His options for teaching creationism could be valid, but for the fact
that there is no scientific theory of creationism. Even the
IDiot-Wedgies have never put one forward. You can't teach what does

This fellow is talking about "young earth creationism", and
there is more substance to YEC than there is to ID. After all,
YEC does specify "when" (about 6000 years ago) and "who" (the
God of the Bible). ID, of course, famously, doesn't have even
that much. If this fellow has any hopes for ID in K-12 classes,
he is apt to be very disappointed.

"On 21 Apr 2005 05:26:35 -0700, in article
<1114086395.277128.100950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
-------------------------------
By Najeeb Hasan

LYNN HOFLAND often talks faster than he thinks. For Hofland, it

the circumstances demand it. A creationist, he happily espouses a
point of view that mainstream culture considers ridiculous and
unenlightened.

The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God

created

it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a

Most people around here will shake their heads and wonder how

could think that in this day and age. But for Hofland, it's a

foundation of his belief system.
--------------------------------

Read it at

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.20.05/creationism-0516.html

or http://tinyurl.com/av3wk






J. Spaceman

His options for teaching creationism could be valid, but for the

that there is no scientific theory of creationism. Even the
IDiot-Wedgies have never put one forward. You can't teach what does

This fellow is talking about "young earth creationism", and
there is more substance to YEC than there is to ID. After all,
YEC does specify "when" (about 6000 years ago) and "who" (the
God of the Bible). ID, of course, famously, doesn't have even
that much. If this fellow has any hopes for ID in K-12 classes,
he is apt to be very disappointed.

not exist. Even someone as lost as this guy probably understands

he doesn't have a scientific theory. He doesn't seem to be arguing
that what he wants to teach is science. He has to come up with a

reason to teach something that isn't science in the science class.
Just because his religious beliefs require him to believe it doesn't
mean that you can teach it in the science class.

What this story lacks is the usual admission that getting over drug
addition, a failed marriage, or some other problem, made this guy
reevaluate his beliefs and become a born again. Usually these guys
give some type of testimonial to go along with their speel.

happened when he was 30 and I doubt that it was learning about
giraffes. His argument about neck bones is so stupid that you have

wonder what he does for NASA. He claims that becuase giraffes still
have the normal number of neck bones as other mammals that evolution
would have increased the number of neck bones. An intelligent

may have increased the number of neck bones, but biological

has to work with what it has and not what might be. Evolution is
descent with modification. It is his designer that could have done
anything. That the designer did things the way biological evolution
could have done it doesn't seem to register. He is so lost in his
logic that he can't see that.

This problem that you mention is something that I want to
highlight (so excuse me as I try to expand upon it):

The fellow says that evolution must be wrong because
evolution wouldn't do it that way.

The conclusion that he draws is that God must have created
it that way.

But he doesn't ask the same question of "God created it"
that he asks of evolution.

Let me emphasize that I am not saying that I know how God
could create giraffes, and that God could not creates giraffes
with those neck bones.

The problem is that this fellow is failing to follow up on
his own argument.

He is saying that if there is anything at all that he
doesn't understand, then "God created it" will satisfy him.

But it is equally valid to argue: I don't understand how
God did it, therefore my pet theory must be true.

"Equally valid", meaning "not at all valid". "My pet theory"
could be anything at all, including -- horrors! -- "common
ancestry of all mammals"; but even "the pythagorean theorem",
"quantum general relativity", or "lateral arabesqueness".

But it goes beyond that. He seems to think that *his* pet
"theory", that "God did it", also excludes evolution. Is there
any indication that he considers that *both* might be true?

In brief, his problem is that he has shown nothing, that
his basis for arguing neither supports his own pet "theory", nor
excludes evolution.

(And that is simply by accepting what he has to say, whether
or not "the giraffe's neck bones" really do present a problem
for evolution.)

This guy isn't qualified to decide what should be taught as science

the science class.

--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It being as impossible that the Organized Body of a Chicken should

of any Mechanical Motions be formed out of the unorganized Matter of

that the Sun, Moon and Stars, should by mere Mechanism arise out of a

Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) Second Defense...Immortality of the Soul

"Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com> wrote in news:1114086395.277128.100950
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
-------------------------------
By Najeeb Hasan

LYNN HOFLAND often talks faster than he thinks. For Hofland, it

the circumstances demand it. A creationist, he happily espouses a
point of view that mainstream culture considers ridiculous and
unenlightened.

The earth, according to Hofland, i s about 6,000 years old. God

created

it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a

Most people around here will shake their heads and wonder how

could think that in this day and age. But for Hofland, it's a

foundation of his belief system.
--------------------------------

Read it at

or http://tinyurl.com/av3wk






J. S paceman

His options for teaching creationism could be valid, but for the

that there is no scientific theory of creationism. Even the
IDiot-Wedgies have never put one forward. You can't teach what

not exist. Even someone a s lost as this guy probably understands

he doesn't have a scientific theory. He doesn't seem to be arguing
that what he wants to teach is science. He has to come up with a

reason to teach something that isn't science in the science class.
Just because his religious beliefs require him to believe it

mean that you can teach it in the science class.

What this story lacks is the usual admission that getting over drug
addition, a failed marriage, or some other problem, made this guy
reevaluate his beliefs and become a born again. Usually these guys
give some type of testimonial to go along with their speel.

happened when he was 30 and I doubt that it was learning about
giraffes. His argument about neck bones is so stupid that you have

wonder what he does for NASA. He claims that becuase giraffes

have the normal number of neck bones as other mammals that

would have increased the number of neck bones. An intelligent

may have increased the number of neck bones, but biological

has to work with what it has and not what might be. Evolution is
descent with modification. It is his designer that could have done
anything. That the designer did things the way biological

could have done it doesn't seem to register. He is so lost in his
logic that he can't see that.

This guy isn't qualified to decide what should be taught as science

the s cience class.

Ron Okimoto

His personality is one that could be classed as addictive as

his former drug use.

There is no such thing as moderation in anything that
they do.

Wouldn't it make sense that an intelligent designer would have

evolution as a perfect hands off method to create new critters. Sort

like a perpetual clock. Wind it once and forget it.

But these people are not rational.

earth. These nuts were brewing years ago, at least as far back as

when I first encountered them.

They will continue in their cult ways just like the flat earth

One day they will die and this whole thing will be just another

stupid humans determined to prove their ignorance and/or stupidity.

Until then I will continue to point out the folly of their ways.

rj


--
"I'm an atheist, thank God." - Dave Allen

"Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com> wrote in news:1114086395.277128.100950
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
-------------------------------
By Najeeb Hasan

LYNN HOFLAND often talks faster than he thinks. For Hofland, it

the circumstances demand it. A creationist, he happily espouses a
point of view that mainstream culture considers ridiculous and
unenlightened.

The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God

created

it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a

Most people around here will shake their heads and wonder how

could think that in this day and age. But for Hofland, it's a

foundation of his belief system.
--------------------------------

Read it at

or http://tinyurl.com/av3wk






J. Spaceman

His options for teaching creationism could be valid, but for the

that there is no scientific theory of creationism. Even the
IDiot-Wedgies have never put one forward. You can't teach what

not exist. Even someone as lost as this guy probably understands

he doesn't have a scientific theory. He doesn't seem to be arguing
that what he wants to teach is science. He has to come up with a

reason to teach something that isn't science in the science class.
Just because his religious beliefs require him to believe it

mean that you can teach it in the science class.

What this story lacks is the usual admission that getting over drug
addition, a failed marriage, or some other problem, made this guy
reevaluate his beliefs and become a born again. Usually these guys
give some type of testimonial to go along with their speel.

happened when he was 30 and I doubt that it was learning about
giraffes. His argument about neck bones is so stupid that you have

wonder what he does for NASA. He claims that becuase giraffes

have the normal number of neck bones as other mammals that

would have increased the number of neck bones. An intelligent

may have increased the number of neck bones, but biological

has to work with what it has and not what might be. Evolution is
descent with modification. It is his designer that could have done
anything. That the designer did things the way biological

could have done it doesn't seem to register. He is so lost in his
logic that he can't see that.

This guy isn't qualified to decide what should be taught as science

the science class.

Ron Okimoto

His personality is one that could be classed as addictive as

his former drug use. There is no such thing as moderation in

they do.

What strikes me as hard to believe is that purely by studying giraffes
anyone would move from being an "ardent evolutionist" to a fundamental
bible-literalist that seems happy to swallow all the absurd
simpflications and mischaracterisations of science that the YEC
ideology is so fond of pushing. Especially baffling is the concept
that a NASA engineer that had been involved in apparently genuinely
scientific research

could come out with a statement suggesting that
because "scientists keep changing their minds" then evolution is
obviously wrong.
I'm not that surprised that the vast majority of those who swallow the
YEC line see the fact
that scientists are often "changing their minds" as a weakness of
science, but anyone who has spent time doing real science should know
that this is one of its primary strengths: after all, if scientists are
constantly changing their minds (due to new research, new theories
etc.), but still, after nearly 150 years, very much accept that
evolution has occurred, and has occurred by generally well understand
naturalistic mechanisms, then we have plenty of reason to be confident
in it. Those who hold to literalist biblical faith, on the other hand,
have shown extraordinarily little willingness to ever question,
research and test their beliefs, and consequently have never changed
their minds on anything, which leaves them with no real answer to the
question "what makes you think that you're right?".

The whole thing about the Christian superstition has zero to do with
any deity and everything to do with fear of death.