How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana’s creationists

io9 ^ | January 15, 2013 | George Dvorsky

[EveningStar]

For Zack Kopplin, it all started back in 2008 with the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act. The bill made it considerably easier for teachers to introduce creationist textbooks into the classroom. Outraged, he wrote a research paper about it for a high school English class. Nearly five years later, the 19-year-old Kopplin has become one of the fiercest — and most feared — advocates for education reform in Louisiana. We recently spoke to him to learn more about how he's making a difference.

[Hayride]

Hitler believed in fixed kinds and that Germans were created in the highest image of God. Creationism is only a prominent belief in America among the less educated and in Muslim nations.

---

Hitler was a eugenicist and occultist. The gene pool had to be scrubbed of the inferior Jew so the master race thrive. Don’t think that those beliefs or the master plan died out with Adolf. It’s a lot easier to murder huge swaths of people when you reduce them to the level animals. Check out what prominent globalists think the sustainable population numbers should be and take a guess if you and yours will be returning to Mother Gaia prematurely.

[metmom]

Hitler believed in fixed kinds and that Germans were created in the highest image of God. Creationism is only a prominent belief in America among the less educated and in Muslim nations.

Godwin's Law....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

Looks like amd forfeited the argument from the get go.

[metmom]

What I find troubling is that this student activist claims to be a champion of science yet makes very unscientific claims such the one where he suggests that if a child is not taught a strict narrow secular/atheist form of evolution in a public school they will not be able to operate as a research scientist or save wetlands. It is not only unscientific but patently untrue. The bulk of the scienitists that produced our modern world of science and medicine were believers in creation even if they all weren’t creationists in the very narrow interpretation that the scientific left wish to lump all creationists into which is the “young earth” creationists.

And that applies to me, my husband, and my three kids.

We are creationists all and it did not interfere with any of us pulling easily over a 3 GPA in the sciences. At secular colleges/universities to boot. Not Christian colleges/universities.

[UnwashedPeasant]

A lot of Science is really fundamentalist Religion pretending to be Science. Global Warming, for example.

[metmom]

Evolution is an observable fact. DNA cannot stay the same one generation to the next.

Variation within species is not the kind of evolution that evolutions claim happened to account for all life on the earth.

I can set up testable events and repeat them.

And get the exact same results every time?

So just who set up the initial conditions on planet earth that allowed for live to evolve?

Setting something up in a controlled lab experiment to allow for only a certain set of responses is not the same as it happening in uncontrolled nature where anything can happen.

[metmom]

What definitive evidence is there evolution exists?

It's all based on forensic evidence. Fossils of dead things.

Some dead things that managed to somehow avoid being obliterated and became fossils instead.

And there's no reason to believe that it happened uniformly across all life forms. It's a snapshot record of life on the planet and not contiguous by any means.

[BillyBoy]

>> I find it laughable one could believe that all of these things happen to come about perfect and right each and every time without Divine intervention. <<

Plenty of people who accept evolution believe in divine intervention as well. For example, the Pope accepts evolution and he seems pretty "religious" to me when it comes to accepting God and Jesus. Atheists make up only 2% of Americans, so as outspoken as they may be, they do not represent the majority of people who believe in evolution.

[BillyBoy]

>> Most creationists I know are quite comfortable with the observable science of genetics. <<

Really? Most of the creationists I've heard from do the opposite, and are even more outspoken in attacking the science of genetics than evolution.

When they're asked to cite examples of how the theory of evolution has lead to evil, they immediately begin citing Eugenics cases of the 1920s and forced sterilization of "genetically inferior" people. They seem intent on tying "Darwinism" to this, even though it's a difference science and Darwin knew nothing about recessive genes or inherited traits.

Probably they want to credit "Darwin" to the eeeeeeeeeevil genetics because the actual founder of modern genetics is Gregor Mendel, a devout Roman Catholic Augustinian friar. Mentioning him would go against their talking point that these scientists hate God/Jesus/The Bible, so they attack another non-religious guy (Darwin) who died long before anyone ever heard of genetics.

[Alamo-Girl]

Science knows how to kill an unborn child. It takes Creationism to teach us that abortion is generally, if not categorically wrong.

Well and truly said, dear YHAOS!

[allmendream]

Read post 10. Looks like you are wrong again.

[Sherman Logan]

The fossil record doesn't support half the nonsense evolutionists come up with, no one has ever proven a Big Bang,

The Big Bang Theory, and anything else to do with what happened in the universe prior to the appearance of life on Earth has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which deals only with how life forms change once they have come into existence.

FWIW, the BBT exactly corresponds with what the Bible says: the universe came into being from nothing.

The previously commonly held theory of a steady state universe is actually much more congruent with atheism.

[rwilson99]

OK... Using only rational evidence tell me how 250 proteins randomly assembled themselves into a single cell organism.

Once you do... recreate it in a lab.

[a fool in paradise]

Science is of use in explaining and predicting the natural world. Creationism is useless.

By that definition, the myth of man made global warming/cooling is also useless but it is in our schools and government funded programs. It is behind the useless goal of ending the use of filament light bulbs. There are degrees of useless. Some are more imposing than others.

[Theo]

You’re on the wrong site. Leave Free Republic, antagonistic newby.

[skr]

At best, evolution is merely a scientific model, albeit one that demands an enormous amount of faith. It most certainly doesn’t qualify as a fact.

[EveningStar]

He’s been here less time than you or I, but he’s been here over five years, so he’s hardly a newby. If you don’t like what he says, debate him and show him where he’s wrong.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Really? Most of the creationists I've heard from do the opposite, and are even more outspoken in attacking the science of genetics than evolution.

When they're asked to cite examples of how the theory of evolution has lead to evil, they immediately begin citing Eugenics cases of the 1920s and forced sterilization of "genetically inferior" people.

They seem intent on tying "Darwinism" to this, even though it's a difference science and Darwin knew nothing about recessive genes or inherited traits.

Creationists have been breeding animals and plants for thousands of years. I don't know any Creationist that objects to that science. None of us have ever had their dog give birth to piglets, nor planted acorns and ended up with a rice field. Certainly we find eugenics as applied to killing humans immoral, like we find dynamite useful to quarry rocks but offensive when used in terrorist attacks. It isn't mean a denial of the science of chemical explosives. It's the eugenicists that have proudly associated themselves with Darwin and evolution.

[BillyBoy]

>> Creationists have been breeding animals and plants for thousands of years. I don't know any Creationist that objects to that science. <<

That's not the science of genetics, either. People in the iron age knew if you mated a strong healthy bull with a strong healthy cow, you'd be likely to have a strong healthy half. But they knew nothing about HOW or WHY that worked with inheritance, dominant and recessive genes, chromosome theory, or DNA. (nor did Charles Darwin for that matter) That part of puzzle wasn't solved until Gregor Mendel discovered it in the 1860s, and it wasn't commonly known to science until about 1900. The result was models like this:

Being able to breed animals and plants doesn't make you a "geneticist" anymore than being a tarot card reader who is familiar with the major stars and the planets makes you a astronomer who can measure the distance of things in the milky way galaxy.

>> Certainly we find eugenics as applied to killing humans immoral, like we find dynamite useful to quarry rocks but offensive when used in terrorist attacks <<

You pretty much nailed it. The difference is when a terrorist attacks occur, people don't claim it proves the science of chemistry ITSELF is therefore evil (or even try to blame a related field of science that knew NOTHING about the science in question you're attacking, like claiming Dmitri Mendeleev's Periodic table caused Alfred Nobel to discover dynamite, and therefore terrorist bombers are "Periodic tableists"). Any scientific breakthrough can be perverted for evil purposes, that doesn't make the scientific teaching itself "evil"

[ICE-FLYER]

Thats great...I really did not take you for one, but the condescension spoke volumes for what you really believe. Please dont come at people with the “I got faith” line then tell them they are useless int he process if you really want them to believe you actually have a “christian” faith. For, if you do...I say prove so...Does God stand above the minds of men and your own capability to understand and does His way really rule in your heart to the point where you believe even in the face of some amazing requirement that He made everything? Or, does God have to come down and fit in a box of your making so that He is only what you are comfortable believing in?

[kearnyirish2]

Thanks, but I don’t subscribe to the theory that mentioning Nazism in a discussion forfeits it. Much of their legacy (eugenics, post-Christian paganism, abortion) are very much part of today’s world.

The Axis lost WWII, but the Nazis won. If an 18 year-old US veteran returned from the war to the country we have today, he would not recognize it.