|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2008 : 07:03:19
|
Never let it be said that we are afraid to see/hear the arguments of the opposition. Indeed let it not be even considered that we are in the least leary of even presenting them to a critical audience. Therefore, with that in mind, here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research, written by one Beth Mull.
I've never heard of her either but whaddahell, there's lots of YECs with whom I've never had the pleasure.
"Never Stop Questioning
by Beth Mull*
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past" ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."1
America is a battleground. On a regular basis, newspapers, magazines, Internet blogs, and other information outlets trumpet the victories of "science over superstition" as yet another challenge to the scientific status quo is defeated in the educational and court systems. Journalists and commentators almost universally opine, "Religion has its place, but it's not in the lab or in the classroom."
How has this come to be accepted as true? Why would those who support evolution put up such a struggle to silence alternate viewpoints? How could a mere scientific theory come to dominate all aspects of life except for that narrow slice that is deemed "religious"?
The answer lies in the unquestioning acceptance by most people that what they've been told is true--especially if it falls in line with what they want to believe anyway. It lies in the unquestioning acceptance by those in authority that this is the public stance they need to take, even if they privately know better. And it lies in the fact that those who have power almost never give it up voluntarily, with the corollary that they will do whatever they have to in order to keep it.
He who controls the past controls the future.
Scientists, educators, government leaders, and everyday citizens who accept macroevolution (the development over time of complex life from simpler forms) as true will sometimes still call it a theory, but in the same sense that they would refer to the "theory" of gravity--as a self-evident fact. Those who deny evolution, therefore, are seen as having about the same mentality as people who believe they can jump off a roof and fly like Superman. Or sail to the end of the world and fall off the edge. Such people couldn't possibly be taken seriously, and are quite probably a danger to themselves and to those around them.
And with such simplistic reasoning, implicit ridicule, and dismissive elitism, the battle of origins is often won without the victors firing a shot. If they are seriously challenged, however, about the flaws in evolutionary theory and the evidence for intelligent design, their immediate fallback position is, "That's religion; it has no place in a discussion about science."
But this ignores the system of belief on which evolutionary theory itself is based. Despite those Christians who try to weld an evolutionary framework over the Genesis account of creation, the core element of Darwin's theory is atheistic naturalism. If God was involved at all in the origin of the universe, then the need for evolution goes right out the window--its only function is to demonstrate that we don't need a divine being in order to account for what we see.
The ultimate showdown between creationism (or intelligent design) and evolution won't--and can't--take place in the laboratory, because their foundational premises have nothing to do with empirical science. They offer contrasting, mutually exclusive accounts of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. If we get that wrong, we will get everything else wrong--who we are, why we are here, the meaning of what we observe, how we should live our lives. The battle for the past, ironically, is also the battle for the future."
Read on dear friends, read on....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 06/04/2008 11:18:04
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 07:15:39 [Permalink]
|
| They will never grasp the fact that evolution has no say/doesnt give a shit about "who we are, why we are here, the meaning of what we observe, how we should live our lives" If 'God Did it' is their uber-explanation they assume that 'evolution did it' covers all matters of existentialism for us. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 07:22:53 [Permalink]
|
Well; at least the author drop the hypocrisy. It's not about science, and never was.
It's about religion and politic.
Also, as I heard somebody saying, fundies need an enemy for a host of reasons; somebody to be locked into a fight to the death with. As nobody really care, they need to manufacture one, be it gays; 'liberals' or 'evolutionists'.
Also... evilution is the theory that states that were are descendant from evil monkeys... ;) |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 08:11:02 [Permalink]
|
| Demand the evidence. And never stop questioning. |
Well, I can go with her on that one.
All of the rest, which might sound reasonable if you actually believe that you have a competing theory that is being unfairly treated by an entrenched majority of scientific conspirators probably seems reasonable. Okay, but where is the scientific theory?
| Religion tends to be portrayed in the secular world as a realm of intolerance, superstition, and institutionalized ignorance. This is often used as a decoy, an excuse to avoid taking a good, hard look at secular belief systems. Intolerance and ignorance are available to humans of all persuasions--they are certainly not exclusive to religion. |
Aside from the “decoy” strawman, this has what to do with science?
I could take her essay apart paragraph by paragraph and point out her mistakes. Perhaps someone here will. To me this just comes off as more whining from the side that has no theory but believes it does. When creationists offer something testable and falsifiable (or something that has not been easily falsified as has been the case) perhaps we can talk. When they can offer something that doesn't require anything less than a redefinition of science, then perhaps we can talk.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 09:18:16 [Permalink]
|
This author would absolutely have a point if evolution theory is dogma for a religion called "atheistic naturalism".
Unfortunately for the author, the epic fail of the article is that evolution has nothing to say about the existence of god.
It only says that the literal accounts provided by the different religions of the world are not correct.
"If God was involved at all in the origin of the universe, then the need for evolution goes right out the window" is utterly absurd. The author basically states that she knows the mind of god, even though the book upon which her beliefs are based says this is not possible.
In the end, the problem is that her worldview is built upon a foundation of sand, and we know what her religious text has to say about that.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2008 : 13:11:56 [Permalink]
|
Let's get past the cheap apologetics and other hallucinations and check out the Texas Twits as they try yet again to edit the states (and ultimatly everyone elses') science text books.
"Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
By LAURA BEIL
Published: June 4, 2008
DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”
The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”
Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.
Already, legislators in a half-dozen states — Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina — have tried to require that classrooms be open to “views about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory,” according to a petition from the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based strategic center of the intelligent design movement.
“Very often over the last 10 years, we've seen antievolution policies in sheep's clothing,” said Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, Calif., that is against teaching creationism.
The “strengths and weaknesses” language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.
Yet even as courts steadily prohibited the outright teaching of creationism and intelligent design, creationists on the Texas board grew to a near majority. Seven of 15 members subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, and they have the blessings of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican."
The theory of Evolution has no weakness', only unknowns.
What it is, these people just can't stand a question. All, every bit, must be laid out to be viewed in an instant, preferably by some sort of holy man who can translate it to the rabble. Unknowns cannot be tolorated. They also cannot abide any sort of change, and the ToE changes often. It's elasticity is among it's greatest strengths. It can and must be modified as the evidence comes in -- the recently noted Frogamander and A. materpicses make excellent examples as do the Dromaeosaur/avain specimens that seem to be found almost , weekly. And now genetics, something I know little about, alas, has made the scene in a big way and modifies the Theory almost daily.....
Where is the elasticity in scripture? Any scripture? There is none because the word of some funky god or other, however ficticious, must not ever be modified in any way, under the threat of blasphemy. This is what these willfully ignorant cretins want the nation's children to learn, and they will spin, twist, & outright lie all that they must to get the lesson out.
Because that's all that they have: spin, twist, & outright lies.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/04/2008 17:12:44 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 13:24:24 [Permalink]
|
| Are you sure is wasn't written by Meth Bull? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2008 : 18:55:30 [Permalink]
|
[Evolution's] only function is to demonstrate that we don't need a divine being in order to account for what we see. Such logic, consistently applied, results in this:Science's only function is to demonstrate that we don't need a divine being in order to account for what we see. On the plus side, Mull's sentence offers a tacit admission that what we see looks like evolution. She'll probably have to turn over the keys to ICR's washroom for that one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2008 : 04:09:52 [Permalink]
|
This has been mentioned before but, as it never fails to amuse me, I'll mention it again: In spite of high-sounding statements & proclamations, these people do no science, none. But that is not to say that they don't keep up with the latest developments. When they find something that might conflict with their Biblical views (and cause others to think a little), they attack it and try to shoehorn it in with those views. For this, they use as many of the logical fallicies as might be necessary. And they get away with it because the people they are trying to reach are not thee & me but those who are already well indoctrinated. And those will pass the Word along to others, becoming cat's paws and indirect fund-raisers for the Lord. Thus, they consider getting the Bible in the science classrooms to be of prime importance, the easier to spread their propaganda.
Do not be misled by AiG's flowery claims that they are not pushing for this; they most certainly are, and they are succeeding. Not being privy to their books, I can't state definitivly as to how many school field trips were made to their Creation Museum(?), but I've read & been told that there were quite a few. And there will be a lot more in the coming months & years.
When you think about it, Ham has the best of all worlds. He can teach the utter crap of YE Creationism without fear of being dragged into court like some common IDist. That museum has turned out to be a "plan so cunning that you could put a tail on it and call it a weasle."
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/05/2008 05:24:40 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 07:05:35 [Permalink]
|
| (...) the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory. |
.
That much would seems reasonable (if it was not for the hypocrisy and veiled attempt behind it).
Although, it makes me curious... What scientific weaknesses? For the life of me, I can not think of any (please note: scientific; not philosophical or theological or anything but science). |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 07:54:40 [Permalink]
|
Weaknesses are addressed by scientists. That is how punctuated equilibrium came to be widely accepted. But of course, such things represent refinements of the theory based on known issues. The point being, any weakness is already being looked at by the scientists themselves. That is how science works, after all.
Asking for strengths and weaknesses to be presented (they already are) means that they have no real idea of how science does it's thing. It's nothing but a display of ignorance on their part.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 08:37:25 [Permalink]
|
It's important to remember that the "strengths and weaknesses" crap is being aimed at school kids, who aren't actually in school to get a deep education on any particular subject, but a shallow education on lots of subjects. There's a lot of background information necessary to get a firm grasp on the differences between gradualism and punctuated equillibria (for just one example), and the necessary background to understand the alleged "weaknesses" often argued by creationists is even more deep, an almost impossible task given just a few weeks of evolution instruction in most cirricula.
This sort of thing is why the "Gish Gallop" works. Dump a zillion falsehoods on the audience in a short time, each one requiring many minutes to rebut, ensuring that whoever is arguing against you simply won't have the time to clear up all the misconceptions you've just introduced. "Strengths and weaknesses" language with regard to high school biology is an attempt to mandate and institutionalize the Gish Gallop debate strategy.
Just think about how long it takes to ensure that someone understands what scientists mean by the term "transitional fossil" (including similarities between traits and the difference between such a fossil and a true "missing link"), and compare it to the time it takes to proclaim, "there are no transitional fossils." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2008 : 11:45:43 [Permalink]
|
| If God was involved at all in the origin of the universe, then the need for evolution goes right out the window ... |
Yeah. And if frogs gave live birth, there'd be no need for coyotes.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 13:03:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Never let it be said that we are afraid to see/hear the arguments of the opposition. Indeed let it not be even considered that we are in the least leary of even presenting them to a critical audience. Therefore, with that in mind, here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research, written by one Beth Mull.
I've never heard of her either but whaddahell, there's lots of YECs with whom I've never had the pleasure.
"Never Stop Questioning
by Beth Mull*
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past" ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."1
America is a battleground. On a regular basis, newspapers, magazines, Internet blogs, and other information outlets trumpet the victories of "science over superstition" as yet another challenge to the scientific status quo is defeated in the educational and court systems. Journalists and commentators almost universally opine, "Religion has its place, but it's not in the lab or in the classroom."
How has this come to be accepted as true? Why would those who support evolution put up such a struggle to silence alternate viewpoints? How could a mere scientific theory come to dominate all aspects of life except for that narrow slice that is deemed "religious"?
The answer lies in the unquestioning acceptance by most people that what they've been told is true--especially if it falls in line with what they want to believe anyway. It lies in the unquestioning acceptance by those in authority that this is the public stance they need to take, even if they privately know better. And it lies in the fact that those who have power almost never give it up voluntarily, with the corollary that they will do whatever they have to in order to keep it.
He who controls the past controls the future.
Scientists, educators, government leaders, and everyday citizens who accept macroevolution (the development over time of complex life from simpler forms) as true will sometimes still call it a theory, but in the same sense that they would refer to the "theory" of gravity--as a self-evident fact. Those who deny evolution, therefore, are seen as having about the same mentality as people who believe they can jump off a roof and fly like Superman. Or sail to the end of the world and fall off the edge. Such people couldn't possibly be taken seriously, and are quite probably a danger to themselves and to those around them.
And with such simplistic reasoning, implicit ridicule, and dismissive elitism, the battle of origins is often won without the victors firing a shot. If they are seriously challenged, however, about the flaws in evolutionary theory and the evidence for intelligent design, their immediate fallback position is, "That's religion; it has no place in a discussion about science."
But this ignores the system of belief on which evolutionary theory itself is based. Despite those Christians who try to weld an evolutionary framework over the Genesis account of creation, the core element of Darwin's theory is atheistic naturalism. If God was involved at all in the origin of the universe, then the need for evolution goes right out the window--its only function is to demonstrate that we don't need a divine being in order to account for what we see.
The ultimate showdown between creationism (or intelligent design) and evolution won't--and can't--take place in the laboratory, because their foundational premises have nothing to do with empirical science. They offer contrasting, mutually exclusive accounts of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. If we get that wrong, we will get everything else wrong--who we are, why we are here, the meaning of what we observe, how we should live our lives. The battle for the past, ironically, is also the battle for the future."
Read on dear friends, read on....
|
(bolding mine) Well, that line right there describes religion perfectly! How ironic!
Cheers! |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 13:53:31 [Permalink]
|
| Scientists, educators, government leaders, and everyday citizens who accept macroevolution (the development over time of complex life from simpler forms) as true will sometimes still call it a theory |
Well... maybe that's because it is a theory... which is the highest level of explanation Science can offer.
| the core element of Darwin's theory is atheistic naturalism. |
The core element of any science is atheistic naturalism (atheistic in the same way that diet coke is sugar-free).
In fact, the core element of just about anything but religion itself is atheistic naturalist. When you ask your plumber why the faucet stopped leaking; he will probably tell you 'I changed the seal', not 'God did it'.
Conclusion, let's burn all the plumbers to the stake! |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2008 : 12:15:45 [Permalink]
|
My point is made from their very words. They just couldn't leave it alone but must answer each ciritisism with yet more of the same, old, apologist booshwah.
"Should We Teach Evolution?
Laymanby John UpChurch, AiG–U.S.June 6, 2008
Keywordsauthor-john-upchurch creation-evolution-controversy creationists creation-opposition media-bias
In lieu of our normal Friday feedback, we thought a response to a recent New York Times piece was in order. The article appears to be an effort to foment outrage against teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution in Texas schools, framing the creation-evolution controversy as a battle over censorship. That is, creationists (and any who believe that the universe is created) are out to keep children from hearing about Darwin's dangerous idea. However, when we take a closer look at the Times' arguments, we again find a basic lack of understanding concerning the issue over origins."
At this point, it briefly quotes the NYT article posted above under "Texas Twits," blithers a bit, and then comes up with this gem:
"Opposing the Teaching of Evolution:
No major creation organization (e.g., AiG, ICR, CRS) would oppose children learning about evolution. In fact, as Christians, we have an obligation to teach our children about evolution, since they will encounter it from TV shows, books, and museums. The author might be surprised to learn that the more than 400,000 visitors to our Creation Museum have been shown the teachings of evolution right alongside the biblical account. We believe that the best way to equip Christians is by showing them what skeptics think about the past, life, and the nature of the universe. Paul said that he became “all things to all men, so that [he might] by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22; NASB). In the same way, Christians need to learn what the world teaches so that we can show those who don't believe in Christ how the Bible makes better sense of the facts.
Also (so that there is no misunderstanding), AiG in no way, shape, or form supports any measure that forces creation to be taught in schools. Instruction about the truth of God's Word is always best learned at home and in church (this site has a plethora of resources for just that). Evolutionists continue to seek to mandate that evolution be taught in as many places as possible (including, sadly, even some churches that have strayed from the authority of the Bible), but we, as Christians, should never force people to teach what they don't agree with, since they will likely skew a perspective that is not their own."
How's that for dodging the bullet, eh? It continues on in pretty much the same vein and points out one of their greatest strenths: the ability to to put their message across, false, even silly though it be; to speak and to write quite well enough to be convincing to most who simply don't know because they have no real interest in science. And that is what makes them so dangerous to the educational standards of this country and indeed, internationally; they lie so beautifully.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The other side of the coin.
