"He's dead, Jim."
I think this is all that's left of him (from his own post):
Cheers!
Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.
snip...
In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...
FWIW, Christians and creationists just want creation BACK in the schools, where it had been for centuries.
They share much more common ground with the left than with conservatism, for sure.
is a culture war and science is the weapon of choice with which to bludgeon Christianity with. It’s being used to push religion out of schools in the name of science. It’s been used to make out Christians as being ignorant and anti-progress.
The culture war is between the ideology that’s hijacked science and Christianity.
It would do good for you guys to see that and rescue science from their grip. Evos refusal to do so only reinforces the idea that evos are throwing their chips in with the liberals/atheists/God haters.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you are not also liberal/atheist/God haters if you don’t speak up against the abuse and misuse of science instead of justifying or excusing what they do.
Very well said and a nice exercise for those that truly are not fully in the grips of this cult should ask themselves if they can find a serious peer review of evolution that is not automatically attacked as non-science, junk science or religious attacks on science.
Then, for kicks they should anonymously challenge evolution in some way, any way, for instance asserting it’s not fact but theory and see what these responses looks like...if it’s about the science or something else, as, on FR anyway, it’s always invariably about something else.
Everytime I’ve seen it challenged, it’s almost always met with a furious “counter-assault” on religion and science has little if anything to do with it. Any challenge whatsoever is literally taken as an insult.
If you post a scientist’s observations, the first thing cultists want to know is their credentials. (Which on it’s face is understandable if it’s official.)
If that’s OK, then it’s on to the next step...are they a member of some religious outfit like a “creationsist group out to undermine science”, and so on...
it literally never ever ends...
all the hallmarks of a cult.
I see which side of the culture war you’re on.
Given the scientific fact I would ask you to answer one question. Prior to that Singularity of the Big Bang...the moment prior to the moment of creation.....Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
No, I really don't. I asked you to cite examples of "hijacked science and Christianity". You haven't.
You posted a link to a Wikipedia article re: Dover.
"If Coyote had simply NOT told another poster to shut up (he started the thread, but does not have that authority), and then hadn't mouthed off in full Matt Damon mode to Jim Robinson, he'd still be here."
I didn't read it that way at all. However, I have noticed that people seem predisposed to read into another's words whatever threat or menace they harbor in their own hearts.
But I have also noticed that you have a good heart, and I am pleased to regard you as a friend.
So, basically, you want to keep the science you like and ignore the science that contradicts your Bible.
Got it. Thanks for making it clear.
**** bangs head on desk*****
I've got news for you: God makes that call. You don't.
And, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, God created a universe that's billions of years old. If you want to call me for blasphemy that, then back at you, buddy.
No. Putting words in my mouth is intellectually dishonest.
Is misrepresenting what someone says all evos can resort to when confronted with facts.
It didn't do any good, honey. Your brain cell still isn't working.
The 'Big Bang' theory is the best scientific explanation for the observed universe. If new evidence is found or a better theory is proposed....
Prior to that Singularity of the Big Bang...the moment prior to the moment of creation.....Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?
I have no clue what came before the Big Bang. None at all.
Maybe one of the lurkers can address your question. :)
Why are you posting this drivel on Free Republic at all?
And no, I'm not posting this as a "Creationist Idiot."
The argument is much further upstream from that, and in an way any FReeper would be on good diplomatic terms with, and many of the libertarians -- which seem to overlap with atheists much more than with Christians -- would heartily endorse.
Why are you ceding control of education of the children to the State (which nowadays means giving the Gramscians a 20-yard head start in a 40-yard dash)?
Why are you (implicitly) subscribing to "separation of Church and State" when that phrase wasn't in the Constitution, but was in a letter which Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution) wrote to friends? Why are you apparently insisting on the Establishment Clause (so called) while ignoring the Free Exercise Clause?
Because the Bible-thumpers would make the wrong choice if left to themselves, so we the educated have to make it for them? If so, can you articulate *concisely* why this philosophy is different from the liberals' wish to control? (And not just in circumstance or ad hoc, but rather, ab initio?
If not, I will be happy to forward your employment application to the Good Intentions Paving Co., LLC.
Cheers!
Backatcha.
Well, MetMom, I’m sorry but that is the only conclusion one can draw from your statement.
Our understanding of life, the earth, and the universe has progressed from the simple, childish Creation story found in the Bible.
We simply know too much to teach the Creation story as fact.
And if the scientist challenges the theory, he's *not a real scientist*, *not doing real science*, *is speaking outside of his field of expertise*, *needs to go back to school and learn what he's talking about*, *arguing religious apologetics*, etc.
The list is endless.
Or not enough.
The *big bang* confirms the Bible's declaration of *In the beginning....*
Science comes late to the party again.
So why do they say the creation account is a fairy tale or mythology?
Build a wall between Church and State that would make an illegal alien have a heart attack.
Clear enough for ya? ;)
Because the Bible-thumpers would make the wrong choice if left to themselves, so we the educated have to make it for them?
I fully support private and religious schools and homeschooling. The public school, however, must remain neutral.
If so, can you articulate *concisely* why this philosophy is different from the liberals' wish to control?
It isn't about control. It's about government neutrality.
Remember? You posted that drivel before and I tore it apart?
Please, MetMom, remember our earlier conversations. I get tired of repeating myself. Thank you.
Why do you call it simple and childish just because it’s concise?
Buwhahahahahaha! Little did you know, I am... SUPER TROLL! :-)
Please read posts 28, 49, 50, 52 and 54 again.
Coyote really *did* take it upon himself to tell another poster to stop posting; and when rebuked by JR in 52, replies in 54:
If you would rather keep those fringe posters, and discourage the scientists from posting here, then fringe posters is what you''ll end up with.
But JR in 52 didn't discourage Coyote from posting: he told Coyote to stop discouraging *others* from posting.
Cheers!
Because "childish" and "concise" have different meanings.
So science doesn’t teach that the universe had a beginning?
The big bang had nothing to do with it?
Creationism isn’t exclusive to Christiainity, (God knows we’ve seen Christians equated with militant Islam enough on these threads) nor do Christians universally subscribe to a single creation doctrine (which begs the question are they reading their Bibles and do they truly understand what they read?).
Christianity has a place in public education, (but by the end of these next 4 years, I’m not sure it’ll be “legal” to tell your teacher Merry Christmas) along with other religions as philosophy, (purple spaghetti monsters, heaven’s gate...you see in the liberal world all religions are equally valid, and who are we to judge someone’s religion, in fact, we should just abolish the word cult! precisely what the founding fathers MUST have meant...envisioning a beaming bust of Marshall Applewhite on Mt. Rushmore) where IMHO, it proves to be head and shoulders above the other religions of the world. (Soooo we must need much much less of it in all public places!... yeah, that’s the ticket!)
(In the liberal world up is down, and down is up.)
But it is not science.
(So let’s make sure we stomp that out against the people’s will while giving anything and eveything else a complete free pass, from algoreacles hot air cult to multiverse theory. Oh and nevermind that which people agree upon is or isn’t science today or tomorrow, it’s irrelevant, just as long as I don’t have to be bothered with ANYTHING whatsoever that has to do with God, it’s not science.)
Which you clearly can’t distinguish.
She was re-enacting the Big Bang -- which happened when God foresaw the 2008 election, and banged His head on *His* desk...
Sorry to bring up Obama again.
Cheers!
Well said and speaking of hate crimes...it’s a matter of time before prop 8 is tossed, so much for govt of the people by the people and for the people...and if you don’t submit you’ll be labeled a homophobe and arrested for hate crimes.
Next assignment for you.
Parse the philosophical *assumptions* required to make that statement.
Cheers!
“I see which side of the culture war you’re on.”
Too bad he doesn’t. Unless there’s some sort of enlightenment he never will either.
Creationism, since it is based on the Christian Bible, doesn’t have a place in the public school system. The public school system, which must educate children of parents who belong to many different faiths and none at all, must remain neutral.
Who taught you this?
Lemme guess...the public school system!
Keep hanging around FR kid. As if your very life depended on it!
”You don’t “ping” someone who’s already here.”
Well, I guess you needed to correct me on something. Glad you found it.
I wouldn’t give him that...I’ve pinged metmom to long threads she’s been on, and I don’t dig through pages to find out.
Why, not how...? And is it a rigid wall or a semi-permeable membrane? Otherwise, you run into the government refusing funding for a crucifix, since it endorses religion, but in the guise of neutrality, funding 'art' of a crucifix in urine or the Virgin Mary in dung.
The very opposite of neutral, another example of government regulations causing the very opposite of what it ostensibly prevents. Shades of St. Paul and "the evil I do not want, that is the very thing I do." Curiouser and curiouser.
Just try *applying* for funding for that kind of art funding for a photo of JFK getting his head blown off put into a jar of urine, or Mohammed covered with animal feces, and count the femtoseconds until a Federal Swat team is at your door...Why is it only explicitly Christian symbols being defiled is called art, but all other subjects make it a Hate Crime?
I fully support private and religious schools and homeschooling. The public school, however, must remain neutral.
Ducking the question -- by phrasing it this way, you are implicitly giving approval to the pervasiveness of government-funded, government controlled schools, with government-approved curricula.
What is so "small government" about that?
Cheers!
Huh? What are you blathering on about?
"He's dead, Jim."
I think this is all that's left of him (from his own post):
Cheers!
The only thing you’ve been tearing apart is yourself. You really should revisit Jim Robinson’s posts.
We simply know too much to teach the Creation story as fact.
“We” liberals?
Wonder which 'gay' will become the image for a national holy day. There is one thing about these 'days' there is NOT enough pie on the plate for all the animals to have their share. The really big fight is going to happen within their created scientific methodology, once the lessor animals figure out who got bailed out first and by design most fit for survival gets the lion's share of the spoils.
I am not sure where the dollar amount is now, but last I read it was $500 checks to stimuli these less fit, and there would be more return on 'government' investment with increase in food stamps and unemployment benefits.... What will they do when the animals want what was promised? Build taller walls to protect the 'most fit'?
How about the Big Crevo Discussion?And it went on and on for a timeless period, because time didn't exist yet, back and forth, up and down, yin struggling with yang until ....
By taking the *no God*, *no religion allowed* position, the government is certainly taking sides; it isNOT being neutral. It's taking the atheistic, God hating liberal side. And those who support that are also positioning themselves in that camp.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to control education. Education should be in the hands of the local school boards and taxpayers. If the taxpayers want creation and ID taught in the public schools as creation had been for centuries, as the public has so many times indicated that it does, then the government has no business stepping in and overriding that.
If the atheistic god-hating minority doesn't want to have their children to hear about creation, they can start their own evolution only, no-God-allowed, private schools. They can homeschool. They can have their children opt out of the section in school that deals with creation. They don't have to sue to have it removed from public schools against the wishes of the rest of the parents just because THEY don't want their kids to hear it.
What's the matter? Is the evos faith in their theory so weak that they can't handle having their children hear the creation account as related in the Bible? Are they afraid that if their kids hear it, they'll abandon their belief in evolution and become creationists?
I expect to be banned shortly. I've learned, sadly, that Free Republic is Fundie Republic and non-believers aren't welcome.
It's sad, really. Free Republic could have been a major player in the political world, but JR decided to hand it over to the cretards and IDiots.
It's been great, except the evolution and science threads.
I fully support private and religious schools and homeschooling. The public school, however, must remain neutral.
It isn’t about control. It’s about government neutrality.
This looks a like a stellar point for a wintertime lecture and an opportunity for you to further your education, that is if wintertime is so inclined to give you her time! (If so, you really should be most grateful!)
What do you think wintertime, is this one worth it? Alot of liberal kool-aid has been ingested!
I’ll take one metmom brain cell over all yours that you collectively just offered in coming up with that gem.
It must have taken alot of effort on your part!
FOTFL.
“Coyoteman’s been banned.”Oh rats...
No, only liberal, religion suppressing, big government supporters aren't welcome.
If you're willing to have the government dictate religion, then I guess FR isn't the place for you.
But why to you have to wait to be banned? You can leave any time you want.
Or is it that laurel wreath thingie? If you get banned, you can pretend that it's for supporting science instead of classic liberal agenda.
Nice reversal of the liberal "ghettoization of Christianity" argument.
The real issue, which I'm surprised CE2949BB hasn't brought up, is that many of the concepts and evidence for evolutionary models require at least a mid-college-level expertise to begin to grasp them, simply from the necessary background in science. Most elementary- and secondary-level teachers don't possess that knowledge, and certainly the students don't.
Not having the intellectual framework readily at hand, leaves one open to the "well if man evolved from the apes, how come there are still apes" questions which would be dismissed by the biologist with Wolfgang Pauli's famous line, "It's not even wrong" -- except that they don't have the tools to begin to describe why it is wrong (category error, complete misunderstanding of the description of what the process of evolution is *describing*.) So all they can do in the meantime is shout "Crimethink!" which plays well within the circle of those highly informed about the subject, and only reinforces the suspicions of those who are not scientifically literate.
There, have I cheesed off both sides pretty well now?
Cheers!
It is axiomatic!
Government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience nightmare!
If you do not believe this then please try to describe a religiously, politically, and culturally neutral school. I will have great fun with it.
I have nothing to do with or about anyone being banned.
I think you have confused in your mind the word neutrality. Most especially placed in government control.
There is NOTHING neutral regarding evolution it is a method, a system of belief that has NO regard for the Creator. However, this nation was founded upon the very principal that there are certain unalienable rights that only are given by the Creator. The scientific methodology replaces the Creator having control of rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
You have the right to believe anything you desire, but you do not have the right to wall out the Creator from public education. The Creator is the ONLY neutral and objective judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.