T. Rex Teeth Take a Bite Out of Evolution

ICR ^ | July 17, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[ColdWater]

If no one gave you the keys to science, let alone earth age, then how do you then jump to asking these questions? Because certainly no one would give you any credence on forming parameters here either.

So, you don't know. OK. Are you a YEC'er or OEC'er?

[Stultis]

The most effective stance in opposing such crap is to insist on high, hard-nosed and uncompromising standards of intellectual and academic integrity in all subjects. This is the attitude conservative should take, but they can't do that if they're playing the same game as econuts and leftists.

And the only way that is going to occur is through the heavy hand of government regulation and that is NO conservative position to take.

Huh? When, for instance, conservative Texas textbook activists Mel and Norma Gabler used to appear before the State Board of Education and other panels complaining that American history textbooks devoted more space to discussing Marlyn Monroe than to George Washington, was that "the heavy hand of government regulation?"

Obviously not. It was concerned citizens demanding that state textbooks address the important substance of their proper topics, instead of being watered down with politically correct or popular pap and pablum.

Unfortunately The Gablers, and other activists like them, would then turn around and argue that biology texts be watered down in exactly the same way in respect of their antievolutionary views.

This is the inconsistency and hypocrisy to which I refer. Conservatives can hardly be persuasive in demanding that social science texts conform to strong academic standards while they simultaneously demand lax standards for biology texts.

[Stultis]

Ohhhhh no you don't; the ultra-liberal no God, no intelligence, no design, no debate allowed in anything algore is on your side of this debate, not ours.

The two movements are very much parallel in their aims.

Both anthropomorphic global warming econuts, and Darwin Derangement Syndrome antievolutionists, want the same thing. They both want textbooks and curricula to effectively lie to students about the current status of professional scientific debate.

Econuts want curricula to present the AGW view as having scientifically prevailed, when it has not; when in truth competing views about the causes and nature of global warming remain strong and viable, and have advocates producing relevant, original and ongoing research substantively advancing such views. They want this objective truth suppressed and replaced with a lie.

Antievolutionists want curricula to pretend that evolution has not prevailed in scientific debate, and to present antievolutionary views as viable scientific alternatives, when (at least to date) they are not, and when no antievolutionists are producing relevant, original and ongoing research substantively advancing such views. They want this objective truth suppressed and replaced with a lie.

[Stultis]

It denies that He’s needed.

It claims that naturalistic explanations are enough to account for the variety of life we see today.

Yup, that’s excluding God. He’s become unnecessary.

I think the view you express here is more deistic (the world, at least once created, is autonomous and independent wrt God) than theistic (God does not merely create the world, but sustains it as well).

It also strikes me as unbiblical.

It is asserted, for instance, in the Book of Amos that "God creates the wind." The verb is the same used in Genesis of creation ex nihilo.

It is certainly possible that the authors of that line believed, assuming the distinction even occurred to them, that God makes the wind to blow by direct miracle rather than by natural causes. But if you believe The Bible to be inspired by God -- I don't happen to, but if you do -- then obviously God knows that the wind is made by natural, or "secondary," causation, and not by direct miracle. Yet He was satisfied with it's causation being attributed to His immediate action nevertheless.

IOW, God Himself disagrees with you that naturalistic explanations exclude God. (Although, if it makes you feel better, scientific atheists certainly concur with your premise.)

[tpanther]

Even a child gets that algore has more in common with the evolutionists than he does the creationists. A small child.

Like I said, what’s next...algore the evangelist?

[Stultis]

what’s next...algore the evangelist?

You mean to tell me you don't see how algore is like an evangelist (of the smug, smarmy, ignorant, demagogic, unscrupulous, in-it-for-the-limos "televangelist" variety)?

[tpanther]

You mean to tell me you don't see how algore is like an evangelist (of the smug, smarmy, ignorant, demagogic, unscrupulous, in-it-for-the-limos "televangelist" variety)?

Yes, but a televangelist for secular humanism...you mean you can't grasp THAT!?