Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
June 9, 2009 — “The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution.” That statement is not being made by creationists, but by science reporters describing work at Oregon State University that cast new doubt on the idea that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. The main idea: their leg bones and lungs are too different.
Science Daily’s report has a diagram of the skeleton showing...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
I can aggree w/ the bulk of your statements, Caramelgal,
except...
‘So according to you, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Jonas Salk, Edward Teller and hundreds of other Jewish scientists should have been marginalized in their education and careers because they weren’t Christians’...
is not all all what I said. So sorry to leave out that yes their have been many fine accomplishment in secular and Jewish - mainly Jewish and Christian though - populations. The main problem in the USA today is faith must be concealed (esp. Christian and any Biblical references) or you will be marginalized if not completely ostracized.
You want to see public education turned around so that the US once again produces the quantity of graduates needed in math and science then simply remove the secular naturalist filter that is heavily applied today - allow all ideas that have merit and allow God back in. See prior post by metmom, she sums it up beautifully.
Oh and btw all men do dream it’s just that some never wake up and smell the coffee...
Since creation ideas are not allowed then those statistics all become skewed. Anyone who is dare not let on that they are if the want to retain their postions in math and science.
I recall reading an interview with Nicolo Dallaporta where he said there are no more big thinkers, that science has become too large and specialized.
IMHO, some do try to think big, but the peer review process works against them because (a) most reviewers are indeed very specialized and (b) a specialist who dares to think big is easily dismissed out of hand, i.e. "he's out of his league."
More like evolution the refuge of the brainwashed.
Science flourishes best in a Judeo-Christian environment like that found in western Europe. The biggest advances were made just after the Protestant reformation and before the introduction and acceptance of the ToE.
You can dis creationism all you want but for centuries it never hindered scientific advance and thinking. History proves that with the likes of; Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Faraday, to name a few .
Comparing the scientific advances of today with men’s virtually unlimited resources to what was accomplished before when those men were establishing what modern science is built on, is comparing apples to oranges.
Relatively speaking, the accomplishment of anything before about 100 years ago far out strips what is done today in innovative thinking, creativity and deduction.
It’s easy to look brilliant when you’re using the work of others for the basis of what you’re doing.
The scientific establishment also goes far in discouraging innovative thinking. Look at what happens to someone’s career when they dare to speak out against the commonly held consensus dictated by peer review panels. It’s professional suicide.
Evolution won in the competition of ideas many years ago. It's creationists who use politics to try and promote affirmative action for their ideas--to get them into the science curriculum not because they offer greater explanatory power than the ToE but because they just really really want them taught regardless.
How much have we heard that even right here on FR?
Not so. Not in the least.
If that was the case, then why is creation forced out of schools by litigation? Evolution has a monopoly in public schools simply because creation has been sued out.
If you want to see who wins the competition of ideas, it has to be a level playing field, where ALL ideas are considered, not where one is litigated in and declared the winner on that basis.
Also, if that were the case, the public schools should be improving over the years as creation has not legally been allowed to be taught in them for years, and yet that isn't happening.
There's no way that you can lay the blame for the state of science education at the feet of creationists in light it the stranglehold evolution has in the public school system. How can creation be affecting science when it's not even allowed to be taught?
In case you haven't noticed, with the monopoly evolution has had in the public schools, there's been no improvement in science education in the US compared to the rest of the world. How could that be when the teaching of the ToE and suppression of creation, is supposed to be the cure all for our abysmal ranking?
For all these demands of evidence, left-wingers will ignore this kind of evidence until the end of time, because it's really apparent their cult has too great a strangle-hold on them to see this winding out any other way.
So, once something is hypothesized as A......it must always be A....and if someone else says it’s B....people must lose their jobs?
Since ya missed it, I was raggin’ on GGG for doing the same thing he usually does. Taking one part of an article and saying “HA!! See...this scientists is claiming ‘X’”.....while ignoraing that the same scientist he is holding on-high says something else that GGG would never agree with.
Selectively reading:
“Dinosaurs didn’t evolve from birds.”
Seletively ignoring:
“Dinosaurs and birds evolved separately from each other from a common ancestor.”
Sadly, too often.
mm: That's certainly a matter of opinion.
I'll say, metmom! My own view is, not only is science not in an "unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization," but rather that it's in the throes of a profound intellectual (one might even say spiritual) crisis. It has come the end of the road of the Newtonian Paradigm. That paradigm is eminently suitable to the investigation of material mechanical systems in Nature. But that's it.
Increasingly, it turns out that living organisms are not material mechanical systems. So for science to treat of them as if they were, i.e., that they are "meat machines," is inevitably to hit the wall. And it seems to me that's pretty much where the biological sciences in general are nowadays IMHO.
The Newtonian Paradigm is utterly unsuitable to the investigation of life and consciousness. Though it is "heretical" to say that. (A person even hinting this would never get published at JourTheolBiol nowadays, and that's for sure....)
Status quo biology is freaking out. Abject denial in the face of massive evidence will do that to you. The Darwinians cling to life only by virtue of aggressive and highly unprincipled tactics against all dissent and dissenters.
Something's got to give.
Thanks for your great post metmom!
Ask the Smithsonian. Or the guy in Canada.
What are you talking about? I put the part I don’t agree with right in the title! “Birds Didn’t Evolve from Dinosaurs (Evos forced to invent an even older common ancestor!)”
They can however continue to make discoveries (e.g. pharmaceuticals) of great value.
Thank you so very much for sharing your beautiful insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Darwinism has a strong thread of nihilism in it running contrary to the idea of a creator.:
““The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”
Charles Darwin.
Remember this guy???
All he said was...
In his speech, Reiss said that while creationism had no scientific basis, science teachers risked alienating pupils who believed in the idea by dismissing it out of hand. “They should take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis,” he said.
And for that he was forced to slit his own throat:
The Royal Society announced Reiss’s resignation in a statement today. It said: “Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as director of education.”
In short, the Temple of Darwin does not allow even the slightest deviation from the party line to go unpunished.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/16/michael.reiss.resignation
First of all, it hasn't been forced out of schools. There are lots of opportunities in schools to discuss creation, as I've described to you before. It's only been forced out of science class.
Second, you're starting in the wrong place. Consider how it gets into science class in the first place. It gets put in through the actions of politicians who want their religious belief given equal standing as a scientific theory. The litigants are trying to reverse that political action.
You might also ask yourself why the litigation generally succeeds.
It was a lot easier to make discoveries when noöne knew anything.
Sure it has. Through lawsuits by the ACLU. Look as what happens when someone even wants to put a sticker on a book about theories only being theories. No way it's being TAUGHT in schools.
There are lots of opportunities in schools to discuss creation, as I've described to you before.
Where? What classes? When? You've never provided examples of where in schools opportunities to discuss creation exist.
Second, you're starting in the wrong place. Consider how it gets into science class in the first place. It gets put in through the actions of politicians who want their religious belief given equal standing as a scientific theory. The litigants are trying to reverse that political action.
Revisionist history anyone? Doesn't the Scopes Trials ring a bell?
It wasn't like evolution was taught all along and then creation came along and forced it's way in and kicked out evolution. On the contrary.... creation was around long before the teaching of evolution. The Scopes trials were only the beginning of edging out creation, much less any mention of God, out of the schools.
It gets put in through the actions of politicians who want their religious belief given equal standing as a scientific theory. The litigants are trying to reverse that political action.
There was never any political action taken to insert creation in to public schools, but rather political action taken to keep it from being forced out.
You're making it sound like putting in religious beliefs is something new in education and that it ever managed to get forced in by the misuse of the judiciary. Fine. Show me from history that creation wasn't in the public schools until it was forced in by litigation.
Religion has never been successful in making inroads into public education through the courts. Pretending that it has shows a level of delusion about history that is mind boggling.
You might also ask yourself why the litigation generally succeeds.
I know why the litigation succeeds. Because the ACLU has its cronies on the bench and the leftist, God hating liberals sue schools which can't afford it and the schools lose because it's cheaper to capitulate than to defend against the lawsuit.
It succeeds because of leftist God hating organizations like the NEA have a stranglehold on public education.
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.