Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
You could say the age of the earth is approximate. You could even specify an estimate of probable error.
But to say you don't know means you basically reject physical science.
First of all, I think we should stop for a moment and examine your operating assumptions. Your post is dripping with presuppositional contempt for the professional qualifications of those people who disagree with you. I realize that as a Darwinist there is no rational basis for according a fundamental dignity to other human beings -- they're just matter in motion, the products of an undirected, value-less process, so maybe I should not expect any more. But from the point of view of this discussion, let's just acknowledge that you're not approaching this scientifically, but dogmatically.
Secondly, you are attempt to dodge my point -- hey, that's unusual!!! -- and take the discussion in a new direction. I was countering some genius' claim that these people couldn't speak to issues of biology because they were chemists! Anyone who has any understanding of science -- to borrow a phrase -- realizes that to claim that you can't speak to biology because you are an expert in chemistry is about as stupid a statement as there is.
Maybe if I have time I'll engage you in a discussion as to why the fields of paleontology and geology have becomes as inbred as you say they have.
What I reject is your nonsense. Merry Christmas.
So....by your arguement, shouldn't Creationism be taught in Public School, where students are not graded on your belief or disbelief; you are graded on your understanding of the material presented.
After all, Creationism was around long before Darwinism and is a part of our culture. You know, like music, art, athletics...necessary to make a well rounded individual kinda thing.
I'll be curious to read your reply.
Just barely, see my post to the other Atheist and see if you can answer my question.
Trying to remind us that we by-in-large agree with one another.
A lot of judges and law professors haven't read the constitution, either.
"So....by your arguement, shouldn't Creationism be taught in Public School, where students are not graded on your belief or disbelief; you are graded on your understanding of the material presented."
Taught as what? Science? Part of a class on religion? Should we teach every religion's creation story, or just the one found in Genesis? Which version of what people derive from Genesis? Kent Hovind's version? Bishop Usher's?
"After all, Creationism was around long before Darwinism and is a part of our culture. You know, like music, art, athletics...necessary to make a well rounded individual kinda thing."
Fine, it goes in as part of a general course on comparative religion.
You want a comparative religion course in your school district? Let your school board know about it.
Being a trained paleontologist or geologist with field experience who is a creationist is like being an architect who doesn't believe in gravity; it's almost impossible to function.
Whoops! Excuse me! The dry period would have resulted in a replacing of the rain forest with the savannah -- hence no, or far fewer trees. Or so the hypothesis goes...
Public School Fact: Religious Student doesn't believe in Darwinism = F in class
This is a repeat of another post of mine, let's say a student taking a science test on Darwin's theory of evolution turns the paper back, blank, and says "my religion and heritage teaches me differently. There are no correct choices on this exam".
Would you agree this senario would result in an F on the exam?
"Therefore, a religious student in Public School is FORCED to either memorize Darwinism and regurgitate it, or fail the test."
Only in the same way that they memorize spelling words, math functions, history etc. etc. Memorization of information doesn't equal conversion to Darwin.
And there is no such thing as memorizing Darwinism. You learn the scientific information and either pass or fail a test on it. The only discrimination here seems to be the bias against public schools in general.
Yeah, but if he succeeds, it will be spectacular.
"This is a repeat of another post of mine, let's say a student taking a science test on Darwin's theory of evolution turns the paper back, blank, and says "my religion and heritage teaches me differently. There are no correct choices on this exam"."
OK, let's change the scenario a bit:
The exam is in property law. The student belongs to a religion that does not recognize private property (say, Marxism/Leninism). He turns the paper back, blank, and says "my religion and heritage teaches me differently. There are no correct choices on this exam."
OK, time to grade his paper.
1. Would he fail the exam?
2. As his failure is a product of his "religion," does this not equal religious discrimination?
Do you see that there is no constitutional right to not be offended?
Actually I don't. I wanted Public Schools to come out and CLEARLY state their allegiance to either Darwinism or Creationism.
With this court ruling, they have.
Now, many parents have the FREEDOM to make a more "educated" choice on where to educate their kids...Darwin Central Middle School, private schools or home schools.
The ruling was a victory because it helped educate parents what to expect from public education.
Uh... No?
What do I win?
Are you related to your niece? I am (my niece, not yours). I am clearly not in any fashion descended from my niece. We do, however, share a common ancestor.
"Actually I don't. I wanted Public Schools to come out and CLEARLY state their allegiance to either Darwinism or Creationism."
In other words, you wanted YOUR religious view taught as science, with the power of the state to back you up. Thank you for clarifying that.
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.