Skip to comments.How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana’s creationists
Posted on 01/16/2013 4:41:13 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
someone please tell me where the edge of space is located then explain what lies beyond that and beyond that?
I almost believe we are in a Matrix type world.
Watching a two hour program on space on PBS really screwed with my head man and I’m a bible believing Christian.
Most creationists I know are quite comfortable with the observable science of genetics. The fiction that creationists make inferior doctors, genetic researchers, and scientists is something espoused by the more radical and idiotic "intellectuals". Speciation, abiogenesis and many other theories that come under the rubrick of evolution are NOT facts, have not been demonstrated or tested.
There's a reason it is called the LAW of Gravity. Gravity has been proven. Evolution has not. Evolution is a theory; gravity is a law. Gravity can be prove without faith in it; evolution cannot.
What definitive evidence is there evolution exists? Where are the fossils definitively linking monkeys to man or dinosaurs to chickens? It seems in every instance there is a missing link? How is an eye created, or what makes an eye even work. Where are the animals with precursors to eyes so we can see what came before the eye?
Where are the fossils of cats with wings? Where is the evidence life can be created from randomly exploding matter ala Big Bang?
Isn't natural selection and survival of the fittest the underlying current of evolution? 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. Probability would indicate that at least once we would find some developed species like a dog with gills, or even the fossils of a failed species of like nature. There is no evidence or observation of such.....it is blind faith evolution must be so.
Evolution is defined as a change in the DNA of a population.
And the DNA of the population in the experiment I set up does change. DNA for proteins vulnerable to heat change to make proteins that are heat resistant all across the bacterial genome. That is evolution.
When I started out all ten plates had the same DNA from the same ONE bacterium, after I finish I would have ten distinct subpopulatins with new and novel DNA configurations that make them resistant to the stress I subjected them to.
There is also evidence that it happened that way. A model whereby it happened that way is useful and predictive.
An assumption that it happened by miraculous means is useless in terms of explanation and prediction.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
>> Creationism is useless.
What if the world really WAS created by a Creator?
Would Creationism then be useless? Or would it be descriptive?
Again, this is just an article of Faith. I know that science is of use. But only a committed aetheist says that "Creationism is useless". Your materialist religion does not sit comfortably with the Christian religion -- so you say that Creationism is useless. But followers of Christianity find that the salvation of their soul to be a useful goal, and we see that Creationism can be a part in that journey. Your religion does not require it, and so for you it is useless. But it is not useless for everyone. You have a narrow, materialistic view -- which is fine for you, but you seem to feel that no other views have anything to offer. That's just bigotry.
It does to me! Do you know that Wolfgang Pauli went off the deep end late in his career? ( He died at 58, so it wasn't a case of feeblemindedness. ) He was the most brilliant of the brilliant, and it's as though he felt he had conquered the mystery of matter, and was ready to take on existence itself. I guess you could say he foundered in these waters, but his ideas still persist, as witness this 2007 conference on Wolfgang Paulis Philosophical Ideas and Contemporary Science. Also note, as per Wikipedia, he was a critic of evolutionary biology! Pauli!
Some of the most accomplished scientists of my personal acquaintance, respected, published, peer-reviewed and published, one a leaders of research in a land grant college, are creationists, if for no reason other than that which seems utterly impossible may well be just that.
They do not publish their unorthodox convictions, of course, inasmuch as closed minded evolutionists control the gates to tenure.
There remains a very large, multimillion dollar reward, unclaimed, for a proof that that which we call life could have spontaneously arisen from non-life. We see evolutionary changes occurring, but none producing wholly new species, and none breaching the limits of the genetic information already available.
A bald assertion does not to me constitute proof that life was initiated by evolutionary modifications of non-living material. Believing that RNA and DNA molecules assembled themselves, or that mindless forces did the job, is simply too much for me to swallow.
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.
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. 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.
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.
A lot of Science is really fundamentalist Religion pretending to be Science. Global Warming, for example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read post 10. Looks like you are wrong again.
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.
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.
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.
You’re on the wrong site. Leave Free Republic, antagonistic newby.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
AMD, putting aside your reference to Hitler [and all your other ‘absolute’ type statements past and present], your new little protege, Zack Kopplin, also thinks global warming is true science - lol.
Your ivory towers are quickly crumbling b/c the state and authority figures with which you are so heavily involved and indebted are quickly going monetarily bankrupt, which only makes sense b/c they are also morally bankrupt.
Prepare for your funding to be removed soon and your very survival challenged on a daily basis - all thanks to the alters at which you worship - the great state of naturalism.
Choose ye this day whom you will serve!
Not really it is "evidence and observation" based on a theory.
Even more intriguing is that life springs only from life. Therefore life must be eternal, no?
From the article: School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism.
“These schools have every right to teach whatever they want no matter how much I disagree with it as long as they are fully private,” he says. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.” Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers’ money.
Given that the Government School System is itself unConstitutional how can he rationalize the above? I find it hard to support a big government statist.
He goes on:
“But it also violates the separation of church and state,” he says. “Teaching Biblical creationism is promoting one very specific fundamentalist version of Christianity, and violating the rights of every other American citizen who doesn’t subscribe to those beliefs. So it would be stomping on the rights of Catholics, Mainline Protestants, Buddhists, Humanists, Muslims, Hindus, and every other religious group in the country.
What separation of church and state? The one where the state is your religion?
His inability to apply science to government weakens his argument.
More from the article:
Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable everything that creationism is not.
So the above is true, then why not apply it to liberalism?
Here he takes a hard left turn:
He worries that, if Louisiana (and Tennessee, which also has a similar law) insists on teaching students creationism, students will not be the ones discover the cure to AIDS or cancer. “We won’t be the ones to repair our own damaged wetlands and protect ourselves from more hurricanes like Katrina,” he says.
“We don’t just deny evolution,” he says, “We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I’m calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world.”
To that end, Kopplin would like to see $1 trillion of new science funding and an end to denialist science legislation. He wants to see the American public become more aware and better educated about science.
“My generation is going to have to face major challenges to our way of living and the way to overcome them is through rapid scientific advancement,” he says. “But as as of right now, America has a science problem.”
He almost gets it, but the answer seems elusive. He’s calling for more Al Gorism and less Creationism, more government and less religion, more dumbness and less logic.
He’s inconsistent and it’s the liberalism that makes his argument so weak and him so ignorant. Science hasn’t fixed his mind yet, but he’s young.
> “If I plate a bacteria out, blot it on ten different plates - then subject it to ten different stresses - I will get a heat resistant strain through evolution, a cold resistant strain through evolution, an antibiotic resistant strain, etc, etc.”
Yes but you still have bacteria. You don’t have an amoeba and yet left-wing anti-God evolutionists will project frogs and fish from such experiments.
What you are describing is natural selection, a generational form of adaptation.
If I work out passionately with heavy weights I can metamorphose to something in a category more akin to a Mr. Universe.
If I equip a room with heavy weight lifting equipment and teach weight lifting then I am a progenitor of buff persons, a form of natural selection because they came to me of their own will influenced by external causes such as primitive urges to mate with stronger partners (from the physical perspective). But still they are humans.
The evolutionists that stretch natural selection, survival of the fittest and metamorphosis into a theory of ape to man have twisted scientific results to fit their atheistic or satanic beliefs. They are simply against God and want nothing more than to use science to further their anti-God agenda.
“CE”, “BCE”, Remove “Under God” from the Pledge, etc. and “Evolution” are all part of the same schtick of persons who think they are somehow superior and who find Christians to be an easy target to treat with their particular form of torment.
Evolution is not, has never been and will never be proven. The maximum likelihood statistical estimates used to posit evolutionary trees based on any number of observances such as genetic variation or single nucleotide polymorphisms DO NOT ADD UP to any form of proof that God never existed, that Adam was a fable, the flood never occurred or that Christ never conquered death. In fact one could say or think that Christ’s resurrection is a metamorphosis of earthly spiritual death back to spiritual immortality. And if you think things of the ‘spirit’ do not exist, you are blind. Within humanity it is all around you. Spirit and soul are just as tangible as flesh and blood, and are manifested in Good and Evil.
So yes we can go into the lab and perform genetic crossovers or gene knockout/insertion experiments and watch yeast or whatever model transform itself into more adaptable organisms of the same type. We have proved nothing in regards to God except that by concluding from such experiments that God does not exist we merely prove ourselves to be spiritual retards.
‘Spirit’ exists and is just as verifiable as your bacteria. Try doing a little ‘Science’ on the many species of ‘Spirit’ and you will end up in politics. Hopefully you will find the Bible to be your code map. Good luck or should I say God be with you and ‘select’ you to His will, blessing you with real worth rather than leaving you to continue with your effing little pissant rant against Christianity using ‘Evolution’ as your creed.
I don't see anyone claiming that the science of biology or biochemistry is in itself evil either.
Even though the likelihood grows ever less with each evidence of anti-Christian bigotry.
Still . . . it is not our in our authority to judge.
Hear that, amd?. You forfeit (before you've hardly begun). And, according to a law you've invoked (wrongly) yourself (which you've also erroneously identified as a "rule")
Prepare for your funding to be removed soon and your very survival challenged on a daily basis - all thanks to the alters at which you worship - the great state of naturalism.
Atheistic regimes are no friends of science and scientists either.
Think Stalin and Pol Pot.
“Even more intriguing is that life springs only from life. Therefore life must be eternal, no?”
or created by Someone who is Hiself uncreated and can create the entire physical world, time and life itself.
Yes, although I was referring to the soul. If we’re all to inheirit eternal life, some to damnation and some to glory, being eternal then the soul cannot have a beginning, no?
“If were all to inherit eternal life, some to damnation and some to glory, being eternal then the soul cannot have a beginning, no?”
Souls come into existence. They have a beginning. The eternality of a soul before it is created is a manmade construct - and is not Biblical.
Add to that the mormonic idea that Gods (male and many females) breed in eternity to create spirit children. It is cultic.
I dare say if all the great scientific minds from Newton to Einstein were presented with the latest advancements in information theory and DNA they would easily conclude it as undeniable proof of God’s existence [something they never denied, but definitely at odds with evolution]...
In fact the complexity of written and spoken languages [both = coded information systems] alone ensures the need for a much higher god-like intelligence far surpassing our own.
Evolution has zero evidence of language evolving from nothing anymore than it has evidence of life forming from non-life.
Didn't do well in your 8th grade science class, eh?
The PROPER Scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses... leads to (the scientist hopes) a thesis (idea) becoming a theory, IF the formulation and testing and peer review and repeated testing under a variety of all conditions cannot disprove the thesis. And even after all that, it is STILL only considered a THEORY... and can be changed if future evidence and testing and ideas come along.
There is little "making things up" that survives in PROPER scientific channels.
Religion, on the other hand, relies on interpretations and translations of bedtime stories from thousands of years ago. Review and dissent are not allowed.
Given those two systems, I know which one is more reliable. Most proponent of the latter system are simply afraid to disagree... particularly when they feel that their eternal soul is on the line.
Personally, I prefer to put more FAITH into the system that allows ANYONE to challenge the current ideas, and does not use FEAR to keep everyone on the farm.
Just my 2 cents. I may get different input on the matter a few moments after I leave this mortal coil.
(Hint: I DO believe in God, I DO believe that the Universe cam from SOMEWHERE, and whatever that source is (including the Big Bang), it was arranged by the Almighty... but when it comes to explaining the laws that He installed into this amazing system he made for us, I will almost always look to those who seek those explanations using science rather than ancient books and translations and interpretations.)
But when it comes to evolution, since it has never been observed, they just made up something. And every time something new comes up that disproves their theory, they just make up something new to get around that inconvenient fact.
You use Creationism like you would use turd to poison the well water. And, that is precisely the reason why you cant accept the term Creationist, or Creationism as legitimate. You dare not give it up for the propagandist value you gain in using it in the same fashion you might use fascist or racist.
In your abuse of Creationism and of the people who understand its importance, you dishonor America and Americans, and generally all Christians. We hold these truths to be self-evident may be the work of one man, but it was an expression of the sentiment of a whole people Americans; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . Natural rights as a creation of God. Mankind and the Universe, a creation of God. Likewise the idea of government by the consent of the governed. I could recommend that you look to the etymology of the word creation but that would do no good since you dare not take the point, because your need to dirty up a whole people is so desperate. And, in the process, you care not how many innocent bystanders you pepper with your scandal mongering broadsides.
Typical of the usual Progressive practice you make a bald assertion bereft of any points supporting the naked charge. Worse, you've now adopted the practice of simply throwing out the assertion and then running away. Thats not very scientific (especially coming from such a science groupie as you)
SPECIAL Creationism is useless when making any accurate predictions about the natural world. The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a SPECIAL creationist. So special they had to ride a special buss to school. They are the short bus crowd. Useless. Crying about it won’t help, but it is amusing.
Address your charge, Creationism is useless. Explain and justify your accusation on the basis of what you actually say. Attempting to shift the ground of your charge is a hallmark of a Propagandist.
You should be nominated for the annual Goebbels Award.
Correct. You see them claim that the science of evolution and genetics is itself evil and crated as an insidious plan to promote atheism and godlessness. Unfortunately for them, the person who discovered modern genetics was a very devout Roman Catholic friar, so this goes against their talking points. Thus they simply completely ignore him and pretend "Darwin" invented genetics when in reality Darwin knew and said absolutely nothing about genes or chromosomes.