The Crafty Attacks on Evolution

The New York Slimes ^ | 23 January 2005 | EDITORIAL

[rdb3]

But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.

---

Ha! We Bible believers are sneaky, aren't we?

Real men don't whine.

[muawiyah]

So the New York Times crowd thinks the Creationists are sneaking something past them.

Could be.

Lots of things get slipped by the NYT by many people every day.

[Outraged]

Classic myopic projectionism, emblematic of the power of secular humanism to collapse on itself with its symptomatic hypocrisy..."Silly fascists, moral relativity is for genocidal maniacs." {/Trix wabbit}

[rhtwngwarrior]

and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts,

Figures that they want to avoid the truth of the Bible with their self-admitted 'theories.'

[judywillow]

"This textbook contains material on evolution. 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."

That's still the wrong warning. The one they need would look more like this:

Warning: Parents and students should understand that the motives of the people pushing evolutionism in public schools are somewhat questionable:

[gobucks]

Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography.

Pornography? Who on this sweet earth would make such an insidious connection?

(Better yet, why on earth would the NY Times even wish to introduce such a connection?)

Talk about planting false notions!! Certainly not all the folks on this Ga. School Evolution thread who have the movie Dr. Strangelove memorized!

JFK, I figured that you were struggling about what you are supposed to be thinking about today - we insidious creatures don't think very well as I'm told, but hey!, we need to stick together. Thus, my thoughtful, sensitive, compassionate ping - don't let it spoil your breakfast!

Hmmmmm. I have a deep suspicion regarding what websites these NY Slimes editorial writers visit to get their ideas.

[explodingspleen]

Classic myopic projectionism, emblematic of the power of secular humanism to collapse on itself with its symptomatic hypocrisy..."Silly fascists, moral relativity is for genocidal maniacs." {/Trix wabbit}

You are my new favorite Freeper.

[judywillow]

Funny thing, I used to view evolutionary biology as totally worthless but it's possible I could be wrong. I've read at least one report recently of a guy claiming that a degree in evolutionary biology prepared him fairly well for a career in the packaging and shipping business:

[gobucks]

Maybe you have seen this?

Homosexual males, their brains and evolution

[L.N. Smithee]

That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course.

Of all the sentences in this editorial that drip with disingenuousness, this tops them all. This statement ranks up there with Bill Clinton saying "Nobody said it was supposed to go on forever" about affirmative action. I cannot believe that people who equate the Dover sticker with a warning about pornography are serious about endorsing any public school forum that might possibly result in a victory of religious rhetoric over secular curricula.

I don't have any references to prove it, but I would be willing to bet that the Times opposed laws that would allow a minute of silence at the beginning of the school day in lieu of mandatory classroom prayer on the notion that voluntary private prayers in class could lead to discrimination against those children who did not use the time to pray.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. -New York Times editorial

First, here is my understanding of the truth.

There is an underlying physical reality in which first there was no life, then there was life, and different plants and animals, including humans, appeared. Clearly something was happening. The known facts are compelling, but it is a complex field. And there is a deep problem with objectifying humanity.

The reputation of scientific consensus, like the MainStream Media, is in crisis and getting worse. Both institutions have work to do to reestablish credibility.

[samtheman]

Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.

Indeed. In fact, the interpretations of how gravity works over distance are "less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology". (Gravity is mediated by the postulated, but undiscovered, graviton.)

If we're talking about the very origin of life itself, that first set of one-celled critters in the sea, then yes, there is still some mystery.

But if we're talking about how those critters went on to grow shells, fins, feet and finances, then sorry, folks: case closed.

[shubi]

First the IDers say there is no religion in their ideas and want it taught in science class. Then you say there is "Biblical truth" in their ideas.

The truth is, ID is nothing more than a new title for "creation science", a heresy of misinterpretation of the Bible with absolutely no science in it.

ID has no place in science class. Those of you that advocate its value are hurting science education and turning intelligent people away from Christ.

ID is a money making con by people who prey on the scientifically ignorant.

[shubi]

The Theory of Evolution contains nothing about creation. Biology works with the life it sees and the history of life in the fossil record.

There is no conflict between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science text and science can't explore the spiritual.

[Smartaleck]

"Real men don't whine."

Which begs the question, why all the whinning about the "theory" of evolution?

[Smartaleck]

"There is no conflict between the Bible and science."

Some are able to grasp both notions at the same time and be quite comfortable in their understanding of both. Others struggle...it has to be one or the other and the notions are mutually exclusive?

[shubi]

The creationists clever strawman, putting creation in evolution leads many who have been undereducated about biology and science to believe there is a contradiction.

This, combined with superficial translations of Genesis and purposeful use of these translations to divide the Church have been very effective in propagandizing many Christians.

It also has made many educated people think (wrongly) that Christianity is a religion of the stupid.

[floridarolf]

LOL judywillow. Why are you so obsessed with flamingos? You always post them in the evolution threads.

[rdb3]

Which begs the question, why all the whinning about the "theory" of evolution?

---

It begs no such thing from me. I'm not whining at all about evolution.

Real men don't whine.

[beaver fever]

A scientific theory is not a fact it is a series of propositions that are supported by facts. Facts are states of affairs, observable events. They are contingent not absolute. There are no scientific 'laws' only theories that have come to be widely accepted or not.

Creationism is absolute in it's insistance on a 'designer' who is God with an alias. It isn't science it is theology pretending to be science.

Evolution is not a failed theory it's an incomplete theory but all scientific theories are incomplete because they are constantly changing according to new theories and observations.

If you are uncomfortable with contingency and change go to church and let scientists do their work.