# Darwin/Evolution



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Uh...our society IS lying to kids. Moreover, a lot of what's taught in schools is big fat lies. 

"Abstinence-only," sex ed is a beautiful illustration. Why do we pretend to teach kids about sex, then teach them stuff that they know perfectly well is lies? because of political pressure from the right wing and fundamentalist Protestants.

One way to stop lying--and call me crazy, but while I agree with everything justv said about education, I nonetheless think that the foundation of teaching is, TELL NO LIES--is to dump the silly Pledge, which traces back to what sure as hell looks like a home-grown version of Nazism.

Or, again, we could teach the Pledge in terms of its original intent, as propganda for the UN.


----------



## someguy (Sep 29, 2004)

Well lies in school.  YOu are not told all that is known about an area of history.  Then again consider what would happen if this was done to say a first grader.  Imagine throwing a first grader into a graduate leve history class Wouldn't work.
It wouldn't work.
Now little is taught about African history.  That which is taught is often wrong.  Why few learn about much of the stuff that actually is correct.  I say this partly because I am now taking a class in African History and I feel like I should be back in second grade for how little I know.  And I'm not alone.  I could talk on this subject on why and stuff but bah thats even farther off topic than I am already.
Now some teachers are just wrong in what they teach.  simply mistaken taught wrong what ever but most tend to know what they are talking about.
now critical thinking is something that is even more rare than African or well none European history.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 29, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Well lies in school. YOu are not told all that is known about an area of history. Then again consider what would happen if this was done to say a first grader. Imagine throwing a first grader into a graduate leve history class Wouldn't work.
> It wouldn't work.
> Now little is taught about African history. That which is taught is often wrong. Why few learn about much of the stuff that actually is correct. I say this partly because I am now taking a class in African History and I feel like I should be back in second grade for how little I know. And I'm not alone. I could talk on this subject on why and stuff but bah thats even farther off topic than I am already.
> Now some teachers are just wrong in what they teach. simply mistaken taught wrong what ever but most tend to know what they are talking about.
> now critical thinking is something that is even more rare than African or well none European history.


Yup. I do think that the system (should actually be 'systems' because each state runs independent curriculums and such) needs to move in a better direction on teaching "American History" by strengthening the "Global Studies" link so that the various ethnicities that make up USA are recognized as important to the American culture. Look at entertainment, music, invention, folklore...all hugelyl influenced by the wide variety of ethnicities/cultures and therefore influencial to political, social, industrial/scientific trends.

As far as the critical thinking thing... it is tough to teach 'content classes' (science, math, history...) when there is so much material to cover in a way that allows students to develop critical thinking within that context AND get all the content in AND keep students within a reasonable time frame and understanding level.... just the nature of the beast.

It is also harder to 'test for' critical thinking and easier to test for 'content/formulaic application/memorization' for state boards and political justifications for educational funding....uh oh there I go again....

Basically, IMO, if the discipline of 'learning how to learn' first and foremost was the main skill, you could lay the rest of the subjects with ALL the content like a trail of bread crumbs and eventually students would pick it all up...but that is a very hard approach to track and assess academically when you are dealing with the volume of students in public schools.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 29, 2004)

Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution. 

When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.

As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


None of this addresses, comments on or even contributes to what I wrote.

As far as the Darwin/Evolution thing.  It isn't 'ripped out' (thanks for the exaggeration btw) but has to be described as a 'theory' of change as a sign of respect for other views of the world.  It isn't just the "fundamentalist christians" that this could show some sensitivity/respect to though.  THere are very spiritually devout Native Americans and people of other religious beliefs that were feeling 'stepped on' or 'disrespected' as well.  Do I agree with their views?  NO.  Do I personally think that evolutionary/scientific explanations are more sound?  Yes I do.  But, I (and neither does the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM) have the right to teach evolution as if it is the ONLY theory that has any validity if it is going to be respectful of other cultural views...

"Critical thinking" is a technique.  You couldn't 'learn' it if it was 'natural' btw. 
My point is that I am teaching 'critical thinking' as a life tool to avoid being 'bent to another's will' and becoming a dupe of some overbearing person who is trying to convince you that your way is always wrong and that your foundation of thought and values is totally messed up and worthless.  Call it a martial art skill of 'interpersonal skills' if you will.

I have always said that Critical thinking is basically the scientific method turned into a mental strategy that can be applied to a multitude of situations.

Though not shared by all my colleagues, I see this stuff as strategy and tactics of language use and comprehension to understand yourself and others better informationaly, philosophically and intentionally.  Some work from a view that it is Literature based and not skill based...not my take on it at all.

I WISH that it was taught as an interdisciplinary skill instead of just 'that thing you do in English class to write that Regents Essay" as it tends to be presented now.  The Data Based Questions are just a written way of applying it as well (for social studies), Scientific method (obviously) in that content area, problem solving formats in Mathematics...and like that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

First off, Mr. Martin, evolution IS the only theory of the development of life on earth that has any validity in a science class. The other claims you mention are all faith-based; moreover, none of them rely on basic scientific methodology for their claim to truth. 

Therefore, they are perfectly valid approaches and beliefs that should be taught--but not in a science class. Unless, of course, you're willing to subject, say, the Bible to exactly the same standards of proof that any scientific theory would be subject to. In which case, you're really gonna get angry parents--because scientifically speaking, the Biblical theory of Creation is laughable.

By all means, teach the history of science. Explain, and teach, that science is a particular kind of discourse with a particular kind of history. Then, teach students how to play by the rules of that particular game. That's why they can learn critical thinking (the recent educational shibboleth) "pretty naturally," which is what I wrote.

Of course, the development of contemporary science out of humanist thought also has at its root the notion of advancing beyond superstition, and going through that process Freud called, "draining the swamp," of our irrationalism. I yield to nobody in being suspicious about all that--but nonetheless, I'd a hell of a lot rather bank on science and civilization.

I understand that you're teaching "critical thinking," as a "life tool." That's a big part of the problem: students enter college thinking it's all just a bag of tricks, a set of toold separate from who they are as people.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1.  First off, Mr. Martin, evolution IS the only theory of the development of life on earth that has any validity in a science class. The other claims you mention are all faith-based; moreover, none of them rely on basic scientific methodology for their claim to truth.
> 
> 2.  Therefore, they are perfectly valid approaches and beliefs that should be taught--but not in a science class. Unless, of course, you're willing to subject, say, the Bible to exactly the same standards of proof that any scientific theory would be subject to. In which case, you're really gonna get angry parents--because scientifically speaking, the Biblical theory of Creation is laughable.
> 
> ...


1&2.  Yeah, and for a while people who thought that way were in the minority and considered 'hertical' by the majority....as you have pointed out "history is written by the victor" even if over time, the dominant thought structure is just that a 'thought' structure.

People were "SURE" that the earth was flat and the sun was carried on a chariot for a time as well - and would have been able to apply logic to the explanation to make you feel like an idiot for thinking any other way.

THE POINT of the shift in language isn't that science class is going to teach creationist ideas (or any other point of view) but that they can not posit Evolutionary theories as "THE ONE TRUE WAY" - which would be a form of state mandated ideology wouldn't it?  It is just an attempt to demonstrate RESPECT for another group/person's ideology - even if you don't agree with it.

3.  Again, if it was natural, it wouldn't need to be taught.  Besides which 'critical thinking' isn't a 'thing you learn to do' whether natural or not.  It is a method of structuring and organizing and observing where you are in the problem solving/thesis process so that you can figure out what techniques/tactics you need to apply for that phase.  It doesn't make any sense to do a brainstorming activity to generate ideas when you are at the last phases of the scientific process and you should be putting the final polish on the presentation.

4.  Part of the problem I find with 'surpassing superstition' as a prejudice is that some of those 'superstitions' under scientific examination have proven to be pretty valid in their own right.  Also 'surpassing superstition' has reduced the importance of fine arts/literature at times from a rich part of a culture into a series of pneumonic devices that are no more than 'tricks' to the 'superior intellect.'  So appreciation, respect goes right out the window.  Again, I am not saying we all need to get out our hair shirts and 'purge ourselves' with whips, just saying that we SHOULD be recognizing what significance it might have within a different value system.

5.  Since when does applying a concept 'across the curriculum' turn it into a 'trick?'  If anything, I think it would/does instill a deeper sense of validity if this one problem solving, organizational/observational mental discipline process can work in so many different venues:  Personal life, scientific studies, problem solving, literary criticism/interpretation, social/political examination....

I don't think that I am trivializing critical thinking or the scientific process at all.  Actually, the fact that it has been taught as only applicable to 'science' things and 'critical thinking' has been likewise pigeon holed for ELA things, student have a heck of a time recognizing any validity in either use.  At least this way, they might see it as a process that is useful because it can be tailored to fit a variety of situations/life...much like martial arts practices in Kenpo/FMA do with concepts/theories/techniques.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

I apologize in advance, but you do not understand what science is, nor how it works.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> People were "SURE" that the earth was flat


AAARGGHH!!!!

No one ever thought the world was flat, it doesn't even look flat.  Go to a high place and you can see the curve, watch a ship sail past the horrizon, it is not flat.

The myth is that "people once thought the world was flat"

Smaller yes, center of the universe yes, but not flat.

There is also some very good proof that it is center of the universe, but it can easily be proven wrong, you just need a really powerful telescope...

Before Copernicus Astronomy relied on Ptolmeny's basic model, which placed the ROUND earth at the center, the sun and moon orbiting it, and the planets orbiting it with a couple extra loops in there orbit.  The stars were just beyond all of that, kind of like a outer Dome.

Copernicus switched the Sun to the center of the Universe.

Aristotle's model also had the earth as round and in the center... 

[/end rant]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 30, 2004)

How science works:
a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study 
www.coris.noaa.gov/glossary/glossary_l_z.html


The study of the natural world through observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanations. 
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm


Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. To do science, one must follow a specific universal methodology. The central theme in this methodology is the testing of hypotheses and the ability to make predictions. The overall goal of science is to better understand nature and our Universe. 
www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/s.html


Today we have a much better system in place in which big corporations fund people to justify their own economic interests.  It is more efficient than the orlder system, which involved old deformed women, large pots of water and various animal parts.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

That, I can agree with.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2004)

> The myth is that "people once thought the world was flat"



No myth here. People _did_ think the world was flat.

To use one common example, the Jewish Torah (which, once you do a little editing, Greek-ing, and Hellenizing, is what became the Christian Old Testament), describes the Earth as a "circle" in the original Hebrew.

The notion of a "flat earth" had a theological basis to it:

The idea was that God was _literally_ sitting his divine rump up in the sky looking down on us.... and, if the world were really round, then God could only see half the world at any given time. That, it was argued, denies God's omniscience and all-seeing divinity. Because, remember, God is just another name for A Really Big Human Man That Can Hurl Lightning Bolts.

The cosmology of the time saw the world as 3-tiered: heaven is vertically above us, the earth (where we are) is flat, and hell is vertically below us. Literalists argued that Jesus _literally_ ascended into the sky because they _literally_ believed that was where "heaven" was.

Tied into this was the notion that the earth is the center of the universe, which would make God all the more studious in watching us from above.

Of course, many of the enlightened philosophers of the time didn't believe this --- guys like Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, and Archimides all rejected many of these concepts. They also held to "evolution"-like ideas (that humans had "evolved" from animals), believed the world was round, and didn't believe astrological signs actually determined a person's behavior.

Oh yeah, and they also criticized the anthropomorphizing of the Divine. Those silly, silly guys... thinking that God doesn't look like us and all. Them and there silly Socratic method, mathematics, and science.

But, then again, the guys that ended up running the Church in Rome (the literalist Christians like Justin Martyr) were rarely all that educated. The more educated Christians leaned toward Gnosticism (such as Basilides) and Platonic Christianity (such as Origen).

Laterz.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 30, 2004)

ok, it has never been an accepted scientific theory that the earth was flat.

things that have been Translated a few times and speak in metaphor are not scientific sources...


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2004)

> ok, it has never been an accepted scientific theory that the earth was flat.
> 
> things that have been Translated a few times and speak in metaphor are not scientific sources...



Well, I didn't say anything at all about the "flat earth" myth being a scientific theory. Not a thing.

It was a cosmological belief rooted in the prevalent theology of the time --- flat earth, geocentrism, the anthropomorphized God, and the "3-tiered" universe were all part of a shared worldview.

Now, most of the actual scientists of the time --- guys like Archimides and Copernicus, for example --- didn't actually hold to these concepts that much. But, again, they comprised an educated minority.

Also, the Jewish scriptures do describe the earth as a "circle" and this was most definately taken literally until it was disproved by science. Allegorical interpretations of the scriptures, as seen by Philo, Origen, and the Gnostics, was also a realm of the educated minority.

Laterz.


----------



## StraightRazor (Sep 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...our society IS lying to kids. Moreover, a lot of what's taught in schools is big fat lies.
> 
> "Abstinence-only," sex ed is a beautiful illustration. Why do we pretend to teach kids about sex, then teach them stuff that they know perfectly well is lies? because of political pressure from the right wing and fundamentalist Protestants.
> 
> ...



Man you just love to argue dont you?  From the way I see it we can

A. Agree totally and the thread ends
B. Disagree and be told how silly we are
c. Change threads and........


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 30, 2004)

I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.

Beyond the fact that (as has often been mentioned) it's just a matter of correct classification, what bugs me about it that slice it however you like, it represents a caving-in to nutcakeism.

A lot of people, across the world and over the last few thousand years, worked hard--it sounds silly, maybe, but a lot gave their lives--to get us over the nightmare of superstition in all its forms. 

The work of the Darwins, the Freuds, the Newtons, the Cricks, represent our collective attempt to crawl out of blindness and ignorance. Of course modern thought has brought its own horrors--but you know, when I read these, "we should just teach Creationism too," statements, I read a society trying to pull the covers up over its head and make the devils go 'way. 

Sure, there are limits to science. Sure, it has its lacunae as an approach to reality. Sure, science is in part a culturally-constructed discursivity reflective of the animating ideological formation in which it is carried on. Sure.

But it's a helluva lot better than banging pots together to keep the dragon from swallowing the sun. Not to mention the fact that the considerable majority of the big fat fibs promulgated by our educational system fall apart if looked at scientifically for 30 seconds.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 30, 2004)

> I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.



Well, Rob.... if you wanna be technical, what is being argued for here are not, in fact, theories. They're not even hypotheses.

What these are are, in fact, religious philosophies rooted in pre-modern traditions. Doesn't mean they're "wrong", mind you, but they are not based on science whatsoever. Neither theory nor hypothesis we have here, just "tradition".

I think the problem that a lot of these guys think is that the theory of evolution somehow _precludes_ any spiritual or animating presence or force behind it all. This is not the case.

However, the creation myths of any culture have about as much place being taught in a biology class as the Pythagorean theorem has being taught in English literature. Its just silly, really.

But, hey, that's just my take. Laterz.


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


Considering that you seem to put forth that all those who refute evolution and darwinism are riligious nutjobs, you might find this article interesting:

*Holy war?
Who really opposed Darwin? Popular belief has it back to front *

by James Foard



In Discover Magazine March, 1998, an article by Matt Cartmill used the term holy war to describe the current campaign against Darwin. He said that these crusaders were not only Christians, but some of the multicultural left. Such emotive terms conjure up images of militant crowds of angry fanatics on a book burning crusade, marching through the streets on a jihad against the infidel. 

Cartmill assumes that no intelligent, reasonable person could possibly have any serious doubts about evolution purely from a scientific point of view. The article starts with the declaration, As far as we can tell, all of Earths living things are descended from a distant common ancestor that lived more than three billion years ago .1 Darwins theory, he says, has been the accepted wisdom for more than a hundred years. 

That sounds powerful, doesnt it? Accepted wisdom. The ultimate in peer pressure. Where would we be without it? If only Copernicus and Galileo had listened to accepted wisdom in their day, we wouldnt have this confusing sun-centred view of the solar system gumming up our astronomy texts. Hmm. 

The thrust of the article is that most of the opposition to Darwins theory comes from angry, conservative, Christian anti-evolutionists, and that this sad situation goes back all the way to 1859, when Darwin published his Origin of Species. In reality, however, it was the scientific folk who didnt believe in Darwin back then, but the religious folk just lapped it up like a bear goes for honey! 

Sir John Herschel, famous mathematician, astronomer and Fellow of the Royal Society, disliked Darwins theory so much that he called it the law of higgledy-pigglety [sic].2 The brilliant physicist James Clerk Maxwell strenuously opposed Darwinism.3 Renowned science philosopher William Whewell, author of the classic The History of Inductive Sciences, wouldnt even let Darwins book into the Cambridge library. 

There were many others, such as Adam Sedgwick the geologist (who taught Darwin the elements of field geology) and Andrew Murray the entomologist, who all decided firmly against Darwins theory. Sedgwick even wrote to Darwin after he read his book, telling him, I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous.4 

Ever wonder where we got the word dinosaur from? It was coined by Richard Owen, the Superintendent of the Natural History Department of the British Museum. Owen opposed Darwins work so much that in 1863, Darwin wrote to fellow evolutionist Huxley saying how upset he was with Owens criticism: I am burning with indignation  I could not get to sleep until past three last night for indigestion. Later on, Darwin again expressed his feelings about Owen to his friend Hooker: I believe I hate him more than you do.5 

This sounds more like it was the evolutionists who were the angry reactionaries. 

Louis Agassiz, the founder of modern glacial geology, and Louis Pasteur (who pioneered immunization, developed the Law of Biogenesis  life comes only from life, the fundamental law of biology  and has often been called the greatest scientist of the 19th century) were both strenuously opposed to Darwins theory. 

While all these scientists were lining up against Darwin, do you know something? There were many religious people in Darwins corner, cheering him along as if he was preaching the Gospel. 

There was a famous preacher named Kingsley, who sent Darwin a letter congratulating him on the publication of his book. Another preacher called Josiah Strong wrote a famous pamphlet called Americas Destiny, where he said that Scripture and evolution go hand-in-hand. Others in the British Isles to praise Darwin were Frederick Farrar, James Orr, and Henry Drummond, all famous preachers during Darwins day. In America, A.H. Strong and Henry Ward Beecher championed evolution as a valid idea whose time had come. 

When Darwin died, the accolades poured in from the churches. According to two historians, Desmond and Moore, the Church Times praised Darwin so much that they were lost for epithets  patience, ingenuity, calmness, industry, moderation. Others added the Pauline graces, perseverance and faith, and depicted him as a true Christian gentleman.6 

They go on to report that some religious people said that when Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey, Westminster did not bestow dignity on the naturalist [Darwin] from Down. His body was hallowed already. According to Desmond and Moore, The Times reported that, The Abbey needed it more than it needed the Abbey. They said This saintly man, who had borne the flag of science,  gave the Abbey an increased sanctity, a new cause for reverence.7 

Its hard to imagine any Christian leader being given such a profusion of Christian accolades as Darwin received. In spite of the fact that, two years before he died, Darwin wrote, I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.8 Darwin had long realised that his message would corrode the very core of Christian belief.9 So it seems like weve gotten things all twisted around now as to who supported Darwin, and who was against him, but who am I to say that Discover author Cartmill didnt do his homework? After all, he was only following the accepted wisdom  wasnt he?


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


and as a point of interest for you with regards to "religious nutjobs", please note that the following is NOT an exhaustive listing... 

*Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?*

*Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.*

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Metrologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris , Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


and heres another article you may find interesting...

*http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.aspIts not science*

by Don Batten

Anti-creationists, such as atheists _by definition,_ commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a good scientific theory. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of prediction of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of science, it is therefore religion, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

*Response*

*[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Refute the current arguments for evolution![/font]*

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Refuting Evolution*[/font]
_[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr Jonathan Sarfati[/font]_



A general critique of the most up-to-date arguments for evolution to challenge educators, students, and parents. Thus it provides a good summary of the arguments against evolution and for creation. (High SchoolAdult)


Many attempts to define science are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as what scientists do! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if contemporary scientists accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence. But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if its untestable.

The definition of science has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward: 

observation &#8594; induction &#8594; hypothesis &#8594; test hypothesis by experiment &#8594; proof/disproof &#8594; knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by blind faith (Bertrand Russells words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they dont even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as science. Its part of their own worldview, so they dont even notice. We at AiG are up front about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

*Perceptions and bias*

The important question is not Is it science? We can just define science to exclude everything that we dont like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:


We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite _of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.1


​Now thats open-minded isnt it? Isnt science about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:



Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective scientific method, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.2


​So the fundamentally important question is, which worldview (bias) is correct?, because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.


*Science a creationist invention*

*Discover the creationist basis for modern science!*
*Great Scientists who believed the Bible*




Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of coherency of truth. See The Religious Nature of Evolution. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as science and creation as religion, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation. 

*A valid distinction*

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in todays Creationrepeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the pastunique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a time machine to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although Im sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly dont teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences. Organometallic chemist Dr Stephen Grocott, although having been through at least seven years of university training, later remarked [see The Creation Couple]:


Though Id been working as a scientist for 10 years, I really only learnt what science was through _Answers in Genesis_. Some of the things people call science are really outside the realms of science; theyre not observable, testable, repeatable. The areas of conflict are beliefs about the past, not open to experimental testing.


​Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past. 


The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as science, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would like to see no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly sees the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumes that it applies equally to all science. Not so.

*Do you believe in hot water?*

*Refute the false claim that No real scientist is a creationist!*

*In Six Days*
*Why 50 [Ph.D.] Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation*
_Dr John Ashton_

Can any scientist with a Ph.D. believe in the idea of a literal six-day Creation? In Six Days answers this provocative question with 50 informative essays by scientists who say Yes Taking a factual and scientific look at the evidence for evolution, physicists, biologists, and chemists conclude that evolution may offer no more evidence than traditional religion, and factually, it may lag behind.



Important questions about the Big Bang Theory, radioactive dating of rocks, light from distant stars, and the fossil evidence for evolution are discussed in detail. Reopening the origins debate with straightforward and wide-ranging analysis of the issues confronting both the scientific community and the general public, these essays examine the entire approach to science education and are essential reading for educators, politicians, parents, and students. 




Creationists have absolutely no problem with operational science, because the evidence drives operational science. It does not matter if you are a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, or an Atheist, pure water still boils at 100°C at sea level. However, the true Hindu might still think it is all an illusion, and some atheists embracing postmodernism espouse that truth is an illusion. However, origins science is driven by philosophy. Ones belief system is fundamental to what stories you accept as plausible. Now if the majority of practitioners of origins / historical science have the wrong belief system (materialism), then the stories they find acceptable will also be wrong. So a majority vote of contemporary scientists is hardly a good way to determine the validity of the respective stories. And origins science, or historical science, is essentially an exercise in story tellingLewontin alluded to this story telling in the quote above. 

*Define terms consistently!*

It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Lets be clear that we are discussing the General Theory of Evolution (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.3 Many, perhaps inadvertently, perform this switching definitions trick in alluding to mutations in bacteria as corroborating evolution. This has little to do with the belief that hydrogen changed into humans over billions of years. The key difference is that the GTE requires not just change, but change that _increases the information content of the biosphere_. 

*Predictions or postdictions?*

Many evolutionists proffer mutations and antibiotic resistance in bacteria (operational science) as being some sort of prediction of evolution (origins science). In fact, genetics (operational science) was an embarrassment to evolution, which is probably the major reason that Mendels pioneering genetics research went unrecognized for so many years (Mendels discovery of discrete genes did not fit Darwins idea of continuous unlimited variation). When mutations were discovered, these were seen as a way of reconciling Darwinism with the observations of operational sciencehence the neo-Darwinian synthesis of Mayr, Haldane, Fisher, etc. 

So, Darwinism never _predicted_ anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense. 

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationistssee How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Poppers notion that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific theory is underlined by the many predictions of evolutionary theory that have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be likesee, for example, Contrasting the Origin of Species With the Origin of Phyla. The evolutionist Gould has written at length on this conundrum.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*Time and chance cant explain lifes amazing designget your answers here!*[/font]



*Not By Chance!* 
_Dr Lee Spetner_



Dr Spetner, an Israeli biophysicist and expert information theorist, has dealt a death-blow at the heart of the neo- Darwinian story. The crucial battle- ground has always been the origin of new genetic _information_. Spetner shows that random mutations plus natural selection are an inadequate explanation of the encyclopedic information content in living organisms. This book is a must for everyone who desires to defend the Bible in this increasingly educated society.

 Contrary to evolutionists expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved _de novo_ origin of new complex genetic information (see the book _Not By Chance_ (right). In fact, evolution never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise

Contrary to evolutionists expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches exactly what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called chemical evolution. See Q&A Origin of Life for papers outlining the profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

*Falsified but not abandoned*

So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many its because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists its the only game in townthe only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialists creation myth. Its a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrichs worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

*Light in the darkness!*

Jesus Christ came as the light of the world (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature. He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just re-arranged pond-scum, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountableall of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness.


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


... heres another one for you rob...just let me know when you would like me to stop providing arguments against evolution....

*EVOLUTION IS RELIGION--NOT SCIENCE
- IMPACT No. 332 February 2001
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.*
*

*The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. *

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. 

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3 
​The question is, just _why_ do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? 

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they _want_ to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. 

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalismthe proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4 
​Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true. 

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5 
​Therefore, they must _believe_ it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: 

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6 
​A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: 

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7 
​It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution _is_ their _religion!_ 

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religiona full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8 
​Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. 

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9 
​They _must_ believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. 

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10 
​The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: 

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11 
​A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says: 

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appealwithout demonstrationto evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12 
​Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this. 

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13 
​Once again we emphasize that evolution is _not_ science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows: 

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14 
​Even _that_ statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent! 

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, _The Long War Against God_,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). 

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said: 

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16 
​Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18 

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. 

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism. 

*References* ​1 Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against EvolutionPart I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
2 Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against EvolutionPart II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
3 Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," _New Scientist_ (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
4 Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," _The Humanist_ (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30. 
5 Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, _Science and Christian Belief _(vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
6 Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," _Scientific American_ (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
7 Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," _Nature_ (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
8 Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," _National Post_ (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
9 Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," _The Humanist_ (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
10 Lewontin, Richard, Review of_ The Demon-Haunted World_, by Carl Sagan. In _New York Review of Books_, January 9, 1997.
11 Bowler, Peter J., Review of _In Search of Deep Time_ by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), _American Scientist_ (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
12 Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," _Physics Today_ (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54. 
13 Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in _Catching Up with the Vision_, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
14 Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," _New Scientist_ (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
15 Morris, Henry M., _The Long War Against God _(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
16 Huxley, Julian, _Essays of a Humanist_ (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964),
p. 125.
17 Ibid., p. 222.
18 Ibid.​


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


...heres another article for you whichi may surprise you... evolution is just another religion!

*[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Evolution As Religion[/font]*

*[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David Ungred[/font]*

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First published in
_Creation Ex Nihilo_ *4*(4): 54-57, March 1982 [/font]

With his [Darwin's] Descent of Man, published in 1871, the theory was complete: a new model of : human origins had been constructed which could replace the fundamentalist Biblical one. Man was not a unique creation at the hand of God, but the product of a long evolutionary process; he evolved from the same humble marine ancestors as as the rest of the animal kingdom.​
Evolution as a religious system, has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs: 

1. Space, Matter and Time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence; 

2.Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously non living matter, becomes not only possible, but probable; 

3. All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in Time and giving rise to a Process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, ail life, at one distant point in Time arose from at least one common ancestor. 

The implications of these religious beliefs on Christianity have not been overlooked by the non-Christian. In his book *Before Civilization,* Professor Colin Renfrew, commenting on the impact of Darwin's original statement of the General Theory of Evolution, writes: With his [Darwin 's Descent of Man, published in 1871, the theory was complete: a new model of human origins had been constructed which could replace the fundamentalist Biblical one. Man was not a unique creation at the hand of God, but the product of a long evolutionary process; he evolved from the same humble marine ancestors as the rest of the animal kingdom.​
In *Science Ponders Religion*, Curtly Mather of Harvard University views the impact of evolution on Christianity in this respect: _When a theologian accepts evolution as the process used by the Creator, he must be willing to go all the way with it. Not only is it an orderly process, it is a continuing one. Nothing was finished on any seventh day; the process of creation is still going on. . . Moreover, the creative process of evolution is not to be inter- rupted by any supernatural intervention. . . The spiritual aspects of the life of man are just as surely a product of the processes called evolution as are his brain and nervous system._ 

Thus there was no historic Adam and Eve who were sinless creatures created in the image of God. There was no historic Fall of mankind because of original sin. Death was not a penalty of sin, since death has always been an inseparable part of life from the beginning. And what of the atoning work of Christ on the cross? His death is not needed because the process marches onward and upward. So would argue the evolutionist. "Evolution is a light :which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow." Geneticist Theodosius Dobzha 

Sir Julian Huxley, evolutionist and biologist, states his faith in this way, "For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous. . . Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion." As geneticist and evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky metaphorically announces, ''Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow. "​
Is it because Evolution is a religious system built on individual faith that makes its proponents so fervent in their support? No matter how compelling, how complete the evidences against the General Theory of Evolution may be, or how impressive the evidence for the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood-Judgement, the community of secular scientists will never concede the fundamental fallacy of their religious system in favour of Scripture. Why? To accept the Creation Model or the Flood-Judgement Model as viable scientific models would also require the acceptance of the Creator Christ Jesus, and this they cannot do. "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation", says the evolutionist. 

Dr. Loren Eiseley in his book *The Immense Journey* has summarised his position and the position of his colleagues in this way: _After having chided the theologian on his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what after long effort, could not he proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. _

Evolution makes religious claims on the basis of a presumed flow of history It is a religious system which is against Christ and His Church. One system of faith denies the other. Evolution is a contemporary creation myth, not really so different from the creation myths of the ancients. In evolution the names of the gods are shrouded in the scientific jargon of the age and culture. 

By contrast, the Creationist who believes that the Bible is inerrant revelation from God about God, must then believe that the God who created the universe, life and man, is capable of communicating the significant details of this event. To relegate the first eleven chapters of Genesis to mythology is to deny the Creator this ability to communicate. The Word of God makes religious claims in conjunction with historical claims. Jesus illustrated this inseparable linkage when He asked Nicodemus, "You do not believe me when I tell you about the things of this world; how will you ever believe me then when I tell you about things of heaven?" [John 3:12]. *Jesus is the true Light of this world which illumines all facts - not evolution. Jesus is the Word, the trajectory along which all lines of thought must follow in order to be true- not evolution. *​

Any truth that is known concerning what has happened in history is contained in the Messiah, the Son of God. All knowledge must be Christ-centered. To the degree that any man knows truth, to that degree he has encountered Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 

Professor Peter Medawar has had this to say about a fellow evolutionist, Karl Popper, 55 *I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable scientific theories . . . This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure. 
Science Philosopher, Karl Popper. *​"I think Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of science that has ever been. " What does Popper have to say about Evolution? In his autobiography *Unended Quest,* Karl Popper writes: _I have come to the conclusion hot Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research prograinine - a possible fromework for testable scientific theories . . . This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally accpeted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that on ultimate explanation has been reached. _


Karl Popper views evolution not as a science, but as a "possible framework" on which to build "testable scientific theories". Creationist academics have successfully argued that their belief system is a better framework upon which to build scientific theories. Theories, for example, concerning the development of speech capability and the proliferation of the various languages will be constructed totally differently depending on whether the investigator begins from Scripture or the evolutionist worldview, The decision the scientist must make is upon which framework to build his theories - the framework communicated by God to man, or the framework built by man to avoid the need for God. The scientific theories of both the Creationist and the Evolutionist are subject to the accuracy of their respective assumptions of origins. If the framework is myth, what are the theories derived from the framework? Should they be considered no more than merely embellishments of the original myth? Is the "ultimate explanation" found in evolution as contemporary man insists, or is the ultimate truth revealed in the Scriptures that Popper and his friends have rejected? As the Scriptures testify: _Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they ore perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! They know Cod, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness. They say they ore wise, but they ore fools; instead of worshipping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. [Romans 1:20-22.] _"Darwin argued that all species evolved in gradual fashion, leading to man. But some experts now contend evolution occurred in relatively sudden leaps.", reports *Newsweek* [November 3, 1980]. In the periodical *Science* [August 22, 1980] we read, "The sudden disappearance of more than 70 percent of all living species on land and in the ocean 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, is a major event in the history of the earth. . . Hypotheses proposed to explain the terminal Cretaceous extinction include _ spillover of the Arctic Ocean, causing a severe change in the earth's climate, [ii] magnetic reversal, [iii] radiation from a recent supernova, and [iv] meteorite impact." Why, after over one hundred years of evolutionist theory of gradual change, is there the necessity for "sudden leaps" and "sudden disappearances"? What current events have driven some evolutionists to search for catastrophic episodes with which they feel they must fortify their position? Could a major reason be that the Word of God is penetrating areas into which it has too long been thought impotent and irrelevant? Christians with scientific and technical training are rediscovering that the Word of God is not a hazy Jewish myth, but is today still sharper than any two-edged sword destroying the false dogma and the contrived doctrines of men. Evolutionist Beverly Halstead writes in *New Scientist* [July, 1980]: Palaeontology and the theory of evolution are under attack from a curious variety of sources. There has been a recent upsurge of books and articles condemning the idea of evolution and the fossil record in particular, while at the same time urging a return to the revealed truth documented in the Bible. This new generation of fundamentalist tracts differs from its predecessors in the [eve.' of sophistication. Moreover, for the first time the tracts' views are receiving a sympathetic echo from the British Museum [Natural History] London. 

With increasing rapidity the evolutionists are having to abandon the position of gradual upward development occurring over eons of time. The data being discovered in the fossil record can no longer be relied upon to defend the process of gradual change. It is the fossil record on which the General Theory of Evolution most heavily rests. Fossils are mostly the remains of creatures and plants which died and were suddenly buried in such a manner as to be preserved as an impression in stone or as casts where minerals have replaced the organic structures. The numbers and types of animals and plants preserved as fossils attest to a sudden and cataclysmic burial: the preservation in stone of a butterfly's impression with the delicate markings on its fragile wings still visible; or the fossilised remains of two small dinosaurs which were frozen in battle, preserved in stone by a flood of sediment which suddenly overtook them. The gradual processes of the General Theory of Evolution and the cataclysmic fossil record cannot be reconciled. In order to salvage the evolutionary theory, more theories explaining the sudden appearances of living species must now be brought into existence. *As new scientific discoveries are made and as new facts emerge, the General Theory of Evolution will continue to be changed; of this we can be certain. We can also be certain that because the Word of God is true, the Biblical account of the Creation and the Flood- Judgement will continue to be illuminated in such a way as to testify to the Glory of God. *​_


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Axly, I learned this stuff they're now calling, "critical thinking," pretty naturally--through science classes, which particularly in the case of biology organized their curriculum around evolution.
> 
> When you start ripping Darwin out of the science curriculum because of religious nutjobs, you have to come up with abstracted ways of teaching analysis.
> 
> As for the teaching of history--it would be hilarious in its awfulness, if I didn't have professional objections to utter incompetence and deep-seated racism combined with propagandizing.


...I think I'll make this the last article I present to you rob, as I think the point has been made.... that you can consider "yourself" to be one of those "religious nutjobs" you grouped and condemned...

*Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias *

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in _Refuting Evolution_
Chapter 1



Many evolutionary books, including _Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science,_ contrast religion/creation opinions with evolution/science facts. It is important to realize that this is a misleading contrast. Creationists often appeal to the facts of science to support their view, and evolutionists often appeal to philosophical_ assumptions _from_ outside _science. While creationists are often criticized for starting with a bias, evolutionists also start with a bias, as many of them admit. The debate between creation and evolution is primarily a dispute between two worldviews, with mutually incompatible underlying assumptions. 

This chapter takes a critical look at the definitions of science, and the roles that biases and assumptions play in the interpretations by scientists. *The bias of evolutionary leaders*

It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselvesthey are always_ interpreted _according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists interpretation is _naturalism_it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. 


_Evolution_ is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged big bang, non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, mans yearnings gave rise to religions, etc. 

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote: Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1 
​
So its not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits: At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks dont usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.2
​
Its not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! Actually,_ Teaching about Evolution _admits in the dialogue on pages 2225 that science isnt just about facts, and it is tentative, not dogmatic. But the rest of the book is dogmatic that evolution is a fact! 

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the worlds leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it: We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite _of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3
​
Many evolutionists chide creationists not because of the facts, but because creationists refuse to play by the current rules of the game that exclude supernatural creation _a priori_.4 That it is indeed a game was proclaimed by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson: 

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.5
​
In practice, the game is extended to trying to explain not just the behavior, but the _origin _of everything without the supernatural. 

Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they havent seen the designer. And the whole basis of the SETI program is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an intelligent source. Yet the materialistic bias of many evolutionists means that they reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell. 

Its no accident that the leaders of evolutionary thought were and are ardently opposed to the notion of the Christian God as revealed in the Bible.6 Stephen Jay Gould and others have shown that Darwins purpose was to destroy the idea of a divine designer.7 Richard Dawkins applauds evolution because he claims that before Darwin it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, as he says he is.8 

Many atheists have claimed to be atheists precisely because of evolution. For example, the evolutionary entomologist and sociobiologist E.O. Wilson (who has an article in _Teaching about Evolution _on page 15) said: As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion; I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory.9 
​
Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the _Humanist Manifesto II _(1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are: 
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith. This might surprise some parents who think the schools are supposed to be free of religious indoctrination, but this quote makes it clear: 

I am convinced that the battle for humankinds future must be waged and won in the _public school classroom _by _teachers_ who correctly perceive their role as the _proselytizers of a new faith_: a _religion_ of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be _ministers _of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to _convey humanist values _in_ whatever subject they teach_, regardless of the educational levelpreschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the newthe rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the _new faith of humanism  ._ It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.10 
​
_Teaching about Evolution_, while claiming to be about science and neutral on religion, has some religious statements of its own. For example on page 6: To accept the probability of change and to see change as an agent of opportunity rather than as a threat is a silent message and challenge in the lesson of evolution. 
​
However, as it admits that evolution is unpredictable and natural, and has no specific direction or goal (p. 127), this message is incoherent. 

The authors of _Teaching about Evolution _may realize that the rank atheism of most evolutionary leaders would be repugnant to most American parents if they knew. More recently, the agnostic anti-creationist philosopher Ruse admitted, Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism but this may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law.11 _Teaching about Evolution _tries to sanitize evolution by claiming that it is compatible with many religions. It even recruits many religious leaders in support. One of the dialogues portrays a teacher having much success diffusing opposition by asking the students to ask their pastor, and coming back with Hey evolution is okay! Although the dialogues are fictional, the situation is realistic. 

It might surprise many people to realize that many church leaders do not believe their own book, the Bible. This plainly teaches that God created recently in six consecutive normal days, made things to reproduce after their kind, and that death and suffering resulted from Adams sin. This is one reason why many Christians regard evolution as incompatible with Christianity. On page 58,_ Teaching about Evolution _points out that many religious people believe that God used evolution (theistic evolution). But theistic evolution teaches that God used struggle for survival and death, the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26) as His means of achieving a very good (Gen. 1:31) creation.12 Biblical creationists find this objectionable. 

The only way to assert that evolution and religion are compatible is to regard religion as having nothing to do with the real world, and being just subjective. A God who created by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all. 

Perhaps_ Teaching about Evolution _is letting its guard down sometimes. For example, on page 11 it refers to the explanation provided in Genesis  that God created everything in its present form over the course of six days, i.e., Genesis really does teach six-day creation of basic kinds, which contradicts evolution. Therefore, _Teaching about Evolution_ is indeed claiming that evolution conflicts with Genesis, and thus with biblical Christianity, although they usually deny that they are attacking religion. _Teaching about Evolution_ often sets up straw men misrepresenting what creationists really do believe. Creationists do not claim that everything was created in exactly the same form as todays creatures. Creationists believe in variation _within a kind_, which is totally different from the_ information-gaining _variation required for particles-to-people evolution. This is discussed further in the next chapter. 

More blatantly, _Teaching about Evolution _recommends many books that are very openly atheistic, like those by Richard Dawkins (p. 131).13 On page 129 it says: Statements about creation  should not be regarded as reasonable alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin and evolution of life. Since anything not reasonable is unreasonable, _Teaching about Evolution_ is in effect saying that believers in creation are really unreasonable and irrational. This is hardly religiously neutral, but is regarded by many religious people as an attack. 

A recent survey published in the leading science journal _Nature_ conclusively showed that the National Academy of Sciences, the producers of _Teaching about Evolution_, is heavily biased against God, rather than religiously unbiased.14 A survey of all 517 NAS members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists. It is likely that those who didnt respond were unbelievers as well, so the study probably underestimates the level of anti-God belief in the NAS. The percentage of unbelief is far higher than the percentage among U.S. scientists in general, or in the whole U.S. population. 

Commenting on the professed religious neutrality of _Teaching about Evolution_, the surveyors comment: NAS President Bruce Alberts said: There are very many outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists. _Our research suggests otherwise_.15 
​*The basis of modern science*



Many historians, of many different religious persuasions including atheistic, have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe. For example, Dr Stanley Jaki has documented how the scientific method was stillborn in all cultures apart from the Judeo-Christian culture of Europe.16 These historians point out that the basis of modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. But if there is no creator, or if Zeus and his gang were in charge, why should there be any order at all? So, not only is a strong Christian belief not an obstacle to science, such a belief was its very foundation. It is, therefore, fallacious to claim, as many evolutionists do, that believing in miracles means that laboratory science would be impossible. Loren Eiseley stated: The philosophy of experimental science  began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation  . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.17
​
Evolutionists, including Eiseley himself, have thus abandoned the only rational justification for science. But Christians can still claim to have such a justification. 

It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in _creation_. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.18 A sample: PhysicsNewton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
ChemistryBoyle, Dalton, Ramsay 
BiologyRay, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz 
GeologySteno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier 
AstronomyCopernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder 
MathematicsPascal, Leibnitz, Euler 
​
Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution (i.e., everything made itself). The _Answers in Genesis_ (Australia) staff scientists have published many scientific papers in their own fields. Dr Russell Humphreys, a nuclear physicist working with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has had over 20 articles published in physics journals, while Dr John Baumgardners catastrophic plate tectonics theory was reported in _Nature_. Dr Edward Boudreaux of the University of New Orleans has published 26 articles and four books in physical chemistry. Dr Maciej Giertych, head of the Department of Genetics at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, has published 90 papers in scientific journals. Dr Raymond Damadian invented the lifesaving medical advance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).19 Dr Raymond Jones was described as one of Australias top scientists for his discoveries about the legume _Leucaena_ and bacterial symbiosis with grazing animals, worth millions of dollars per year to Australia.20 Dr Brian Stone has won a record number of awards for excellence in engineering teaching at Australian universities.21 An evolutionist opponent admitted the following about a leading creationist biochemist and debater, Dr Duane Gish: Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.22 
​
A number of highly qualified living creationist scientists can be found on the _Answers in Genesis_ website.23 So an oft-repeated charge that no real scientist rejects evolution is completely without foundation. Nevertheless, _Teaching about Evolution _claims in this Question and Answer section on page 56: 

Q: Dont many scientists reject evolution? A: No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming  . 
​
It is regrettable that _Teaching about Evolution_ is not really answering its own question. The actual question should be truthfully answered Yes, even though evolution-rejecting scientists are in a minority. The explanation for the answer given would be appropriate (even if highly debatable) if the question were: Is it true that there is no scientific _consensus_ around evolution? But truth is not decided by majority vote! 

C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true: If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone elses. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.24 
​*The limits of science*



Science does have its limits. Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the _present_. This has indeed been very successful in understanding the world, and has led to many improvements in the quality of life. In contrast, evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable _past_. Thus the comparison in _Teaching about Evolution _of disbelief in evolution with disbelief in gravity and heliocentrism is highly misleading. It is also wrong to claim that denying evolution is rejecting the type of science that put men on the moon, although many evolutionary propagandists make such claims. (Actually the man behind the Apollo moon mission was the _creationist_ rocket scientist Wernher von Braun.25) 

In dealing with the past, origins science can enable us to make educated guesses about origins. It uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause26) and analogy (e.g., we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). But the only way we can be really sure about the past is if we have a reliable eyewitness account. Evolutionists claim there is no such account, so their ideas are derived from assumptions about the past. But biblical creationists believe that Genesis is an eyewitness account of the origin of the universe and living organisms. They also believe that there is good evidence for this claim, so they reject the claim that theirs is a blind faith.27 

Creationists dont pretend that any knowledge, science included, can be pursued without presuppositions (i.e., prior religious/philosophical beliefs). Creationists affirm that creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Bible any more than evolution can ultimately be divorced from its naturalistic starting point that excludes divine creation _a priori._ *References and notes*


D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, _Nature_ *124*:233, 1929.
Boyce Rensberger, _How the World Works_ (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 1718.
Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, _The New York Review_, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
C. Wieland, The Rules of the Game, _Creation Ex Nihilo_ *11*(1):4750, December 1988February 1989.
R.E. Dickerson, _J. Molecular Evolution_ *34*:277, 1992; _Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith_ *44*:137138, 1992.
D. Batten, A Whos Who of evolutionists, _Creation Ex Nihilo _*20*(1):32, December 1997February 1998; How Religiously Neutral Are the Anti-Creationist Organisations? cited 18 February 1999.
C. Wieland, Darwins Real Message: Have You Missed It? _Creation Ex Nihilo_ *14*(4):1619, SeptemberNovember 1992.
R. Dawkins, _The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design_, (NY: W.W. Norton, 1986), p. 6.
E.O. Wilson, _The Humanist_, September/October 1982, p. 40.
J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, _The Humanist_, Jan.Feb. 1983, 23, 26 (emphases added), cited by Wendell R. Bird_, Origin of the Species Revisited_, vol. 2, p. 257.
Symposium titled The New Anti-Evolutionism (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science). See C. Wieland, The Religious Nature of Evolution, _CEN Technical Journal_ *8*(1):34.
W. Gitt, _Did God Use Evolution?_ (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 1993); D.H. Lane, A Critique of Theistic Evolution, _Bibliotheca Sacra_ *151*:1131, JanuaryMarch 1994, Part 1; *151*:155174, AprilJune 1994, Part 2.
For refutations of Dawkins books, see: G.H. Duggan, Review of _The Blind Watchmaker_, _Apologia_ *6*(1):121122, 1997; K.T. Gallagher, Dawkins in Biomorph Land_, International Philosophical Quarterly_ *32*(4):501513, December 1992; R.G. Bohlin, Up the River Without a Paddle, Review of_ River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life_, _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ *10*(3):322327, 1996; J.D. Sarfati, Review of _Climbing Mt Improbable_, _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ *12*(1):2934, 1998; W. Gitt, Weasel Words, _Creation Ex Nihilo_ *20*(4):2021, SeptemberNovember 1998.
E.J. Larson and L. Witham, Leading Scientists Still Reject God, _Nature_ *394*(6691):313, 23 July 1998. The sole criterion for being classified as a leading or greater scientist was membership of the NAS.
_Ibid.,_ emphasis added.
S. Jaki, _Science and Creation_ (Edinburgh and London: Scottish Academic Press, 1974).
L. Eiseley: _Darwins Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It_ (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961).
A. Lamont, _21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible_ (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 120131; H.M. Morris_, Men of Science Men of God_ (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1982).
J. Mattson and Merrill Simon, _The Pioneers of NMR in Magnetic Resonance in Medicine: The Story of MRI_ (Jericho, NY: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996), chapter 8. See also the interview with Dr Damadian in _Creation Ex Nihilo,_ *16*(3):3537, JuneAugust 1994.
Standing Firm [Interview of Raymond Jones with Don Batten and Carl Wieland], _Creation Ex Nihilo_ *21*(1):2022, December 1998February 1999.
Prize-winning Professor Rejects Evolution: Brian Stone Speaks to Don Batten and Carl Wieland, _Creation Ex Nihilo _*20*(4):5253, SeptemberNovember 1998.
Sidney W. Fox, _The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside_ (NY: Basic Books, 1988), p. 46. Fox is a leading chemical evolutionist who believes life evolved from proteinoid microspheres.
Cited 18 February 1999.
C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 5253.
Ann Lamont, _21 Great Scientists who Believed the Bible_ (Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1995), p. 242251.
J.D. Sarfati, If God Created the Universe, Then Who Created God? _CEN Technical Journal _*12*(1)2022, 1998.
Some supporting information can be found in the following works, among others: H.M. Morris with H.M. Morris III, _Many Infallible Proofs_ (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1996); G.L. Archer, _Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982); G.H. Clark,_ Gods Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics_ (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 2nd ed. 1987); P. Enns, _The Moody Handbook of Theology_ (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), chapter 18; N.L. Geisler and R.M. Brooks, _When Skeptics Ask_ (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990); N.L. Geisler and T. R. Howe, _When Critics Ask_ (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1992); N.L. Geisler and William E. Nix, _A General Introduction to the Bible_ (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986); H. Lindsell, _The Battle for the Bible_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976); J. McDowell, _More Evidence That Demands a Verdict_ (San Bernardino, CA: Heres Life Publishers, revised ed. 1981); John W. Wenham, _Christ and the Bible_ (Guildford, Surrey, UK: Eagle, 3rd ed. 1993).


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 1, 2004)

Always amusing to see people try and fake "science" to promote an agenda. In this case, a religous/evangelical one.

Parmanjack, ever wonder why the veracity of creationism is never debated in peer-reviewed scientific journals?? Ever wonder why evolution of one form or another (not necessarily the neo-Darwinian model) is the entire basis for most biology classes?? Ever wonder why all the nutjobs you cited either: 1) wrote books independent of peer review, and 2) wrote in decidedly non-scientific maganizines??

Its utter silliness to claim evolution somehow doesn't pass as a "scientific theory". The vast majority of practicing biologists in this country would laugh in your face at such a baseless accusation. As someone pointed out on another thread, creationists trying to get the public to think that evolution is highly debated is like the tobacco industry trying to get the public to think that smoking doesn't cause cancer. 

This isn't scientific method, its jingoistic ideology. It has no place whatosever in a biology classroom.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 1, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. To do science, one must follow a specific universal methodology. The central theme in this methodology is the testing of hypotheses and the ability to make predictions. The overall goal of science is to better understand nature and our Universe.
> www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/physgeoglos/s.html
> .


Sounds a HELL of a lot like what I learned as "Critical thinking" and also what I was talking about when I was stressing how it can apply to various subjects/areas if you change the language to "universal methodology."

Where, again am I lieing to students?

Where is the lie in demonstrating recognition for the fact that there is dignity in someone elses worldly view...we do it all the time when we absorb, adapt and practice/teach martial arts.

Of COURSE there is no scientific evidence to support a creation myth...it isn't based on scientific methodology.

Heretic beat me to the 'flat earth' topic.  Thanks btw.

Look guys, I am saying that for all the talk about 'diversity respect' from folks who hate the 'conservative neocons' and such about Bush and Republicans there is a lot of hostility about an actual step in showing some respect to the dignity of another member of the communities point of view.  It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, but I do have to acknowledge that it deserves to be respected as a citizen of the country.  That would make me a living example of the values that have been 'found to be lacking' in the current administration by folks who are now trying to poo poo all over this.

This criticism could be described as "philosophical oppression" since the battle over Evolution vs Creation isn't between religions so much as philosophical methodologies to view and seek understanding of the world.  Do you really want to be part of that any more than you would want to be part of 'religious oppression'?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 1, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I was thinking about why this is even a separate thread--I didn't start it, that's for sure--and I at least came up with why it is that these, "well, just teach all the theories about life in biology class," arguments bug me so much.
> 
> Beyond the fact that (as has often been mentioned) it's just a matter of correct classification, what bugs me about it that slice it however you like, it represents a caving-in to nutcakeism.
> 
> ...


Became a separate thread because I was willing to work with the MODs who wanted to shut it down because it was way off topic from the original thread...thanks for doing it by the way.

I don't know if you have even read what I wrote.  Science class hasn't ripped evolution out of the curriculum nor are other creation theories/views being presented in science class.  Simply put, science class still teaches evolutionary theory, but has to make sure that it is clearly stated to be A theory and not the only true theory.

Covering the various cultural myths (even including Christian stories under that heading - based on a literary view instead of a faith view) would be something to do in an English Language Arts class unit on various storytelling traditions or something along those lines or possibly in an Anthropology Elective is it was available.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 1, 2004)

Okay, Loki, here's my take:

1) My definition of "science" is basically how Thomas Kuhn laid it out (paradigm/illumination/confirmation), and this can be applied to everything from matter to biology to mathematics to psychology to "spirituality" (experiential mysticism). Its just a means of acquiring, and then validating, data.

2) The point remains that, creationist speculations still have no place in a biology classroom. This has nothing to do with them being "unworthy" philosophies or anything like that, they're just not related to biological science whatsoever. It makes about as much sense as teaching cell theory in English literature classes.

3) Its obvious there is a "culture war" going on in the West, and by no means is this unique to America. One of the manifestations of this culture war is the centuries-old positivism vs fundamentalism. Of course, real scientists know that both fundamentalism and positivism are untestable philosophies and thus outside the realm of scientific concern.

4) You're welcome concerning the "flat earth" stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 1, 2004)

> Simply put, science class still teaches evolutionary theory, but has to make sure that it is clearly stated to be A theory and not the only true theory.



This, of course, makes little sense and shows a misunderstanding as to what a "theory" is in science. To date, evolution is the only currently workable THEORY (that is, a successfully time-tested hypothesis) to explain the development of biological adaptations.

I think the problem is that people think a theory means to sciene what it means in the common vernacular --- a speculated idea. This is not the case.


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> ...To date, evolution is the only currently workable THEORY (that is, a successfully time-tested hypothesis) to explain the development of biological adaptations.


...hahahaha... now that IS laughable heretic... besides loving the sound of your own voice, your total refusal to accept anything other than your own opinion is prominent in everything you post... your arrogance and intolerance towards any contradicting information is eye-opening... suffice to say, you DO consider yourself as quite the intellectual don't you?

...hahaha... evolution is NOT a "successfully time-tested hypothesis"... as an explanation for the origins of life... did you even READ the articles, or simply quickly scan and then flippently dismiss them because they did not "jive" with your opinion? hmmm... that assessment would seem to be the accurate one considering you dismiss the arguments by name-calling prominent scientists in their own fields!

MICRO-Evolution, ie: adaptions within a species due to a "loss" of information, is valid... however Macro-Evolution, ie: adaption of one species to another as in cat to horse etc... is not valid... that would require the injection of new information... I could FILL this thread with scientific paper after scientific paper dis-proving the "theory" of evolution... but you would flippently ignore that evidence too...

...hahahaha... you are as funny as you are close-minded and intolerant heretic... so as I plan on ignoring your secular rantings and ravings (isn't that what you like to call any differing opinions from Born Again Christians?) from this point on, you can "interpret" my silence on THIS string starting this moment, in any way you want...

...hahahahaha... LOL


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 1, 2004)

Oy vey.   

Ok, a few things:

1) Just because a bunch of guys wrote a few book and published some articles in non-scientific media does not "disprove" evolution's standing as a working theory. You will note that NONE of those individuals had their formulations go through a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

2) The dilineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution is an artificial one, created by creationists (heh, a pun) to further their agenda. Those terms are not discussed among current scientific circles.

3) Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the "origins of life". It explains how biological forms change and adapt over time (including humans).

4) Contrary to what one of your articles stated, scientific method is not just observations of phenomena that happen in the present. This demonstrates a decided ignorance of what exactly "science" is --- once again, most likely to further a political agenda. Science is quite often used in reconstructive methodologies, such as with the big bang theory (which, like evolution, has much data to support its premises).

If science only studies presently observable states of change, what do you call archaeology?? History?? Semiotics??

5) Usually, those that feel the need to attack their opponents with such labels as "ignorant", "intolerant", "close-minded", and "ranting", don't have much of a strong premise to base their arguments. Name-calling is the tactic of the intellectually desperate.

Laterz.


----------



## parmandjack (Oct 1, 2004)

...I know what I said...well after this.... I really mean it this time... i just had to address this guys rantings one last time, his rediculous comments have got my dander up as bignick likes to say...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) Just because a bunch of guys wrote a few book and published some articles in non-scientific media does not "disprove" evolution's standing as a working theory. You will note that NONE of those individuals had their formulations go through a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


....are you sure? did you research your claim? or just making a blanket statement (again) to support your opinion... and even if you were correct, wouldn't you wonder why? its called going against the current, and in this secular world, they are ignored in favour of the religions of atheism and evolution... remember that just because the majority believes something, doesnt make it correct... previous scientific "facts" believed by the "majority" of scientist, have repeatedly been proven false...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) The dilineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution is an artificial one, created by creationists (heh, a pun) to further their agenda. Those terms are not discussed among current scientific circles.


...ummm...you are wrong



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain the "origins of life". It explains how biological forms change and adapt over time (including humans).


...ummm.. you are wrong again



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4) Contrary to what one of your articles stated, scientific method is not just observations of phenomena that happen in the present. This demonstrates a decided ignorance of what exactly "science" is --- once again, most likely to further a political agenda. Science is quite often used in reconstructive methodologies, such as with the big bang theory (which, like evolution, has much data to support its premises).


....ummm you are wrong again and again and again - don't you ever get tired of injecting your "beliefs" into topics under the guise of fact?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> If science only studies presently observable states of change, what do you call archaeology?? History?? Semiotics??


...both of which support biblical claims... thanks...



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 5) Usually, those that feel the need to attack their opponents with such labels as "ignorant", "intolerant", "close-minded", and "ranting", don't have much of a strong premise to base their arguments. Name-calling is the tactic of the intellectually desperate.


... you really think so? 

hmmm....

Well considering that I have been constantly assaulted with all of those labels and more, such as "bigot", for voicing my opinion in contradiction to many in these strings, I would have to state that it I find it humerous being again labelled with yet another tag, as now being "intellectually desperate", for simply stating a fact.

LOL...

Well for the record...here are just a couple of quickie quotes of comments you have made in the past, but I'm sure you'll explain them away, considering your self held belief in your intellectual superiority and logic.... assuming your own description doesnt include you?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> .... Ever wonder why all the *nutjobs* you cited either....





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> ....Just spent the last ten minutes or so reading through this thread (although I must admit I often found myself merely skimming through the *rantings* that were parmanjack's posts).


Once again, I provide facts this time refuting evolution (and only the tip of the iceberg too), and the information is flippantly dismissed with nothing more than opinions... 

GASP!!!!
... oh yes people, you are correct... my comments are not very "loving" or "christian" like are they?!?!!

Imagine that... a Born-Again Christian who exhibits human feelings and failings such as annoyance and anger and lack of patience towards the intolerance, arrogance and false modesty of others... guess I'm human after all eh?

whew... better mark that down as another black mark against belief in Jesus.... but wait a minute.... He didn't make me angry, and isnt responsible for my present attitute... heretics arrogance is... I guess then we shouldnt hold Christianity and God hostage and accountable for all the evil perpetrated in the world in the "name" of Christianity and Jesus then eh?

But wait a minute!!!! there is also Scripture that tells of Rightious Anger, in defense of the Word of God! Could that be describing me considering the non-stop onslaught of unbelievers ?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 1, 2004)

He's baaaack.

Robertson, you, Paul and Heretic had me really interested.  Then _that person_ entered the fray, so yours truly is o-u-t.

By the by, my educational basics included all sorts of things which weren't, uh, *scientific* in origin - I'm an arts person and always have been, but I _can_ think in the manner to which you refer despite my abysmal record in the sciences. :ultracool 

Darwin was a genius.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 1, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> i just had to address this guys rantings one last time, his rediculous comments have got my dander up as bignick likes to say...


So how many more "one last times" are there going to be? I swear, this is like hearing about the "final farewell tour" from Cher. 



> its called going against the current, and in this secular world, they are ignored in favour of the religions of atheism and evolution... remember that just because the majority believes something, doesnt make it correct... previous scientific "facts" believed by the "majority" of scientist, have repeatedly been proven false...


I wasn't aware that there is a singular "current of atheism" going on in the world. There are numerous other paths to follow, such that to be or not to be religious doesn't really go against any one flow of thought. 

And oh yes, just because scientific claims have been disproven means nothing about the validity of science itself. In fact, these disproofs simply go to support science, since the standards of observation, testing, and adjustments of theory are central to the scientific process. 

Finally, I'd like to point out that "just because the majority believes something, doesn't make it correct" applies just as equally to any belief, including Christianity. 



> ...ummm...you are wrong
> 
> ...ummm.. you are wrong again
> 
> ....ummm you are wrong again and again and again - don't you ever get tired of injecting your "beliefs" into topics under the guise of fact?


Way to back up your claims here, buddy. And you accuse heretic of blanket statements?



> ...both of which support biblical claims... thanks...


Uhhhh, what?



> Could that be describing me considering the non-stop onslaught of unbelievers ?


Onslaught of unbelievers...I need to write that down somewhere. See, if I had to pick one single aspect of fundamentalism that bothers me the most, it is the absolute refusal to see any common ground with those who are in one way or another different or opposed. The right & the wrong, the saved & the damned, our belief or complete lack of any belief, these are the terms that any type of disagreement is described in.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2004)

A long time ago, I was really passionate about this debate.  As an undergrad, I regularly participated in the type of discussion we are having in formal and in formal ways.  Some of the things that have been posted on this thread have stirred the dragon...

Allow me to inject a little insight for what its worth... :idunno: 

1.  All anti-evolutionists are not creationists.  This is true.  There are a lot of other people out there who have vested interests in making sure evolutionary theory does not influence to many of our nation's youth.  If you look at the bankrollers of the creationist movement, many of them are large corporations who have large PR campiagns to change people's perceptions regarding the environment.  A central tenet of evolutionary "doctrine" states that we evolved from a common ancestor.  If this is no longer true, then we no longer have to worry about our connections to other creatures on this planet.  In this way, anti-evolutionism is nothing more then a facet in the continuing industrial attack on our environment.

2.  Many of the anti-evolutionist's best arguments are attacks on evolutionary science.  I am afraid that a great many of the oppositions points are true in this respect.  Many evolutionists, myself included (as a physicist, I have regularly had to make assumptions regarding things that have barely been testable), have been prone to take the theory too far into untestable territory.  This is the major failing of inductive theory, in my opinion.  It is so seductively easy to overextrapolate.  Fortunately, the majority of scientists are much more conservative then I, choosing instead to limit evolution more strictly to observation.  A paleontologist professor I worked with in Western MN digging up _plesiosaurs_, fit this model well.  Detailed studies of the comparitive anatomy of this _family _ of animals points toward evolution.  This brings me to my second point, evolutionary scientists who rely on deductive models instead of inductive, always find themselves coming out on top in this debate.  The evidence points at the theory.  The evidence points at evolution.

3.  Lastly, when creationism and evolution are compared side by side, creationism is an inferior theory.  Creationists who debate regularly viciously attempt to avoid this comparison because it truly is the deathknell.  The sheer weight of evidence on the side of evolution buries the creationists convoluted explanations of the same evidence.  They cannot escape Occum's Razor...

If anyone would like to test what I have posited, feel free... :asian: 

upnorthkyosa  :jedi1:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 1, 2004)

I really can't respond in detail to the endless--stuff, let's call it--dumped on the Forum from a group that's busy building a "Creation Museum," in Tennessee. One wonders if they will have a cool painting of one of Noah's kids feeding a stegosaur in the hold of the Ark, as they do out here at the Institute for Creation Science.

I was struck, however, by the chanting of the great Louis Agassiz's name as "proof," that evolutionary theory is completely absurd. Agassiz was perhaps the first or second scientist whose name I ever knew, back when I was four or five and reading all the "All About," books I could get my greasy little mitts on.

Regrettably, Agassiz was not always to be relied upon in scientific matters, particularly with those dealing with the development of human beings. Here is a quote of his from 1850:

"The indominable, courageous, proud Indianin  how very different a light he stands by the side of the submissive, obsequious, imitative negro, or by the side of the tricky, cunning, and cowardly Mongolian! Are not these facts indications that the different races do not rank upon one level in nature?"

Louis Agassiz, Professor of Geology and Zoology, Harvard University, 1850

This is, I am sorry to say, the sort of thing I have come to expect: it sure looks to me like somebody's ashamed of the human race's (singular, incidentally) origins in Africa.

Even worse, from the viewpoint of science, is the refusal to look at contemporary evolutionary theory--especially when writers like Steven Jay Gould dealt with creationist claims all the time. Why be so afraid? God, if he's there, ain't going anyplace.

I suspect that there's a whole knot of problems here. One has to do with capitalism: folks like "Parmandjack," blame, "secular humanism," for what's being done to their lives by the very economic system they espouse. One has to do with class resentment: many fundamentalist Christians, quite properly, are more than a little pissed about the general attitude towards them expressed by pointy-head intellectuals like me.

But, sorry, some of it's just clinging to a small world, a small universe. And that I find pretty awful--why be afraid to look clearly at the great, beautiful universe that you believe your Creator made? Why hang on to the petty, trivial little God who seems to want people to grovel and keep their eyes closed?

The story the Bible tells, you know, is about the human race growing up. Why reject that?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 2, 2004)

Yup. Gonna agree with Robert here.

The simple truth is that a lot of these rejections of evolutionary theory have to do with other, underlying issues ---- y'know, like not wanting there to be a single human "race", an impetus to respect environmental concerns, notions that animal rights might actually have something to them, and lots of other wacky "liberal" ideas that are all actually scientifically sound.

.... of course, don't get me wrong. There are a LOT of "liberal" ideas that are not particularly scientifically sound --- such as the tabula rasa (which is really just a veiled argument for brainwashing for the sake of social "utopia"), cultural relativism, the "noble savage", the "noble chimp", and so forth. But, sorry, evolution ain't one of them.

I do find some of parmanjack's arguments rather.... interesting.

Y'know, like the idea that science only deals with _present_ phenomena or observations. Might wanna tell that one to archaeologists, historians, or those crazy physicist guys that propose the big bang theory.

I have also personally never come across the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution in any of the standard biology textbooks I was taught in. I have only heard this dualism come up when a creationist is involved in the debate. Perhaps someone can shed some light??

Of course, the blanket generalizations, personal attacks, and "I swear this will be my last post --- REALLY!!" tactics of parmanjack certainly don't surprise. A troll I doth name thee.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 2, 2004)

I always like it when someone tosses in the 'Jesus' card.

*Age of planet*

According to the 'creationists', it's about 6,000 years old.
According to various scientific tests, about 4.6 Billion years
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzearthage.htm

*Age of the "Sphinx"*
Common belief is about 4,500 years old
New theory places it at about 10,000 years old
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630309189X/103-6975610-7635047?v=glance

*Age of Man*
Biblical Belief is about 6,000 years.
Recent scientific studies: 160,000 years
http://www.warmafrica.com/index/geo/9/cat/1/a/a/artid/244


Personally, I think both theories are right, it is us who don't understand 'Gods' timescale.  A conversation I had with a friend of mine who is a thological researcher says we've got it wrong.  God didn't do it in 6 'days' and take Sunday off.  He did it in 6 'time periods' (or little whiles) and then took a break.    Think about it.
"I'll be there in an hour'
"I'll be there in a little while"
There is a difference, as anyone with kids knows. 

God made Adam and Eve, they had 2 kids. 1 killed the other.
3 people.
Where did everyone else come from?
If there was a daughter not mentioned, then....we're all bastards.
If there were other people, who made them and when since they aren't documented? (And supposedly everything is.)

Maybe Evolution is the process by which Creation works?
The 2 concepts are compatable, IF we can step back and use an open mind.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 2, 2004)

> Personally, I think both theories are right, it is us who don't understand 'Gods' timescale. A conversation I had with a friend of mine who is a thological researcher says we've got it wrong. God didn't do it in 6 'days' and take Sunday off. He did it in 6 'time periods' (or little whiles) and then took a break. Think about it.



Personally, I think this literary revisionism. It happens quite often in theological circles --- more "modernized" thinkers begin to "read into" the Bible contemporary scientific and historical knowledge. Some have even read the Big Bang into the Genesis account (such as author Dan Brown).

The dead giveaway, of course, is that _no one_ even imagined speculating something like the Big Bang or "six epochs" into Genesis until science disclosed these realities in the first place. I am quite sure, as human knowledge progresses, that new "truths" will be read into the Bible. My guess its the need to make it still seem "relevant" in an increasingly secular society --- not merely as literature or inspiration or an ethical guide, but as some kind of historical-empirical explanantion.

More conservative circles try and do this in Revelation (such as it "mentioning" 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden) --- with an opposite goal in mind, of course. 

The simple truth is that the Bible did not magically pop out of the sky. It was written by human hands --- and formulated by human minds that thought the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the "world" was all of 100 square miles. These guys were obviously not privy to the scientific knowledge we have today, and its rather disingenous to project such knowledge onto them posthumously.



> God made Adam and Eve, they had 2 kids. 1 killed the other.
> 3 people.
> Where did everyone else come from?
> If there was a daughter not mentioned, then....we're all bastards.
> If there were other people, who made them and when since they aren't documented? (And supposedly everything is.)



This is not unique to the Judaic myths. The creation myths of many, many peoples only revolve around the "creation" of that particular people. You will not that, generally, the word a tribe or group has for "human" is the same word they use for themselves.

All of them, without exception, have some way of "explaining away" where all these OTHER humans come from if they're actually the progenitors of the species. Hardly new.

Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 4, 2004)

Herry,

As far as "science" how it is applied to the subject matter will have an impact on how it is viewed.  The philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people will look different from the study of biology (physical study) or Chemistry.  I am referring to the 'method of discovery' that science provides.  Is it pure science, or 'true science' by no means, but will it help people recognize and be able to see how the scientific method has become the ruling mental structure that affects almost all aspects of our lives?  Yes.

I agree, and have made the point that teaching "alternative brews" of creation and life in science that are based on religious or mystical origins is not appropriate.  But, in Science classes, as NYS has chosen to resolve the issue to this point, Evolutionary theory has to be taught as only one of many perspectives on the issue.  There are other areas/groups/school districts that are battling for equal time/representation and I don't agree with that either.  My son's science teacher said that now the language is "Changes across time" or something to that affect.

I agree with the respecting other values idea, even if I don't agree with them.  Now, when the rubber meets the road, the scientific theory (and I do know the difference between the 'everyday use' and the 'scientific use') of evolution AND the methodology that people use to support it has a more rational and convincing explanation.... but that could also be because we are living in the times when science rules the mind, I am not closing all doors on the validity of the mystics   cuz there are things that we can explain logically that may have some 'divine spark' involved.  Who knows.

Even Carl Sagan admitted to 'touching the divine' at times when he had started as a man with faith convictions, evolved to a follower of science and then became a 'doubter' of the pure science mind because the design was too perfect in his mind for it all to be purely random occurances that happened to line up like this.

Of course, on this stuff, you appear to be FAR more read on the topic, but that is where I am working from in a nutshell.  Call it childish, but I like to keep a little Magic in my life, if not just for the pure pleasure of the hope in the infinite it brings.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

> I have also personally never come across the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution in any of the standard biology textbooks I was taught in. I have only heard this dualism come up when a creationist is involved in the debate. Perhaps someone can shed some light??


Microevolution is the aspect of evolution that we can examine in terms of small behavoral and/or genetic changes, incrementally, in one species or within a family.  Darwin's finches, selective pressures on fruit flies in the lab, etc.

Macroevolution is explaining, essentially, more of the "big picture".  How does a new species suddenly emerge in the fossil record?  Whence the Cambrian explosion?

These two things are clearly not unrelated, but the mechanics of microevolution are worked out in much greater detail - in part because we can study it experimentally in very quick-generation species.  Macroevolution is what "creationism" attacks, because it is harder for us to demonstrate exactly what happened to bring about large-scale changes in species/body form/diversity. 

I find that a bizarre tactic, however - attack part of the theory, implicitly acknowledging that another part (that we can study more readily) may be correct, then try to throw out the entire thing.  

But macroevolution is what evolutionary biologists would really like to be able to get a hold of, so to speak.

If you understand the ideas of natural selection, genetic drift, deleterious mutations, speciation by geographical isolation, and so on, it's not hard to imagine how species may have rapidly emerged.  Also, how behavioral changes can lead genetic evolution (and please, no-one crying "Lamarck!" on me, this is not Lamarckian inheritance I'm talking about) and prime a species to take advantage of structural changes.

As myself a religious person, I try to respect other's religious beliefs.  Packaging them as science and trying to re-write scientific methodology is as insulting to me as it would be for me to walk into someone else's belief system and re-write it as a science, or explain away their beliefs.


----------



## Patrick Skerry (Oct 4, 2004)

I believe Charles Darwin was chosen the Man of the Milenium for the 20th century.

The Roman Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution, but it is against the notion of 'Darwinism' (See the Catholic Encylcopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm).


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 4, 2004)

Ok, ok! My turn!  :ultracool 



> As far as "science" how it is applied to the subject matter will have an impact on how it is viewed. The philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people will look different from the study of biology (physical study) or Chemistry. I am referring to the 'method of discovery' that science provides. Is it pure science, or 'true science' by no means, but will it help people recognize and be able to see how the scientific method has become the ruling mental structure that affects almost all aspects of our lives? Yes.



Errr..... seems to me you might be mixing up "science" and "positivism" there (or, if you prefer, "scientism"). 

I find it interesting that you relegated the "philosophical application of 'science' in the study of people" as not being "pure science" --- considering there are a whole buncha "true sciences" that do just that, such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, and so on. 

All of the above is "pure science", since all "pure science" is is the scientific method in whatever form. And, all that method is (to use the terms of Kuhn) is paradigm, datum, and confirmation. Plain and simple. Its actually a pretty broad concept, when you think about it. And, furthermore, is used in a pretty damn broad range of disciplines (y'know, like math and logic and psychology and chemistry and etcetera ad infinitum). Its nothing unique to the labcoats at your local college.



> I agree, and have made the point that teaching "alternative brews" of creation and life in science that are based on religious or mystical origins is not appropriate. But, in Science classes, as NYS has chosen to resolve the issue to this point, Evolutionary theory has to be taught as only one of many perspectives on the issue. There are other areas/groups/school districts that are battling for equal time/representation and I don't agree with that either. My son's science teacher said that now the language is "Changes across time" or something to that affect.



Oh, I agree that there are other _valid_ perspectives --- but none of them, as far as I'm aware of, is "scientific". And, as such, shouldn't be taught in a science class. But, hey, that's just me.

Personally, what was done in NYS sounds as if they are simply "submitting" to different special interests groups. Poo poo on them, I say.



> I agree with the respecting other values idea, even if I don't agree with them. Now, when the rubber meets the road, the scientific theory (and I do know the difference between the 'everyday use' and the 'scientific use') of evolution AND the methodology that people use to support it has a more rational and convincing explanation.... but that could also be because we are living in the times when science rules the mind, I am not closing all doors on the validity of the mystics  cuz there are things that we can explain logically that may have some 'divine spark' involved. Who knows.



Nothing about 'mystics' or 'mysticism' here, methinks.

No how, no way, can 'science' be excluded from the various mystical traditions --- they are very much 'spiritual sciences'. Now, 'science' isn't clearly omnipotent here, as it can not make any value judgments whatosever (that's not its purpose). But, if any claim can be tested, then it can be scientifically validated.

Truth is that most of the people going with the 'there might be a God' arguments, particularly the ones using logic and reason to do so, are not mystics. They are religious believers that want to feel as if their mythic beliefs are still 'validated' by the existing worldview. But, sorry, no science there.



> Microevolution is the aspect of evolution that we can examine in terms of small behavoral and/or genetic changes, incrementally, in one species or within a family. Darwin's finches, selective pressures on fruit flies in the lab, etc.
> 
> Macroevolution is explaining, essentially, more of the "big picture". How does a new species suddenly emerge in the fossil record? Whence the Cambrian explosion?
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification, miss mouse. I agree entirely.  :asian: 

Laterz all.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 4, 2004)

Why Mr. Heretic, you are welcome!


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 4, 2004)

*tiger cheers for the mouse!*


----------

