Posted on 10/24/2009 4:02:17 PM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
>>...he manages to gurgle out as they carry him off the mat...lol!<<
In your dreams, straw-boy.
“The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J. Barnard Davis has proved70 by many careful measurements, that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92·3 cubic inches; in Americans 87·5; in Asiatics 87·1; and in Australians only 81·9 inches. Professor Broca71 found that skulls from graves in Paris of the nineteenth century, were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and Prichard is persuaded that the present inhabitants of Britain have “much more capacious brain-cases” than the ancient inhabitants. Nevertheless it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious.”
I would guess by “Australians” Darwin meant the aborigines.
Europeans, including the British, naturally are top of the list.
Yeah the people who think abortion is OK, islam is just a peaceful religion, and every other kind of sick lifestyle out there is jst fine, are NOT Christians. And we are the barbarians? When you deny our Creator, you lose a part of your soul.
INTREP - I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist. I have to believe that the incredible amount of order in the vast number of systems that make up this universe came about by accident, and that it all came from nothing. Nope...that’s a bridge too far!
==And, there are lots of faithful Christians who have no problems believing in Jesus Christ and thinking that evolution may be true. Yet it appears they are atheists in your view.
It always comes down to this! And as I keep explaining, I have never run into a creationist who believes you have to be a biblical YEC to be a Christian. Clear enough for you? This is about preaching the full gospel of Jesus Christ, which, as Christians well know, begins in Genesis...the very first book of the Bible.
"Most of the stories about the Landlord are probably untrue, therefore the rest are probably untrue."
It is true that the plural of anecdotes is not data: but it does not therefore follow that the singular of anecdote is "necessarily false". And the rub there is that most information of a religious kind occurs outside of a laboratory, like the rest of human experience.
Rather an inconvenience for testing -- and what makes it worse are the explicit stories of the sort that "He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief": implying that a laboratory setting of prayer might defeat its own purpose.
G. K. Chesterton had a good description of this in Chapter 9 of Orthodoxy:
"If you choose to say, "I will believe that Miss Brown called her fiancé a periwinkle or, any other endearing term, if she will repeat the word before seventeen psychologists," then I shall reply, "Very well, if those are your conditions, you will never get the truth, for she certainly will not say it." It is just as unscientific as it is unphilosophical to be surprised that in an unsympathetic atmosphere certain extraordinary sympathies do not arise."
Cheers!
The supernatural threatens to upset this applecart: by removing the second part (closed system) it presents the risk of undermining the first (uniformity of causes).
Which is why I asked your opinion on the last two sentences of the quote in post #3.
May I ask again, whether you agree with those sentences?
Cheers!
When creationists institute the industrialised murder of 6 million Jews, Slavs, gypsies, and homosexuals; when they murder millions in a continent-wide gulag system; when they destroy tens of millions in a Great Leap Forward - as evolutionists have done - then this professor may have a point.
Until then, he’s just another whiny leftard idiot drooling on his shirt.
Thanks for the ping!
>>>“We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate,” Kinda sensitive aren’t they? LOL!
In the same way municipal engineers get sensitive about not allowing raw sewage pumped into the city drinking water lines. Well done Hong Kong educators.
” Choosing to believe that the Bible is true is not willful ignorance, but faithful obedience.
As far as spirituality is concerned, but for evolution it’s faithful obedience to ignorance. “
We have one mind. Not two.
LOL!
Where did God come from?
“Where did God come from?”
Where did the big bang come from?
Nah.. He’s right.
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense”
Would you be willing to hold biblical/religious claims against common sense to the same standards of intellectual inquiry?
Remember science is built to re-examine claims based on new evidence. Aren’t scientist the ones who usually call BS on bad science-even recently in the world of quantum physics a scientist called BS on his own theory.
My point is that science gets things wrong and then can revisit the theories without impugning the integrity of the scientific process. Religion/biblical claims can not revisit their conclusions without impugning the source-bible/god. So as these claims are shown to be off the common sense mark the sources are impugned over and over again-sun revolves around the earth, earth stood still, the moon is a ‘light’, the unfounded ‘exodus’ etc.
So if we apply the same standards of intellectual inquiry the religious/biblical claims are proven false and impugn the validity/reliability of the source-bible/god.
No where else in intellectual inquiry is a source material allowed to jump back & forth across the literal/figurative interpretations line. Why is religion/bible/god allowed this intellectually dishonest dodge?
The koran is a racist/bigoted collections of writings to promote social/religious/political/sexual control. we call that out for what it is.
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?
Careful.. Truth causes great pain, wailing, and gnashing of teeth here.
To answer your question, we do not know.
However nice try at misdirection. So let’s try this again.
Where did God come from?
Guess now we all know where you went horribly wrong.
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.