you refer? Your banned buddies at your tragic website with maybe 6 registered menbers?
I believe they want to keep everything out of the science classroom that cannot be scientifically tested. Bringing untestable ideas into a science class eliminates the science part altogether. Although you may feel that Creationism should be taught everywhere, the fact of the matter is that the concept, 100% accurate or not, is an entirely untestable idea, and therefore not scientific. Creationism belongs elsewhere. To shove it into a science class is a disservice to the kids trying to learn, as well as society as a whole. Scientists don't tell you what to teach in church, why can't you folks stay the hell out of their class?
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.