Asian Darwinist Profs Call Creationists Barbarians

CEH ^ | October 22, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Oct 22, 2009 — “We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” announced a professor at Hong Kong University triumphantly. A news article in Science this week described tensions in the city over the teaching of evolution. The Darwinists won a vote over a change in wording in the science curriculum that would have “opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” The door must be shut tight, apparently. Even the possibility of this happening created a furore.

Reporter Richard Stone said, “As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.” He called the partial victory “bittersweet” because it did not revise the guidelines, nor did it rein in “the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism.”

Stone said that most schools in Hong Kong, though publicly funded, are run independently – and many are affiliated with churches. The author of the “barbarians” comment, David Dudgeon (faculty board chair at U of HK) complained...

[editor-surveyor]

Its free, dumb scienceography (or is that scienceology?)

Anyway, its free, so don’t look a dead horse in the rectum!

[editor-surveyor]

"Why do we not call out the bible/christian god for the convenient, mercurial flip-flopping of literal/figurative interpretations of ‘his words’ when subjected to the same standards of intellectual inquiry that science is held to?"

We'll leave that one up to you; you can present your paper at the big symposium of the Great White Throne.

[freedumb2003]

>>Hey Freedumb, why don’t you post a “Top Three Reasons Evolution is True” or some such, and we will come. C’mon, let’s see what you’re made of.<<

PS Remember, if you post the debate thread, we will come!!!<<

Usually, I don’t waste my time.

But seeing as how you are drunk and stuff...

1) What is a Scientific Theory?

2) Where does a supernatural entity fit in a Scientific Theory?

3) If the natural explanation for the billions of data points examined by millions of scientists for hundreds of years, including the rest of all Life Scientists is wrong, then what comprehensive alternative non-supernatural theory (meeting #1) replaces it AND accounts for all data?

You asked for it, sweet-cheeks.

[freedumb2003]

>>I call out liberalism wherever and whenever I see it<<

The lowest of the low — those who do not have any substance on their side just call those who understand science “liberals.”

get used to it, texasAG — it is all they have.

[freedumb2003]

>>You are not competent to comment on way or the other. Not realizing this, you commented anyway<<

The irony is palpable.

[freedumb2003]

>>Anyway, its free, so don’t look a dead horse in the rectum!<<

You have to do it daily when you shave, why not share it with metmom?

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!

[editor-surveyor]

Actually, it is the fatal limitation of the creation rationalizers that they cannot conceive of evolution as being the “Divine Foot in the door”.

To do that one must throw mathematics, in particular the laws of probability, overboard at the beginning.

[ColdWater]

And that saddens me, because I think you are a good, if very addled, person.

I think she is a good person also. Too bad she is confused over the number of gods in the universe.

[editor-surveyor]

If I had your picture on line I would.

[count-your-change]

If my life depended on defining “scientific theory” I’d have lots of life lines:

“Definitions of scientific theory on the Web:

a theory that explains scientific observations; “scientific theories must be falsifiable”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...
www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

( in scientific theory ) ...of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528929/scientific-method

a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.
farahsouth.cgu.edu/dictionary/

To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. ...
www.sciencelearn.org.nz/help/glossary/(namefilter)/s

A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. It studies the character of natural reality. Scientific Management (6). System of management popular in the first decades of the 20th c. ...
www.udmercy.edu/faculty_pages/staudenmaier_sj/ethics/glossary.html

an explanation of concept/idea that is supported by evidence and/or many experiments/trials and is widely accepted by the scientific community.
peninsula.swiftclassroom.com/kms/molson/documents/scientific_process_vocab.doc

A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.
lams.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/science7/Earth’sHistory/Evolution/CH.%207%20Vocabulary.doc

Take your pick.

[GodGunsGuts]

No, no, no...for once you are going to have to take a position, rather than your usual practice of sniping from the shadows. Why don’t YOU define what a scientific theory is, and what it is not. Why don’t YOU tell us where a supernatural entity fits into the same. Why don’t YOU establish why the evo-religious, Temple of Darwin interpretation of the very same data Creationists and IDers are looking at is the best interpretation of the same. C’mon Freedumb, put up or shut up.

[freedumb2003]

Thanks for beating me to the bottom.

Your Christlike posts are noted.

[ColdWater]

Anyway, its free, so don’t look a dead horse in the rectum!

Or look a disabled veteran in the eye.

[tpanther]

metmom:

All coming from someone who can lay no claim to a degree in science himself.

coldwater:

Is that the now standard for credibility on these threads?

---

Oh look, another liberal that forgot about all the rules liberals make up for everyone but themselves!

This was all we heard from evos...anyone that disagreed with them didn’t know what they were talking about with our “religious attacks on science” because we didn’t and couldn’t understand what evos were talking about because we weren’t scientists.

Then they were shown:

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

Complete with scientists trained at and/or teaching at Johns Hopkins, Princeton, MIT and so on, all who very much disagreed with evos.

Hey copldwater, a better question would be:

By what criteria do you measure one’s credibility on these threads when they propose to lecture ANYONE about science, when they clearly don’t have a grasp on science themselves?

As ‘dumb has consistently demonstrated too many times to count.

[ColdWater]

Uh, is a science degree the new standard for credibility?

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...that’s where you live, so how could anyone beat you there?

[tpanther]

Not only do you NOT understand science, but speaking of liberals, you’re the brainiac that uses the same screen name on the anti-FR site DC and attaches Obama logos to yourself over there...

You’re still an order of fries short of a happy meal ‘dumb!

[freedumb2003]

>>No, no, no...for once you are going to have to take a position, rather than your usual practice of sniping from the shadows. Why don’t YOU define what a scientific theory is, and what it is not. Why don’t YOU tell us where a supernatural entity fits into the same. Why don’t YOU establish why the evo-religious, Temple of Darwin interpretation of the very same data Creationists and IDers are looking at is the best interpretation of the same. C’mon Freedumb, put up or shut up.<<

Oh God — you are so funny!

You don’t know the answer so you ask ME to supply what YOU don’t know.

OMG, that is so funny.

Good night, ggg — if you think by not answering my simple question you have “won” then enjoy your “win.”

And please, feel free to plug your ID between you computer and whatever spiritual source you think “electricity” comes from. And pray to that spirit accordingly, since it enables you to continue to post.

But, those of us with “jobs” (another foreign idea to you, but ask your daddy in the morning when you come upstairs from your Man Cave what I mean) need sleep enough to provide value to who need our help.

Good night and God Bless.

[freedumb2003]

>>Not only do you NOT understand science, but speaking of liberals, you’re the brainiac that uses the same screen name on the anti-FR site DC and attaches Obama logos to yourself over there...

<<

I see you are as dense as many to not get the joke.

But I am not surprised. Ask your mommy and daddy about “irony” after your cookie-break.