Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[Remedy]

More than 200 evolutionists have issued a statement aimed at discrediting advocates of intelligent design and belittling school board resolutions that question the validity of Darwinism.

The National Center for Science Education has issued a statement that backs evolution instruction in public schools and pokes fun at those who favor teaching the controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. According to the statement, "it is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible" for creation science to be introduced into public school science textbooks. [See Earlier Article]

Forrest Turpen, executive director of Christian Educators Association International, says it is obvious the evolution-only advocates feel their ideology and livelihood are being threatened.

"There is a tremendous grouping of individuals whose life and whose thought patterns are based on only an evolutionary point of view," Turpen says, "so to allow criticism of that would be to criticize who they are and what they're about. That's one of the issues."

Turpen says the evolution-only advocates also feel their base of financial rewards is being threatened.

"There's a financial issue here, too," he says. "When you have that kind of an establishment based on those kinds of thought patterns, to show that there may be some scientific evidence -- and there is -- that would refute that, undermines their ability to control the science education and the financial end of it."

Turpen says although evolutionists claim they support a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom, they are quick to stifle any criticism of Darwinism. In Ohio recently, the State Board of Education voted to allow criticism of Darwinism in its tenth-grade science classes.

[F16Fighter]

"Believe it or not, some of us are actually mathematicians and can understand when ignorant fools are BS-ing the lurkers about odds of bizarre events."

(Y-a-w-n)

[balrog666]

You haven't offended me. Or anybody that I have seen (not that I can speak for them).

As for your post 430:

Fine. But then please tell me how a single celled organism, which does not “select” to reproduce, but instead divides itself, evolves into a multi-celled organism. And how an organism with 2 cells divides to become a four celled organism, and so on and so on until we reach humans. Has science ever noted a single cell ameba divide into a multi celled organism? Hope you understand all of that.

Every significant organism on this planet (including you) started out as a single-celled creatures and they all made the transition to multi-cellular without a problem. As for how the first single celled creatures, within a swarming sea of such creatures, somehow cooperated to form a primitive multi-cellular (and then self-replicating, organism) some 3 billion years ago, I don't know - but I am not an expert on that. At the same time, I don't have a problem with it conjecturally.

Similarly, I'm not an expert on quantum well interferometry but I have no problem with the technique.

In most of such scientific questions, the question is not "is this idea the truth" but "what are the alternative hypotheses that explain the same observable phenomena better." And further research is almost always directed at disproving the most obvious and simplest hypothesis.

[balrog666]

(Y-a-w-n)

Even babies yawn. And, like you, some of them never grow up.

[F16Fighter]

"Believe it or not, some of us are actually mathematicians and can understand when ignorant fools are BS-ing the lurkers about odds of bizarre events."

(Y-a-w-n)

[F16Fighter]

"Believe it or not, some of us are actually mathematicians and can understand when ignorant fools are BS-ing the lurkers about odds of bizarre events."

(Y-a-w-n)

[F16Fighter]

"Believe it or not, some of us are actually mathematicians and can understand when ignorant fools are BS-ing the lurkers about odds of bizarre events."

(Y-a-w-n)...

[F16Fighter]

"Believe it or not, some of us are actually mathematicians and can understand when ignorant fools are BS-ing the lurkers about odds of bizarre events."

(Y-a-w-n)...

[balrog666]

(Y-a-w-n)

So, Mr.Former F16-bus-driver, why are you still here if the discussion bores you so?

[Boiler Plate]

Because that's what the copious evidence indicates happened, because every prediction of evolution which has been put to the test has been confirmed, and because I've done numerous evolutionary algorithms and they've performed spectacularly well in exactly the way that creationists claim is impossible. As further confirmation, over the past thirty years I've examined every creationist attempt to poke a hole in the theory and found that in every single case the argument failed because the creationists making the proposal were a) ignorant, b) idiots, or c) dishonest (or some combination thereof). Okay, that's not *entirely* fair (just mostly) -- on very, very rare occasions I've found a creationist attempt at "hole punching" to be the result of an intelligent, well-informed, honest attempt which turned out to be in error in some subtle way. But such examples are rare enough that I can count they average out to far less than one per year. The vast majority are just the same old recycled trash which was shown to be trivially fallacious (or shockingly dishonest) long, long ago. Ichy,

Every evolutiory test proved to be true? Now really who's being dishonest here? Just haw many of the tests to animate life have worked? How about zero. Not that it hasn't been tried, but it never works. And why are there competing theories in evolution are they all right?

Now that you made your claim how would like to back it up? How many public debates have you participated in? Do you have a journal or record of all these supposed liars and frauds that you have encountered? Have you actually corresponded with every creationist on the planet and completely disproved every theory, concept or idea they ever had? Ichy, methinks that you are a bit of blowhard, which tends to be pretty much the standard model for evo's. Regards,
Boiler Plate

[edsheppa]

Here are some definitions I found on the web.

creationist
A creationist is a person who believes that the world was made by God exactly as described in the Bible.

cre·a·tion·ism
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I suppose there that, in a weaker sense, creationism could simply be belief in a creator which could be perfectly compatible with evolution but, as I said, would not be a scientific belief. Naturally I wasn't referring to creationists like this but to those that reject evolution.

[Dataman]

So what caused the death of six million Jews? If you said, Hitler and the German people, (ding, ding, ding) you are correct. If you said, Christianity, guns, fire, planes, trains, and automobiles – (buurrrrrp) you’re a moron and thanks for playing…

You know what is flat-out amazing? An ordinary intelligent being would acknowledge that Hitler was mistaken in his use of evolutionary theory to justify the ovens. But most of the evos either end up defending him or they try to make him into a creationist/christian. The question is, why?

What Hitler did is a matter of record as is his motivation which he himself made clear. Those that defend him are being consistent with their evolutionary views. Those that make him into a creationist/christian understand the immorality of his actions but don't want it to reflect badly on other evolutionists. Either way, they unwillingly attest to the truth.

From your link:

Albert Einstein said that it was mostly the ordinary Christians and their Pastors rather than the intellectuals who gave the Nazis whatever opposition they had from within Germany

Good stuff.

[Dataman]

Balrog has such a short fuse, doesn't he? :)

[Dataman]

Quitcher yawning. You're making me yawn.

[js1138]

Yawn skipping placemarker

[guitar Josh]

Every significant organism on this planet (including you) started out as a single-celled creatures and they all made the transition to multi-cellular without a problem.

That is true, although the final result of that single cell was determined by DNA, not chance.

As for how the first single celled creatures, within a swarming sea of such creatures, somehow cooperated to form a primitive multi-cellular (and then self-replicating, organism) some 3 billion years ago, I don't know

But that is the problem that I have-no one can seem to give me a good answer. And you would think that when this theory was first hypothesized, that question would have been one of the first to be addressed-yet, I still can’t get an answer.

[Doctor Stochastic]

They're not made of compressed dehydrated coffee grounds?

[Doctor Stochastic]

A modern example of clumping would be slime molds.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Will you even answer my replies to this statement? Hitler was an evolutionist in the same way that someone trying to breed dogs is: he wanted to perfect the human species into his ideal "Aryan" race, just as some human many years ago decided to make some wolves into an animal to guard the tribe. Social Darwinism, despite it's name, was not created by Charles Darwin.

-----
The British philosopher Herbert Spencer is given the most credit for creating the Social Darwinism concept. Spencer, along with others such as William Graham Sumner and Walter Bagehot, loosely grafted Charles Darwin’s theories and related them to society. They proposed that in an unconstrained economy (i.e.: one without government interference, in the way of taxation or help for the poor), power and wealth would flow naturally to the most capable people. Social Darwinists felt as minimal government intervention as possible was best.
According to many capitalists, monopolies represent the natural accumulation of economic power by those individuals best equipped for wielding it. Some of the most famous Social Darwinists were leaders of big business such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. As popular as Social Darwinism was, there was opposition as well. One group that opposed these ideas was the workers of the Nineteenth Century. They felt they were treated unfairly and not given proper means to succeed.
-----

(Taken from http://bizntech.rutgers.edu/worknlit/social_darwinism_bib.html)

Hitler applied these themes even farther into saying that the Germanic people were the most perfect race on the planet, and therefore ought to rule over all people. I don't understand how this makes the scientific theory of desecent with modification equivalent to the sociological theory of social darwinism.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You could overcome your ignorance by some reading.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Posting that three times makes it three times as idiotic!

I'm assuming science has always bored you. Perhaps that's why you like the exciting stories of God making the earth and hanging the lights from the firmament. Or what about the other one, where he makes the garden of Eden with the evil tree of knowledge? Those are great stories. Perhaps some day you'll grow out of your ADHD and be able to pay attention to science.