"JISTASKKIN" <try_not@here.com> wrote in message
news:7m3Ob.22407$Eq.18475@clgrps12...

"R Brown" <brown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HyKNb.120203$X%5.110508@pd7tw2no...

<snip>

I am really puzzled at your total lack of any scientific

in

your

responses.
It's not surprising because I expected you to do something like

that.

But I did think you would at least try and use a little science.

Oh

well.

(sigh) Okay. Here you go for the umpteenth time. Science, as a way

of

knowing, is not able to make use of God (or Gods) as an

hypothesis. Not because God couldn't have done it, but because He

could

do

anything. Any phenomenon you care to name could be handled with

did

that" or "That's the way God wanted it". An investigation that

a

faith-based statement such as this as its hypothesis already has

conclusion determined. The curriculum you showed me demonstrates

this

quite

clearly. The entire biology curriculum, even its title, has

pre-determined that every inquiry we make in science is to affirm

the

tenents of the beliefs of those (fundamentalist evangelical

Christians)

who

minister this curriculum to others.
Creationism, or Scientific Creationism, if you like that term, is

the

product of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity, of which you

a

member.
It is not the result of, or any part of, scientific endeaver and

never

can

be for the reasons mentioned above. It is an expression, or

manifestation,

of one particular world view and does not withstand scientific

scrutiny -

although it certainly works as a test of faith.
I have absolutely no faith in evolution. It is simply the best

naturalistic

explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth. Come up

another

one that does not appeal to faith and I (and others, I'm sure)

listen.

You will never find creationism in a scientific peer-reviewed

periodical,

such as Nature or in any Biology text, like the one I bought at

UofC.

I defy you to demonstrate that Creationism is anything more than

what

I

have

just said.
Show us the science in it, JIST, (or give us your concise

of

science). You've never done this because you simply can't. It's

your

fault - no one can. Your links to the home schooling web site

confirm

this.

I have absolutely no doubt that you will not change in this

I

see

you as a person who would never betray his faith. What you just

can't

grasp,

even for a second, is that it is your faith that has betrayed you

and

you're

stuck in a paradox. Do you know what I'm talking about yet?

I am really surprised by your evasion of any science based

to

the

material I posted in response to your request.
I will keep waiting for you to present some scientific rational.

in

the

meantime, I am happy to keep hearing about your philosophical

objections.

When you have some scientific ones, I will respond specifically to

them.

From the web site:
"This is one of the most important contributions biology has made in
understanding God's creation. Biology has taken an enormous amount of

data

and has arranged it into many different classification systems. These
classification systems allow us to see the similarities and

relationships

that exist between organisms in God's creation. "

In other words, the purpose of biology is to understand God's

If

it doesn't reflect God's creation (like that damned theory of

than it isn't science and won't be given a fair shake in this

curriculum.

Can we please note that those are your words. And if we were in a

moderated

debate you would not be eligible for points because your are straying

the facts and using your opinion.

Wile doesn't provide a sample of the module in which he

destroys evolution but if it's anything like his motorcycle argument

below

then we know it's nothing more than the usual creationist arguments

have been snuffed so many times over in this and other news groups.

the

kids don't know it.

Can we please note that you have not used anything so far but your

opinion.

Do you call that science? Really? (you must have been home-schooled)

Do you call that a scientific rebuttal?
You must be a public school teacher. Probably in that vocation because

you

could not make it into another faculty.

Oh the pain! Oh the humanity! Oh the ad hominum!
What if it turns out that I actully love teaching and went so far as to

a Master's Degree in it?

"A living organism's ability to sense and respond to change in its
surrounding environment is a critical part of survival, because God's
creation is always changing. Weather changes, seasons change,

changes, and the community of organisms in a given region changes. As

result, living organisms must be able to sense these changes and

or

they would not be able to survive."
Almost sounds like they're warming up to evolution. Is this your "just

don't

mentin the "E" word strategy that you were talking about?

Is this your scientific response? Hint: You did not use any scientific
facts or figures.

********************************
**** Science does not mention God ****
********************************

(let's get through this basic understanding, then we can talk facts and
figures. Mind you, accountant use facts and figures and they don't mention
God either.)

Is it really your

belief that if you don't say the "E" word then ipso facto the only
alternative must be literal genesis?

And that is your scientific based response? Unbelievable!! Well, so

much

for hoping.

********************************
**** Science does not mention God ****
********************************
Don't give up hope JIST. I haven't.

"Although the necessity of reproduction for the perpetuation of life

rather obvious, it is truly amazing how many different ways God has

designed

the organisms on earth to accomplish this feat."
God is the hypothesis as well as the conclusion in this curriculum.

of

biology must be bent towards this acceptance or it isn't biological

science

to you. RIGHT!!!

Thanks again for your opinion. Please note that we are near the end of

the

response and so far there has been no science based arguments

********************************
**** Science does not mention God ****
********************************
It's kinda like you're not noticing the elephant in the middle of the

"Of course, to Christians, that secret ingredient is rather easy to
identify. It is the creative power of God. In Genesis 1:20-27, the

tells us that God created all creatures, and then He created man in

own

image. Think about it this way. Suppose you had a bunch of engine and

metal

parts and you also had instructions that led you through all of the

steps

necessary to take those parts and make a working motorcycle. Could you

just

throw the parts and the instructions into a pile and make a

No,

of course not. Even though you had all of the necessary parts as well

all

of the instructions, you still need to exercise some of your own

creative

power to follow those instructions and make the motorcycle."
THIS IS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HERE, JIST!! Hello!! Religion, get it??

Not

science. Hello?

And your scientific response as to why the curriculum I posted is not
science is......??????

********************************
**** Science does not mention God ****
********************************

Still nothing but your opinion!!!

Do you like the clever use of asterisks?

Tell me, tell me, tell me ---- is THIS what you mean by REAL

science??????

Are we finally getting closer to figuring you out?? Why are we not
surprised?

I am honestly surprised at this point. I really thought you were going

dig deep into the bowels of your *science* and let loose.
I was wrong again.

Okay, buddy, let's see some of those specific responses you were

about.

I posted a high school science curriculum.

********************************************
**** You posted the offerings of a Christian ministry ****
********************************************

So far, you have used nothing

but philosophical arguments as to why it offends you.
If you have any real scientific reasons why the posted curiculm is not
science, please put them here.
This is here. Right here below this line. In the empty space. Go

don't be shy.

********************************
**** Science does not mention God ****
********************************

Bring on the science! Hit me right smack between the eyes with it.

I did you blathering idiot. I posted the curriculum you said never

existed.

Show the whole pile of us that this isn't merely the manifestation of

one's

religious world view. Show us how this is science. Let's get this

published

in Nature. Let's have this taught at the faculty of Biology of

University

of

Calgary. C'mon JIST, let's convince them. How hard can it be????

It was not hard at all. You however seem to be having trouble with a
credible response.

Don't wimp out on us now pal, we're all drooling. You have our total

undivided attention. The stage is yours. Cue the lights. Curtain up.

Man are you an embarrassment to the decent teachers in the system or

I would even give you the benefit of the doubt if you said you were a
student teacher, but didn't you say you have been *teaching* for over 15
years?
Your stupidity is beyond belief. I certainly wouldn't want to debate me

public if I were you.

No, actually, I just scanned my end of course student feedback forms. On

categories of effective teaching practice my students rated me very highly
and would recommend me as a teacher to others. Cool, eh?

Learn how real science behaves and you'll see the difference between that
home schooling curriculum and what I teach.
*I make no use of God, gods or anything supernatural in my instruction.
*That home schooling curriculum is PREMISED upon it.
In the sample module of Chemistry, Wile mentions God only once. In the
sample module of Biology he mentions God, Genesis and the Creator several
times. In all the science books I have on my shelve both at home and at
school God isn't mentioned once.
Why is that JIST? (insert delusional, paranoid, classic creationist
conspiracty theory here)

Wile has his work cut out for him so he has to hit the ground running and
clearly establish the over-arching religious view that GUIDES the entire
curriculum. Afterall, the title of the book is "Exploring Creation Through
Biology". In matters that don't have to deal with the "E" word or the old
age of the earth, he's OK, but his text still reads like a bedtime story.
Okay, that IS my opinion - try to guess how many Biology texts I've read

my career. Leave out the gratuitous mention of God and most of the course
passes the litmus test of science, even if it is rather prosaic. The fun
starts whenever he has to deal with those concepts that are part of the

word or the old earth.

are completely non-scientific (although science sounding or what we would
call pseudo science). He has to go after uniformatarianism and replace it
with a religious perspective on the age of the earth in order to maintain
consistency with special creation. That's a rather obvious subversion, but
because the whole thing is a Christian concept from the get-go the

(like you) who are totally immersed and sold on the concept to begin,
probably detect no bias or manipulation. I haven't seen these modules,

but I don't think I want to spent US$65 for the CD. I'm sure he gives the
"science" about the Grand Canyon being the result of Noah's Flood - gee,
isn't that a rather Christian/Biblical/Genesis/Religious concept?? Please
correct me if I'm wrong here. Basically, this curriculum preaches to the
converted who are all convinced that it is inerrant truth.
That's you JIST. You're convinced it's science.

Try to convince us. You've never done this yet since I've hung out here.

Just what exactly is your definition of science?