Posted on 12/27/2004 2:34:25 PM PST by Ed Current
The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning, pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom criticism of the theory of evolution.
A Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
Polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory of evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis Pasteur. But that does not stop an intolerant minority from trying to impose a belief in the ape-to-man theory on everyone else.
Local school boards have finally had enough of this tyranny. From Georgia to Pennsylvania to Ohio to Wisconsin to Kansas, school boards are finally moving toward allowing criticism of Darwin's theory.
The Darwinists have propped up their classroom dominance by the persistent use of frauds and flacks. The fraudulent pro-evolution embryo drawings of Ernst Haeckel littered schoolbooks for 100 years, and it took specific action by the Texas Board of Education to keep them out of current textbooks even after the New York Times exposed Haeckel's deception.
Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as a basis for evolution of their long necks. Moreover, the striking beauty of the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely usefulness, is what animates our world.
Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory. The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook, and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National Geographic.
If Darwinists want to teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to criticize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books critical of evolution, even when written by college professors.
Responding to the majority of their constituents, Georgia's Cobb County recently authorized a textbook disclaimer saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The American Civil Liberties Union claims this is unconstitutional and is seeking out supremacist judges to order classroom curricula to continue the censorship and forbid an open mind about evolution. If the theory of evolution were well supported, there would be no reason to oppose open debate about scientific claims.
In December 2004, a world-famous champion of atheism, Antony Flew, announced his conversion to acceptance of intelligent design underlying our world. The Dallas Morning News observed, "If the scientific data are compelling enough to cause an atheist academic of Flew's reputation to recant most of his life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?"
At 81, Flew can speak out because he is now free from the peer pressure that silences younger colleagues who fear loss of jobs, funding, or even dreams of winning a Nobel Prize. Evolution critics Fred Hoyle and Raymond Damadian were unjustly denied Nobel Prizes and their work was instead recognized by awards to less-deserving others.
Darwinists know they cannot persuade skeptical adults, so they try to capture impressionable schoolchildren. At our expense and against our wishes, children are taught that the world exists only for what is useful, not by design.
To typical schoolchildren full of wonder, we live in a world best described as a marvelous work of art. The snowflakes that grace us at Christmastime typify the artistic beauty that bestows joy on all ages but, like an acid, evolution corrodes this inborn appreciation of beauty and falsely trains children to view themselves as mere animals no more worthy than dogs or cats.
There is a strong correlation between belief in natural selection and liberal views on government control, pornography, prayer in schools, abortion, gun control, economic freedom, and even animal rights. For the most part, the schools in the blue states carried in the 2004 presidential election by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are strongly pro-evolution, while the red states carried by President George W. Bush allow debate and dissent.
It should surprise no one that the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, has the lowest percentage of evolution believers in the world. The highest percentage lived in the former East Germany.
The U.S. Senate of former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., quietly slipped a provision into the No Child Left Behind Act that requires, by the 2007-2008 school year, science testing by grade 5. That gives censors the authority to force 10-year-olds to believe and defend evolution.
It is long past time for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect their children from the intolerant evolutionists. Hooray for courageous school boards that are finally rejecting censorship and allowing debate.
Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. That's what makes evolutionary biology aa scientific theory, not just a hypothesis.
Meanwhile, I'm *still* waiting for someone to state a "theory of creationism", its predictions, and how those predictions could be tested or falsified.
Um, what?
404 error no such person found.
There was a William Thompson, 1at Baron of Largs (aka Lord Kelvin) who rejected evolution, but he also got a lot of other things wrong in his dotage.
"It seems as if we may also be forced to conclude that the supposed connexion between magnetic storms and sun-spots is unreal, and that the seeming agreement between periods has been a mere coincidence."
-- Lord Kelvin, 1892
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895
"Radio has no future."
-- Lord Kelvin
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin
That cuts both ways. And in my long experience it's *far* more common for creationists to be in that boat than evolutionists. I have yet to converse with a creationist who clearly had a good understanding of the evolutionary biology he was attempting to "disprove". And yes, that includes my online debate with Phillip Johnson -- I had to keep correcting him on matters that a first-year biology student should have already mastered.
I see... Then perhaps you could explain why I keep running into countless folks "questioning Darwin" all the time, all over the place?
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
"FEMINISTS she has been warring with for decades hate Darwinism."
Read that Gallup poll at the begining of the thread.
You can sign up for a free 30 day trial that will give you access. LIBERALS = DARWINISTS.
Global warming happens, global cooling happens, Ice Ages happen, Sun Spots happen, Deep Ocean currents change.
However, the connotation of "global warming" is that it is all man made - which is, of course, complete bullsh!t, speaking scientifically.
You have to separate the scientific facts from the political noise to get your message across to the ignoramuses.
As the creats have been doing for the past century.
And *you* wouldn't be condescending or arrogant, eh? Oops, too late.
To me, they are no different than the other bunch of idiots with dysfunctional thinking, i.e. the left, liberals, etc. No ability to see what a "disconnect" their empty, failed ideas have with reality.
Empty insults, no specifics... Hmm... Not impressed.
MODERN, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WITH REAL THINKING BRAINS ARE RUNNING FROM EVOLUTION.
Did you think that if you said that REAL LOUD it would make up for your lack of support for your empty claim?
Only the "religious nut-jobs" still have enough blind faith to believe wholeheartedly in evolution.
I'm not a "religious nut-job", nor do I use "blind faith" to "believe wholeheartedly in evolution". I use knowledge and understanding.
What does that do to your prejudices on this subject?
The Universe/Life SCREAMS "Intelligent Design".
If you're hearing voices, especially "SCREAMS", you might want to seek professional help.
In the meantime, feel free to provide some actual evidence for your position, if you know how, instead of just ranting about it.
You have to be either a complete moron or a "religious" nut" to believe otherwise.
Do you really think that this sort of namecalling helps your case or credibility any?
Ooookay... Did you have something of actual substance to contribute?
Some debates are simply not worth the time.
Well, not if that's the best you can do...
I apologize if I failed to clearly express my feelings on junk science in general and global warming alarmists in particular. Let me try again, without the confusing sarcasm....
Members of the scientific community that espouse the idea that mankind is the chief cause of global warming are either ignorant of or choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth has a regular temperature cycle, and human influence on it is so insignificant as to be almost too small to measure. For the most part, they are either after funding for their pet research projects, notoriety in the scientific community, or both. Add in the media's love of a sensational story that arouses interest in their target audience and you get an activism machine geared to feed on public opinion. The more the junk scientists spoon feed their tripe to the public through the media, the more attention and credibility they get.
Thus my sarcastic comment regarding junk science being a democratic process. Let me know if you are still unclear, and I'll try to break it down even more.
"The point is that scientific theories change over time"
Why is this the point? Of course they do, but the basics of proven theories like evolution and flight will never be changed. No matter what discoveries in physics are made, a rock will never fall upwards when you drop it.
"So you believe, at this point in time, the scientists have evolution completely figured out, despite a number of instances of debunking. "
No, I never said evolution is all figured out, and no one who knows better would either. Instances of debunking? The theory of evolution is an enormously complex explanatory model. Just because much of the mechanics are still being worked out in no way mitigates the overall theories validity. If that were true then there would be no more research into faster aircraft, since the theory of flight would already include everything there is to know about it, which it doesn't.
I think we both agree that research is ongoing. So I assume you also question the theory of flight's validity, since it is also being expanded upon... Less so than evolution, but it is a much less expansive model than evolution as well.
"Science, for good or ill, changes and can be mistaken."
Absolutely. I'll be expecting to see your arguments against special relativity on the physics boards soon since no theories can be trusted.
"Evolution suits very handily the valueless society we are developing. "
Maybe... More importantly, evolution fits with the scientific data.
"Unquestioning belief in science, specifically in macro-evolution is a faith just like any other."
Except that faith in evolution is peer reviewed, tested, predictable, requires no blind faith and needs no supernatural explanations. Other than that, yes it's the same.
"However, the connotation of "global warming" is that it is all man made - which is, of course, complete bullsh!t, speaking scientifically."
Wow! Stop speaking for the scientific community! The IPCC, NAS, AAAS, united Nations Scientific Advisory Board, etc all state officially global warming happens.
Please refrain from posting statements that global warming is not scientific without posting links!!! Especially after I've posted links to the contrary!
Complete bull? Says who? You? And...
I actually am old enough to have read some of those articles. You can probably find them if you search online. Global warming models have not been shown to be predictive, so making policy based on the concept is likely to be unnecessary, economically suicidal, and have other unintended consequences.
If the theory 30 years ago was wrong, why do you think the theory today is correct? Maybe I'm missing something?
There is some science that is observable. Sterile techniques reducing the spread of disease is a good example. Good and bad effects of drugs are another.
There is lots of research that is agenda driven too. Looking for the homosexual gene. Children raised in single parent families do just as well as those raised by both biological parents. One of my favorites is that gender has nothing to do with likely behavior - that femininity/masculinity is entirely a societal construct. Television does not influence behavior, unless you're selling commercials. There are several studies linking abortion and breast cancer, but because the concept is politically unpopular, it is not well-publicized.
Global warming theory places the developed nations in the position of evil empires that unchecked will lead to TEOTWAWKI, when in many cases the pollution levels are higher in less developed countries. Taken to the ultimate of ridiculous, we should get the heck off the planet before we ruin it. Hopefully the NGO folks will go first . . .
Evolution means we are randomly created and accountable to only ourselves, of no more value than a fruit bat or a grey whale. We're getting more knowledgable every day, so when we decide that homosexuals should marry, by george, they should. If someone wants to leave their marriage to "fulfill themself", who has the right to disagree with the decision, even if there are young children involved? If someone wants to molest an 8 year old, or have sex with an assortment of farm animals, what is the problem? If a baby doesn't live up to your expectations, why not let it starve to death?
Belief systems have consequences - yours in evolution and mine in special creation. Even if special creation/intelligent design by God was not true (and there are good reasons to believe it is), like the Marshwiggle in the Chronicles of Narnia - I'm going to live like a Narnian even if there is no Narnia.
That may not be the robust scientific truth you're looking for, but if you do some fair research, you'll find that science is not an infallible source, nor as simple as you seem to believe.
Blessings to you and yours.
Just the opposite! You have no idea how politicized science is and how "real" science is many times squashed flatter than a bug on a windshield. Some scientists are just sheep, others who are intellectually honest but "politically incorrect" lose grants, positions, are censured, etc., etc.
In his Origin of Species, Darwin notes a case of a black bear swimming for hours with its mouth agape, catching aquatic insects much as a whale might feed. "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.
The ridicule and attacks engendered by this passage grew to such a pitch that Darwin pared it down and then deleted it altogether in later editions.
Although Darwin got the particulars wrong, his swimming-bear scenario was not far off the mark. Modern molecular biologists say that they now have the unassailable evidence to track whales' origins among four-legged mammals.
"Members of the scientific community that espouse the idea that mankind is the chief cause of global warming are either ignorant of or choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that the earth has a regular temperature cycle, and human influence on it is so insignificant as to be almost too small to measure."
Can you please post links to an actual scientific organization that shares your viewpoint? Someone associated with the scientific literature. You people love speaking for the scientific community, even while you trash them in the next breath. I can, and have already posted links to a couple of the biggest, the NAS and the AAAS. Here is another, but I'm not finding anymore until I get at least one from one of all you naysayers here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
How can you say the scientists want money? The best way in teh US to get your grants cut is to speak out on something that the plutocorporations don't like. And global warming is at the top of their list! Also, the current administration has trouble grabbing ankles for energy corps when their scientific advisors are telling them the corps are killign us! How can you say it's money? Regardless, this is not their opinion, it would have to be a conspiracy that involved every scientists in the field, including the editors and peer reviewers at the journals... not a chance.
"Let me know if you are still unclear, and I'll try to break it down even more."
Don't be snide, read what you posted again, the way you wrote it you said the opposite of what you meant.
Another thing I don't understand about Creationists is they continue to defy the fact that faith must never conflict with reason. Reason tells us evolution is a fact. Faith follows accordingly. The question becomes one regarding how God set evolution in motion and what we might be missing.
"You have no idea how politicized science is and how "real" science is many times squashed flatter than a bug on a windshield."
i just find it incredibly suspicious that these 'sheep' scientists you refer to ONLY seem to work in the fields that directly oppose your personal belief system.
To: PatrickHenry To ping or not to ping? 8 posted on 12/27/2004 4:55:13 PM CST by BMCDA
Do you think for yourself or do you need permission to participate?
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.