Creationists have two basic assertions: 1) that they are the ones who
know true science

I've never thought about that point so explicitly but it seems to be
true even if all they do is move from one strange claim to the next.

--
On Jan 21, 11:39 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Written by a former preacher now an atheist.

---
The Creationism Farce and Its Dangerous Implications

By Lee Salisbury, Former Christian Minister and Columnist for Axis of
Logic.

Ceationism seems to be gaining credence far beyond its actual influence
in the world of science. Even American presidential candidates reject
evolution in favor of creationism. Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and
possibly Mit Romney embrace creationism. President George Bush suggests
students ought to hear all sides of the argument, as if creationism or
its ***** offspring Intelligent Design is a science topic worthy of
mention. In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 victory in Dover, PA,
creationists press on seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed
school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture
war with biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist
charge.

Creationists have two basic assertions: 1) that they are the ones who
know true science and 2) that it is they and they alone who are the
guardians of true faith in the written and revealed word of their deity.
Both are of concern as surely as they are false, but it is the first
assertion that we must deal with here.

Creation ³science² rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual
science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject
empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful
biblical legends of a 'talking snake' and a 6,000-year-old solar system
all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs.

Creationists know their a priori conclusions in advance, independent of
any scientific inquiry. They then massage their superficially
scientific assertions to justfy their desired answers to match their
religious doctrine. The circularity and philosophical bankruptcy of this
perspective is obvious. They beg the question, presuming to be true the
very thing they claim. In other words, they are going to believe what
they are going to believe regardless of the facts, i.e. religious
fanaticism.

Over the past 149 years since Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin
of Species, scientists of relevant disciplines such as cosmology,
astronomy, geology, biology, zoology, and paleontology repeatedly
confirm evolution a valid theory having the same reliability as the
theory of gravity. According to a 1991 Gallup Poll there were about
480,000 scientists working in the relevant fields of earth and life
sciences. Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This
means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution and less than 2% of
relevant scientists consider creationism good science. In the world of
science, creationism does not even qualify for fringe of the fringe.

Scientists arrive at their conclusions by the scientific method of
extensive trial and error testing of hypotheses until results produce a
verifiably testable theory, in this case the theory of evolution. In
contrast to creationist/religious theory, scientific theory is always
tentative and subject to change as new evidence dictates.

It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking
advantage of the publicıs good will by skirting their fair share of real
estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical
facade, as a lever through which to gain political and personal power.
Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of
other religions) to further their own purely political, financial and
otherwise selfish goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is a tool
crafted to a very specific end; it is nothing more than an ancient
regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.

Americaıs 29th ranking in science education can, in part, be laid at the
feet of our biblical literalists parading as those righteous souls who
would never "bear false witness." James Madison saw through the charade
saying, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in
all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of
the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its
greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its
incorporation with Civil policy." A Memorial and Remonstrance Against
Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assemby, 1785.

Make no mistake, creationism intends to redefine science, and replace it
with a hollow shell of supernatural speculation and deceit. And why, you
might ask? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a
crutch of despots and all those who seek to secure their eminence at the
expense of all others. History is unequivocal in teaching this lesson,
and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. The
creationist attack on the teaching of evolution devalues science,
cheapens theology as well as condemning America's students to an
inferior education, ultimately hurting their professional opportunities,
not to mention diminishing America's leadership in science and
technology.

Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to protect
their creationist fairy tales, they mean to redefine the United States
of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle
American democracy, by instituting religious indoctrination in the
schools and halls of public policy making. They mean to supplant all of
these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of a
redefined science and legalistic religion. And if one doubts this, one
need only consult the publications of such notable creationist
organizations as the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery
Institute to name but a few. Creationists are quite explicit in their
stated goals, and there is little room for doubt as to their true
intentions. This is what creationism is. Thus revealed, the need to
fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological,
administrative and judicial, is made even more clear. There is no higher
imperative if we mean to preserve America's intellectual freedom.

---http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_25887.shtml
--
John #1782

On Jan 22, 2:39 am, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Written by a former preacher now an atheist.

---
The Creationism Farce and Its Dangerous Implications

By Lee Salisbury, Former Christian Minister and Columnist for Axis of
Logic.

<snip good article>

I am always vastly amused by the inability of the christards to
distinguish between the logically separate questions:

1) HAS life evolved from preexisting more primitive life forms?

2) If yes to 1, is the Darwinian theory of natural selection a fully
adequate account of HOW life has evolved?

The pinheads always conflate these questions, often deliberately.
They falsely argue against 2 as if that casts doubt on 1. As far as I
can see, the affirmative answer to 1 is about as well established as
the theory that the earth is approximately a sphere rather than a flat
plane.

For that matter, why do the fundies feel such abhorrence over the
idea that we descend from monkeys? It seems to me that whatever
similarities there are between people and monkeys and whatever
fundamental differences there are are simply observable facts of
reality irregardless of whether one believes in evolution or divine
creation. Presumably even a fundy accepts the fact that human
proteins are chemically more similar to monkey proteins than to, say,
elephant proteins. How exactly do we become more "special" and less
monkey-like by having been created by a Ghost instead of having
evolved from lower primates? This is a complete nonsequitor to me.

Also, I don't understand why the ID idiots focus on the origin of
life or complex structures like the eye in order to smuggle divine
agency into our origins. This is just dumb. I expect that science
will continue to make progress in understanding the fundamental
biochemistry of life and in working out the evolutionary sequences.
As time passes on and science sheds light on these issues, the IDers
and creationists will just look dumber and dumber and more like the
flat-earthers. It seems to me that if I was a religious fanatic and
had my heart set on the idea that some kind of a God had a role in
fashioning me, I would focus on human consciousness. Certainly at
this point in time, science does not claim to have a good
understanding of human awareness.

For that matter, why do the fundies feel such
abhorrence over the idea that we descend from monkeys?

=A0 =A0 =A0For that matter, why do the fundies feel such abhorrence over t=

idea that we descend from monkeys?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:39:29 -0800, johac
<jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

According to a 1991 Gallup Poll there were about
480,000 scientists working in the relevant fields of earth and life
sciences. Of those, only about 700 consider creationism valid. This
means 98% of relevant scientists accept evolution and less than 2% of
relevant scientists consider creationism good science. In the world of
science, creationism does not even qualify for fringe of the fringe.

In the world of arithmetic, this qualifies as a *cringe*. The actual
percentages, based on the figures given, would be that ~99.85% of
scientists accept evolution and that ~0.15% or so consider creationism
valid.

---

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to
skyscrapers..."