Down with Evolution! Creationists changing state educational standards

Scientific American ^ | March 2002 issue | RODGER DOYLE

[PatrickHenry]

The article has a good map showing how each state rates in the teaching of evolution. CLICK HERE.

The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[stanz]

A bump to you on Darwin Day.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[Jeremy_Bentham]

Bump for later.

[Utopia]

Those that believe in the creationist point of view tell me all they need to know is in the Bible. No admissions, no changes, everything is there. "Fine I say. What about Kangaroos? Where did they come from? How could Noah not have saved them during the flood and yet they can exist?" "Well," they answer: "Kangaroos came later." "But they're not mentioned in the Bible." After a while, I get that concession. "So, the Bible doesn't tell me everything about the world with no additions, changes, etc.

If a creationist has to look between the lines to find proof for the existence of kangaroos, then how does the creationist know that his point of view is absolute?

[Barak]

[...] teaching [evolution] to the exclusion of all religious doctrine in science classes.

[snicker]

Evolution is religious doctrine, and there are evolutionists every bit as dogmatic as any Southern Baptist. Probably some of them will show up here.

[ThinkPlease]

"We...have always been here."

[caprock]

Evolution is religious doctrine, and there are evolutionists every bit as dogmatic as any Southern Baptist. Probably some of them will show up here.

In case you are unaware, your reply (Post #7) was to FR's chief high priest of evolutionism.

[RileyD, nwJ]

IMHO, it is unnecessary to talk about creationism or any other religous doctrine to question evolution.

Methinks Belief in Evolution = A Form of Lysenkoism ...

Because

The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution

BTW, Lysenko was a Russian scientist (favored by Stalin if memory serves) who held 'scientific' views that
were not permitted to be questioned without risk of losing ones job, position, or freedom.

[chapman55k]

Those that believe in the creationist point of view tell me all they need to know is in the Bible.

This is a classic strawman argument if I ever saw one.

[VadeRetro]

The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution

Where to begin? Where to begin?

[OBAFGKM]

"The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution."

Pop quiz: How many things can you find wrong in this one sentence?

[Salman]

Of course, most of what passes for "evolution" in the public schools is really Flintstonism.

[longshadow]

"The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution"

Stunning quote of the day bump

[Poohbah]

At least three things wrong:

It's the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics that supposedly conflicts with evolution.

It is spelled "entropy."

The Second Law only applies to closed systems not receiving any energy input from an external source, such as, for example, a rather energetic star only 93 million miles away.

[realpatriot71]

I wonder which creation account we teach? Judaeo/Christian, Native American, Hindu, Traditional Chineese . . . I guess we should teach ALL of them right?

[headsonpikes]

And while they're at it, it might be a good time to re-visit the idea of making pi=3.00000

I certainly can't be the only person who notices how much easier figuring round stuff out would be with this reform.

It's just a lot of smarty-pants nerds who are so stuck on the ridiculous 3.1416.blahblahblah that are opposed.

And Terrorists!!!

[longshadow]

I guess we should teach ALL of them right?

That would probably be okay with some folks, but then the question is if we were to do so, when would we find time to teach SCIENCE?

We are talking about SCIENCE class, aren't we?

[Eddeche]

That was funny !

More please !