Posted on 07/07/2009 8:43:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oh..., in that case, if you’re talking about Evo-think, I see what you mean ... :-)
“You mean like the court mandated Temple of Darwin indoctrination that goes on in our classrooms that holds that biology is the study of complex things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose, but in reality it’s all just an illusion?”
—That’s not a court mandate, that’s a paraphrase of something Dawkins said. And actually, I think a teacher would probably get in trouble for saying such a thing.
Well, Not to heap too much praise........
No, I accuse the ICR writer of being misleading.
Here is the site http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
That's not the site referred to in the article, but it has the same data, so okay.
The actual number of people who use the term millions of years in their answers is 50% not 53%
Read further:
Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?This is the part of the poll linked to by ICR, and is the source of the author's claim that "over 60 percent of Americans believe in recent creation and not in evolution." (39% + 27% = 66%) The first part of his claim is fine, but the second part ("and not in evolution") is an unwarranted conclusion, since more than half say they do believe in that (18% + 35% = 53%) while less than half say they don't (16% + 28% = 44%).A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
18% Definitely true
35% Probably true
16% Probably false
28% Definitely false
3% No opinionB. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years
39% Definitely true
27% Probably true
16% Probably false
15% Definitely false
3% No opinion
I hope you now see where I got my figures and that they are correct.
It's true, science is responsible for all those things and more.
And having children is hereditary - if your parents didn’t have any, you will not either.
After all, it (Darwinism) produced atomic energy, solar power, was used by Drake to find oil, Edison to invent electrical devices......
I didn’t think it would be necessary to point out this was a sarcasm, but it appears it is for you. So here goes:
THIS IS SARCASM.
It’s true, science is responsible for all those things and more.
The courts currently mandate the Temple-of-Darwin-only interpretation of the data pertaining to origins. Both ID and Creation scientists are barred from critiquing Darwin’s fanciful creation myth in our public schools, neither are they allowed to put forward their arguments for Creation or ID in a public school or university setting. And any educator or scientist who dares to critique Darwin’s judicially propped-up creation myth usually pays a heavy price, such as being drummed out of their chosen profession by Temple of Darwin fanatics.
“The courts currently mandate the Temple-of-Darwin-only interpretation of the data pertaining to origins.
—No, they did not mandate a “Darwin-only interpretation”, they merely ruled that Creationism (and its kin “cdesign proponentsists”) did not belong in science class since it’s overwhelmingly rejected by scientists (Christians and non-Christians alike); and also because the attempt to inject it into science class was being done for purely or mostly religious reasons.
“Both ID and Creation scientists are barred from critiquing Darwin’s fanciful creation myth in our public schools, neither are they allowed to put forward their arguments for Creation or ID in a public school or university setting. And any educator or scientist who dares to critique Darwin’s judicially propped-up creation myth usually pays a heavy price, such as being drummed out of their chosen profession by Temple of Darwin fanatics.”
—But it is critiqued, such as the fact that the evolutionary tree contains many holes. What sort of critiques are you thinking of?
As for people being “drummed out”, such a thing is incredibly rare. I can’t find any instance of a professor being fired, or someone having to leave their profession, for arguing Creation or ID (the closest thing I can find is a temp who wasn’t rehired at a particular university - possibly for her position on Darwinism - but was subsequently hired by another university).
I would imagine that in many sciences a professor that argues against Darwinism would face criticism, just as a professor of medicine who argues against germ theory, or a chemist that argues against atomic theory would face criticism (by the Temple of germ theory and atomic theory fanatics of course). I don’t see why the evolutionary sciences would be any different. But in science there’s supposed to be confrontations and challenges to ideas. The worst thing that can happen in science is for ideas to be ignored.
==No, they did not mandate a “Darwin-only interpretation”, they merely ruled that Creationism (and its kin “cdesign proponentsists”) did not belong in science class
Wrong, that was a fanatical Temple of Darwin judge acting on behalf of the Communist ACLU to mandate an evo-religious only interpretation of the origins data.
Look, either materialist evolution or some sort of creation is true, but the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism will not tolerate any rivals to their totalitarian religion, and thus all versions of creation or intelligent design must be stamped out by their jackbooted evo co-religionists in the government at all costs. And you are obviously in full agreement with this approach. And given the Temple of Darwin’s totalitarian bent, and seeing how your side knows that open debate re: origins would simply lead to a complete and total defeat for the Temple of Darwin, it really comes as no surprise that the Darwin cult is taking the lowest possible road to install their militant religion.
Yes, so what? There is no guarantee that the populations answering those different questions are the same. Those answering the question being discussed is the same. The head to head comparisons of beliefs are addressed by the first question. The other questions relate to the specific beliefs addressed by the question. That said, it is incorrect to add the two percentages without quoting the question to which they relate. IOW, the second, referenced ICR article is misleading.
Not for celibates or Eunuchs.
Yeah, right. Read this
World Death Rate Holding Steady At 100 Percent
You understand that we can have fewer people dying each year, even with 100% (eventual) mortality?
==As for people being “drummed out”, such a thing is incredibly rare.
Read Slaughter of the Dissidents...it’s quite common. As are other tactics, such as being denied grants, publishing, tenure, etc, etc. But again, seeing how the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is really a totalitarian religion masquerading as science, this really shouldn’t come as a big surprise to anyone who really knows what’s going on. However, as the general public increasingly catches on to the jackbooted tactics of your co-religionists, my guess is they won’t be in a very good mood when the science pendulum swings back in favor of allowing design arguments to compete in the origins debate. Hopefully, creationists and IDers will not overplay their hands when that time comes, and simply limit themselves dismantling government science and returning it to the private sector where it belongs.
NO! Really?
State the conditions when the death rate is zero.
NO! Really?
Yes! Truly!!
You understand that 1,000,000 newborns that live an average of 60 years will have fewer deaths each year than the same number of newborns that live an average of 30 years?
Ever heard of a skewed population? How about fireworks sales by date?
Does that explain why germ theory has increased our life expectancy?
Or does it explain that germ theory was pointless, because we all die eventually?
I have no idea what you're getting at. The article at the top this thread claims that "over 60 percent of Americans believe in recent creation and not in evolution." For support, it references another ICR article, which in turn cites a USA Today/Gallup poll and links to this page. That page has the questions and answers I posted, which obviously all came from the same people.
By the percentages, a good number of people must have said that "the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" and "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" are both true. I'd like to know more about that. I can sort of see it, depending on what they mean by "created in their present form."
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.