| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 09:20:39 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: A big bang for creationism |
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it has been nearly 80 years since a high school biology teacher
named John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution in
a public school, the issue remains far from dusty history here in
Wisconsin.
A school board headed by a minister in the northwest Wisconsin village
of Grantsburg recently created an uproar by ordering staff to teach
creationism alongside evolution. The board subsequently revised its
policy in November and now asks teachers to take a more critical
approach to teaching evolution, pointing out it's just one of several
theories and remains in dispute as a science.
Some school districts in southern Wisconsin previously incorporated
creationism into lesson plans with considerably less attention. In
Belleville and Albany, for example, evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design, are mentioned as alternative theories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=23948&ntpid=5
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 11:55:10 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:6dj4u0dprcubp7gr60rqoo92nns75e3ura@4ax.com...
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it has been nearly 80 years since a high school biology
teacher
named John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution
in
a public school, the issue remains far from dusty history here in
Wisconsin.
A school board headed by a minister in the northwest Wisconsin
village
of Grantsburg recently created an uproar by ordering staff to teach
creationism alongside evolution. The board subsequently revised its
policy in November and now asks teachers to take a more critical
approach to teaching evolution, pointing out it's just one of
several
theories and remains in dispute as a science.
Some school districts in southern Wisconsin previously incorporated
creationism into lesson plans with considerably less attention. In
Belleville and Albany, for example, evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design, are mentioned as alternative theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Read it at
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=23948&ntpid=5
<quote>
Some area districts take advantage of that latitude by including the
discussion of creationism as part of their science curriculum.
"We spend two or three days on this in our biology class and both
concepts are presented," said Scott Huth, district superintendent in
Albany in Green County. "They are also both presented in the text
material. It's explained to students that there are two concepts out
there and that there is conflicting information."
"We try to be pretty neutral," he said.
A similar approach is used in Belleville, according to Georgia
Florian, district administrator.
"We're a small district with two science teachers," Florian said.
"Both teachers talk about Darwin's theory as one of several theories.
nd they clearly identify other theories. The theory of creationism is
one of those they share."
<endquote>
If - and I stress if - the teachers are doing as Huth and Florian say
then they are either ignorant, incompetent or lying. If they are
lying as a result of intimidation by religious pressure groups then I
am sorry for them, otherwise their fitness to teach science should be
called into question. If teachers have a professional duty to provide
accurate information then, by teaching that creationism/intelligent
design are scientific theories of equivalent standing to evolution,
they are misleading their students either knowingly or unknowingly.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
| User: "gman" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
11 Jan 2005 11:06:41 PM |
|
|
"If - and I stress if - the teachers are doing as Huth and Florian say
then they are either ignorant, incompetent or lying."
Lying in what way??
gman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
12 Jan 2005 08:54:17 PM |
|
|
"gman" <gsaman2@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1105486066.796372.5830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"If - and I stress if - the teachers are doing as Huth and Florian say
then they are either ignorant, incompetent or lying."
Lying in what way??
Huth and Florian are quoted as follows:
"We spend two or three days on this in our biology class and both
concepts are presented," said Scott Huth, district superintendent in
Albany in Green County. "They are also both presented in the text
material. It's explained to students that there are two concepts out
there and that there is conflicting information."
"We're a small district with two science teachers," Florian said.
"Both teachers talk about Darwin's theory as one of several theories.
nd they clearly identify other theories. The theory of creationism is
one of those they share."
According to them both, the theory of evolution is being taught as just one
of two or more competing theories of equal standing. This is wrong. The
overwhelming majority of scientists most competent to pass judgement on
this matter - essentially the biological community - hold that the modern
theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the diversity of
life on Earth. There are no alternatives that have any scientific
credibility.
If the science teachers in those districts know this but are nonetheless
teaching what Huth and Florian say they are teaching then they are lying:
they are knowingly telling a falsehood. If they do so because they have
been intimidated by local religious interests then it is understandable but
it is still lying.
If they do not know this they are not competent to teach science.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
14 Jan 2005 02:06:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:06:41 +0000 (UTC), "gman" <gsaman2@juno.com>
wrote:
"If - and I stress if - the teachers are doing as Huth and Florian say
then they are either ignorant, incompetent or lying."
Lying in what way??
Because Creationism (ID) isn't a theory. It isn't even science.
gman
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 10:37:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:55:10 +0000 (UTC), "Ian H Spedding"
<harry@spedding53.fsnet.co.uk> said in alt.atheism:
called into question. If teachers have a professional duty to provide
accurate information then, by teaching that creationism/intelligent
design are scientific theories of equivalent standing to evolution,
they are misleading their students either knowingly or unknowingly.
If they're teaching that evolution (not Darwin's theory about it) is a
theory, the same holds true.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 01:00:50 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 01:07:22 PM |
|
|
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
--D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dandelion" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 01:13:55 PM |
|
|
"David Iain Greig" <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:slrncu4vg4.17bh.greig@darwin.ediacara.org...
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
<chuckle>
That's the most parsimonious way i've ever seen it expressed. I very much
doubt wether Behe would agree (openly).
--D.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 11:04:39 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote:
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
Wasn't me officer! Really!! I've got witnesses!!!
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 11:22:52 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
In talk.origins David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote:
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
Wasn't me officer! Really!! I've got witnesses!!!
I don't care who did it. You clean it up.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
A father...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Iain Greig" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
11 Jan 2005 02:14:22 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
In talk.origins David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote:
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
Wasn't me officer! Really!! I've got witnesses!!!
We think Harter may have been present when it happened.
--D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
11 Jan 2005 06:48:36 PM |
|
|
"David Iain Greig" <greig@ediacara.org> wrote in message
news:slrncu7npr.23h2.greig@darwin.ediacara.org...
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
In talk.origins David Iain Greig <greig@ediacara.org> wrote:
Iain <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
God^H^H^HSomeone did it.
Wasn't me officer! Really!! I've got witnesses!!!
We think Harter may have been present when it happened.
That would account for the intelligence...but what about the designer?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
10 Jan 2005 01:16:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when they
grow up".
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Webb" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 05:42:09 PM |
|
|
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when they
grow up".
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you will,
constitutes the heart of the theory. Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit; but the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition. No one witnessed it, it is simply an
explanation to attempt to fit the facts. That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found. Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B. Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it. It
is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be a good
explanation. Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace. I'm not holding my breath.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:20:19 PM |
|
|
"Jack Webb" <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:TTbHd.50116$Wo.23091@lakeread08...
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when they
grow up".
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you will,
constitutes the heart of the theory. Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit; but the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition. No one witnessed it, it is simply an
explanation to attempt to fit the facts. That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found. Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B. Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it. It
is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be a good
explanation. Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace. I'm not holding my
breath.
No, Jack, there are two essential differences between Intelligent Design
Creationism (IDC)and evolution.
The first is that evolution is a theory, which means it is an explanation
which accounts for what we see in Nature, makes predictions about what we
might expect to see and offers means of testing those predictions. IDC is
at best a conjecture. There is no way to test for the existence of a God
and any lesser designer, such as a Little Green Man, does not answer the
question.
The second difference is that one is supported by a large body of evidence
and one is not. If you are honest, you will look at the evidence for
evolution, some of which is described in the archive for this newsgroup,
and try and find anything equivalent for IDC. Remember that evidence for
IDC must be more than just pointing to alleged - and mostly
misrepresented - problems with the theory of evolution. Like you, however,
I'm not holding my breath.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 07:46:38 PM |
|
|
Jack Webb wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when they
grow up".
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you will,
constitutes the heart of the theory.
You don't understand the theory correctly. There's your problem. Change
in organisms over time, yes. But it isn't necessarily directional. Take
parasites, for example. They often simplify. Evolution is adaptation
that increases the reproductive success of some individuals, on average.
Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit;
Did you notice that you just contradicted yourself there, sport?
but the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition.
Given the time scales involved, it's pretty certain.
No one witnessed it, it is simply an
explanation to attempt to fit the facts. That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found. Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B. Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it. It
is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be a good
explanation. Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace. I'm not holding my breath.
The problem is, ID doesn't explain anything. "Goddidit" has a severe
want of detail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eros" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
19 Jan 2005 03:04:43 AM |
|
|
Jack Webb wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including
the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust
what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when
they
grow up".
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What
is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms
developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you
will,
constitutes the heart of the theory. Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit; but
the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition. No one witnessed it, it is simply an
explanation to attempt to fit the facts. That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might
have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found. Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B. Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution
is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it.
You are confusing scientific "belief", which is based on the scientific
evidence... with religious beliefs, which are based on pure faith, and
are held by their proponents DESPITE the scientific evidence. That you
could confuse two such completely opposite mind-sets simply
demonstrates your naivete and ignorance.
It is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be
a good
explanation.
What others? And how exactly are they equipped to analyse the evidence?
There are "others" who believe in astrology, mind-reading, magic,
witchcraft, phrenology, iridology, palm reading and tarot etc. The fact
that a minority group holds a particular unsubstantiated supernatural
belief is no reason for rational people to accept it.
Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace.
Infortunately no amount of scientific evidence can EVER convince the
Christian fundamentalist;-
"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation
Research)
"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)
"We do not know how the creator created, what processes He used, for He
used processes which are not now operating in the natural universe.
This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot
discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative
processes used by the creator. (Duane Gish, "Evolution? The Fossils
Say No! ", Creation Life Publishers, 1985, p. 42.)
"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of
history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is
that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or
imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements
and necessary inferences of Scripture." -- [Henry Morris, Biblical
Cosmology and Modern Science, 1970, p.32-33]
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy
Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that
ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology. For
those who believe in Creation, therefore, physical processes and
evidence that indicate an immense time scale must be EXPLAINED AWAY.
Only those processes or evidence commensurate with a short (i.e. 6000
years) time scale can be accepted for use in Creationism." -- [Dr. H.M.
Morris, 1974, "Scientific Creationism", Public School Edition,
Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, p.136)]
This is how Creation "science" is done.
I'm not holding my breath.
Perhaps you should.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:07:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:42:09 -0500, Jack Webb <macjazz@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
And you're dismally ignorant.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you will,
constitutes the heart of the theory. Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit; but the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition. No one witnessed it, it is simply an
explanation to attempt to fit the facts. That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found. Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B. Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it. It
is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be a good
explanation. Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace. I'm not holding my breath.
Evolution is not a belief. It is the label applied a few hundred
years ago to the observed change and divergence in fossil sequences,
compared with modern specimens.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for this fact.
A well understood explanation, and if it were wrong things like
genetic engineering, biotech etc simply wouldn't work the way they do.
ID isn't even a theory let alone a hypothesis.
It is simply religious fundamentalism pretending to be science.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 10:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Jack Webb <macjazz@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, "Iain" <iain_ink_remove_ster@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design,
There's a theory of intelligent design? Someone cite it.
I think the theory says "if your children are taught not to trust what
scientists say about origins, they won't drop out of church when they
grow up".
Oh, you all are just too cute. Take a bow.
Now, then. A "theory" of ID? I could ask the same of evolution. What is
it's "theory"? Simply stated, as I undertand it, is: organisms developed
over time from one degree of complexity to a higher one by the
mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. That, if you will,
constitutes the heart of the theory.
I have never heard the theory stated in terms of "complexity".
I suspect that some lineages _have_ become more complex over time, for
some definition of "complex". But without a specific definition of
complexity, there's not really much you can say about it.
Has it been demonstrated
experimentally? Well, no, not exactly. Sure, we can see examples of
micro-evolution and create new kinds of dogs, flowers and fruit; but the
conclusion that the world's organisms came to be as a result of
macro-evolution is supposition.
For some strange reason, lots of small changes can't add up to big
changes?
The fossil record gives us every reason to believe in macroevolution.
Modern genetic analysis gives us every reason to believe that Darwin's
explanation for macroevolution is essentially right.
No one witnessed it, it is simply an explanation to attempt to
fit the facts.
Yeah, that's exactly what theories do.
That's fine. But because B
looks a lot like A, it doesn't require that A became B. It might have,
but "it ain't necessarily so."
Indeed. The cat that sleeps on my porch looks like other cats, but
it _might_ have been born to a hippogriff.
So as for "ID" theory, it just tries--like evolution--to account for
what's been found.
ID is an "explanation" for a problem that doesn't exist.
Instead of positing that A became B, it believes A
was created by the same Entity that created B.
Uh, that's not what ID actually says.
Can it be proved with
science? Not at all, it's a BELIEF about causes, just as evolution is.
Evolutionists BELIEVE that A grew to be B, they can't demonstrate it. It
is their resonable conclusion. But others don't consider it to be a good
explanation.
Curiously, no one has a problem with it unless it conflicts with their
religious beliefs.
Until one can falsify the other through scientific
experimentation, the battle will continue apace. I'm not holding my breath.
There's nothing in ID substantial enough to falsify. It essentially
claims that "Someone did something and therefore a bacterium has a
flagellum; no further questions need be asked."
We could take the same approach to chemistry: "When you mix NaOH and
HCl in a beaker, someone does something and you get H2O with a
precipitate of NaCl; no further questions need be asked."
That's not a theory; that's an appeal to sorcery.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "K.C." |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:18:04 PM |
|
|
What does this have to do with any of the groups posted to? It seems
to do with Christianity and creationism. Go find one of those groups
to post to.
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it has been nearly 80 years since a high school biology
teacher
named John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution
in
a public school, the issue remains far from dusty history here in
Wisconsin.
A school board headed by a minister in the northwest Wisconsin
village
of Grantsburg recently created an uproar by ordering staff to teach
creationism alongside evolution. The board subsequently revised its
policy in November and now asks teachers to take a more critical
approach to teaching evolution, pointing out it's just one of several
theories and remains in dispute as a science.
Some school districts in southern Wisconsin previously incorporated
creationism into lesson plans with considerably less attention. In
Belleville and Albany, for example, evolution is taught as one of
several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the
theory of intelligent design, are mentioned as alternative theories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=23948&ntpid=5
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:26:11 PM |
|
|
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106072284.897948.80860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What does this have to do with any of the groups posted to? It seems
to do with Christianity and creationism. Go find one of those groups
to post to.
Buzz off, jerkoff. You don't make the rules on Usenet. Go teach your
unfortunate children some creationist drivel.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "K.C." |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:39:11 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106072284.897948.80860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What does this have to do with any of the groups posted to? It
seems
to do with Christianity and creationism. Go find one of those
groups
to post to.
Buzz off, jerkoff. You don't make the rules on Usenet. Go teach
your
unfortunate children some creationist drivel.
That's the beauty of homeschool. You can't tell me what to teach or
not to teach.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 06:42:23 PM |
|
|
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106073551.681679.173130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Robibnikoff wrote:
"K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106072284.897948.80860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
What does this have to do with any of the groups posted to? It
seems
to do with Christianity and creationism. Go find one of those
groups
to post to.
Buzz off, jerkoff. You don't make the rules on Usenet. Go teach
your
unfortunate children some creationist drivel.
That's the beauty of homeschool. You can't tell me what to teach or
not to teach.
It's also the tragedy of homeschooling, especially in cases of people like
yourself.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 10:49:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, "K.C." <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's the beauty of homeschool. You can't tell me what to teach or
not to teach.
And your children can learn about reality behind the barn, so to speak.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: A big bang for creationism |
18 Jan 2005 09:47:06 PM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1106072284.897948.80860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, K.C. lept out of
the bushes shouting:
What does this have to do with any of the groups posted to? It seems to
do with Christianity and creationism. Go find one of those groups to post
to.
Jason's posts are on-topic.
Stop harassing people.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
