Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New state board tackles evolution immediately (Kansas)
ABC49 ^ | January 9, 2007 | Scott Rothschild

Posted on 01/10/2007 7:06:45 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger

Just minutes after a new moderate majority took control of the State Board of Education today, the issue of evolution came back up.

The board voted to hear about proposed science standards that support evolution later in the day with a possible decision on them next month.

The issue produced a long line of speakers both for and against evolution during a public comment period.

Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

But supporters of evolution urged the board to change the current standards that include criticism of evolution and were put together by proponents of intelligent design.

Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

In other action, board members elected Bill Wagnon, a Democrat from Topeka, as their new chairman.

Carol Rupe, a Republican from Wichita, was voted vice chair, and Sue Gamble, a Republican from Shawnee, was elected legislative coordinator. All three are considered moderates.

After taking the chair, Wagnon urged members on the often contentious board to work together to improve the public school system.

“There are ways of promoting effective change without undermining confidence in it,” Wagnon said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: antiscience; commonsenseprevails; crevolist; evolution; evosareantiscience; idjunkscience; idlosesagain; intelligentdesign; superstition
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

1 posted on 01/10/2007 7:06:47 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me



Now, everyone. Be nice.
2 posted on 01/10/2007 7:07:43 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bump


3 posted on 01/10/2007 7:09:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

Funny how this gets presented. Conservatives versus moderates.

4 posted on 01/10/2007 7:11:04 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

Now there is someone highly qualified to talk about science, let alone biology, or even evolution. < / sarc>

5 posted on 01/10/2007 7:14:57 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Funny how this gets presented. Conservatives versus moderates.
And wrong on so many levels. Evolution is established science. ID is radical quackery.

The most conservative choice you can make in biology is to side with the 99.9% of all biologists who see evolution as established biological theory against a radical fringe (composed mostly of non-biologists) pushing the pseudo-scientific non-theory of ID.

6 posted on 01/10/2007 7:18:08 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc30

he needs to evolve.


7 posted on 01/10/2007 7:28:38 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Those standards were adopted by the 6-4 conservative majority in 2005. Now the board has a 6-4 moderate majority.

This and all the other places should be a warning to Republicans everywhere, trying to replace Science with mythology is a loser every single time

8 posted on 01/10/2007 7:35:35 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science? Or would you applaud him for speaking the truth because he agrees with you?


9 posted on 01/10/2007 8:02:26 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science?

If a science teacher criticized Kaufman for the way he expounded theology would you give the critic much credibility?

10 posted on 01/10/2007 8:04:47 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; doc30

Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen, and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.


11 posted on 01/10/2007 8:13:30 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Do I need to remind you of all the mistakes, fakes and frauds that "the majority" has pulled and/or has been fooled into supporting?


12 posted on 01/10/2007 8:28:29 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen, and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.

Based on knowing he is only a physicians assisitant and a pastor does not indicate he is a scientist. The term "highly qualified scientists who are creationists," particularly for YECer's, is oxymoronic.

13 posted on 01/10/2007 8:46:20 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

But it does stand up AS pure religion.

14 posted on 01/10/2007 8:48:03 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Do I need to remind you of all the mistakes, fakes and frauds that "the majority" has pulled and/or has been fooled into supporting?

If you can provide bonafide evidence for this, I will be genuinely surprised. And don't bother with piltdown man. It was biologists that found that one and were initially suspect because it didn't fit with the model of human evolution. I should also remind you that most of the arguements comming from creationists are disingenous.

15 posted on 01/10/2007 8:50:25 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Doug Kaufman, a physician’s assistant and pastor from Leavenworth, told the board that evolution “doesn’t stand up to real science.”

Now there is someone highly qualified to talk about science, let alone biology, or even evolution. < / sarc>

A pastor? If he subscribes, for example, to the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society he may indeed be unqualified to speak on matters of science.

See my post #127, upthread for details.

16 posted on 01/10/2007 8:53:37 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doc30

A person does not have to be a scientist to have scientific knowledge. You are impugning that knowledge sight-unseen, a very unbecoming form of slander.

Your "oxymoron" comment merely demonstrates my point for me. Thank you.


17 posted on 01/10/2007 9:20:13 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Archaeoraptor, Java Man, Haeckel's embryos, peppered moths, Cro-Magnon, Nebraska Man and yes, Piltdown Man. It doesn't matter who discovered the fraud; the fact is, scientists were taken in by this discovery for decades.

I am not asserting these are all intentional frauds put forth by evolutionists to fool the public. (They couldn't get away with that today anyway.) I am saying they were fooled by all these.
18 posted on 01/10/2007 9:30:35 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doc30; DaveLoneRanger
And don't bother with piltdown man. It was biologists that found that one and were initially suspect because it didn't fit with the model of human evolution.

Except that it took over 40 years to expose that one.

It doesn't matter that *biologists* found that one. So what? It was perpetrated in an act of deliberate deceit by those who wanted to provide evidence to support the ToE beyond the shadow of a doubt.

That strongly suggests that those who adhere to the ToE are well aware of the weaknesses in the theory it they felt that the only way left to bolster it was by fraud. The length of time it took for the Piltdown Man fraud to be exposed also suggests that scientists wanted to believe it was true, and so didn't challenge it for a long time, until it absolutely couldn't be ignored any more.

19 posted on 01/10/2007 9:55:31 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Moot question. You know nothing of this man's scientific acumen...

Actually I do. I know people who know him, and he's has none.

...and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.

And you, obviously, disregard the opinions of the many more highly respected, highly qualified scientists who believe that the evidence supports evolution theory. Now what do we do?

20 posted on 01/10/2007 9:58:46 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: metmom
There are a number of errors in your comment.

Try this website for a more factual discussion of the Piltdown hoax.

21 posted on 01/10/2007 10:06:56 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That strongly suggests that those who adhere to the ToE are well aware of the weaknesses in the theory it they felt that the only way left to bolster it was by fraud. The length of time it took for the Piltdown Man fraud to be exposed also suggests that scientists wanted to believe it was true, and so didn't challenge it for a long time, until it absolutely couldn't be ignored any more.

Oral (Gimmie 8 millon dollars or God will kill me) Roberts

Wyatt Archaeological Research (These guys claim to have found Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, The Ark of the The Covenant and more!! Send $$ for the tour)

The Inca Stones

Acambaro dinosaurs

Perjury at Dover

Darwin's deathbed confession

NASA finds the missing day of Joshua

Apostolic Canons

Greater Ministries Scandal

Health Ministry / Biblical medical plan

So I guess by your logic we can conclude...

That strongly suggests that those who adhere to the ToEChristianity are well aware of the weaknesses in the theorytheir religionthey felt that the only way left to bolster it was by fraud. The length of time it took for the Piltdown Man above frauds to be exposed (and some are still being perpetuated today) also suggests that scientistsChristians wanted to believe it was true, and so didn't challenge it for a long time, until it absolutely couldn't be ignored any more.

22 posted on 01/10/2007 10:28:49 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists."
Contradiction in terms. As soon as a scientist is shown as a creationist, he immediately stops being "highly respected", and his "high qualifications" are ipso facto thrown into question.
23 posted on 01/10/2007 10:32:56 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science? Or would you applaud him for speaking the truth because he agrees with you?

In general, truth trumps qualifications. Even a moderately educated layman can give a more accurate description of the solar system than any of the greatest astronomers prior to Newton.

But the option of teaching things other than science in science classes in not a legal option, and advocating such is rapidly becoming a political albatross. Just how badly the issue will hurt the Republicans depends on how many Republicans are willing to drink the Kool-Aid.

24 posted on 01/10/2007 10:39:46 AM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
The most conservative choice you can make in biology is to side with the 99.9% of all biologists who see evolution as established biological theory...

A more conservative scientific choice would be to follow the fossil evidence and genomic record. Biologists are frequently wrong (eg., stomach ulcers can't be caused by bacteria, margarine is good for you, etc.).

25 posted on 01/10/2007 10:41:57 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
"and if you did, it wouldn't matter, because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists."

Contradiction in terms. As soon as a scientist is shown as a creationist, he immediately stops being "highly respected", and his "high qualifications" are ipso facto thrown into question.

Its worse than that.

The methods one uses determine what discipline one is practicing.

If one is doing science, one must follow the scientific method. When a part of that method is disregarded (for example, to support a predetermined religious belief) one is no longer doing science. One is instead following the methods for doing apologetics (defense of religion).

This is why otherwise highly qualified scientists who subscribe to the Creation Research Society Statement of Belief I posted on another thread are doing apologetics, not science, in spite of their academic qualifications.

26 posted on 01/10/2007 10:42:14 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Anyone alledging that "evolution is not science" or "ID is science" is enough to impunge one's scientific reputation. Anyone supporting either statement is ignorant of science and is doing it to themselves. That is not slander. It's honesty.


27 posted on 01/10/2007 10:43:51 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

And the proof is in the pudding. It was science that uncovered these frauds. Creationists scored zero on each one. And the presence of those frauds does not refute evolution.


28 posted on 01/10/2007 10:45:58 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Would you say Kaufman was unqualified to comment if he said they should just teach science? Or would you applaud him for speaking the truth because he agrees with you?

My support would not be contingent on what he says. It may give him a measure of consistency with respect to the general scientific view of evolution, but it would not be sufficient for him to be qualified to provide an expert, scientific opinion.

29 posted on 01/10/2007 10:54:49 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
As soon as a scientist is shown as a creationist, he immediately stops being "highly respected", and his "high qualifications" are ipso facto thrown into question.

Nonsense. How do you account for the hundreds of scientists who have signed the statement that ID advocates have been passing around? Thousands of working scientists are creationists when they take off their lab coats. ID advocates routinely publish good science in respected journals.

The catch is that when good science is done it supports evolution. Even when an ID advocate looks at data and says it supports ID, it still supports common descent. Which is why people like Behe accept common descent.

30 posted on 01/10/2007 10:59:30 AM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
the 99.9% of all biologists who see evolution as established biological theory

Can you document this statistic?

31 posted on 01/10/2007 11:12:53 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Who's really pushing 'bad science'?
32 posted on 01/10/2007 11:15:25 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

What? Did I exaggerate? Is it only 99.7%?


33 posted on 01/10/2007 11:17:17 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

Show me a list of biologists who do not accept evolution that has this many names. Folks like Behe and Dembski don't count, because they haven't rejected the historic fact of evolution, just the "Darwinian" mechanism.


34 posted on 01/10/2007 11:20:20 AM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Not really and not for long.

But you know that.

Which of those were disproven by creationist research?


35 posted on 01/10/2007 11:22:22 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

So would a textbook that dogmatically asserted heloicentrism get an "F"? You have to realize that after a hundred and fifty years, it is no longer "dogmatism" to speak of evolution as a fact.


36 posted on 01/10/2007 11:23:54 AM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You have to realize that after a hundred and fifty years, it is no longer "dogmatism" to speak of evolution as a fact.

Your are right. It is delusional!

37 posted on 01/10/2007 11:41:06 AM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

A delusion shared by the theorists of the ID movement, regardless of what their followers wish to believe.


38 posted on 01/10/2007 11:46:45 AM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Non-Sequitur; doc30
because you also disregard the opinions of highly respected, highly qualified scientists who are creationists.

LOL! Name a few.

39 posted on 01/10/2007 11:51:27 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: qam1

So that excuses the frauds that scientists promoted? Justifies them? Well, because "you guys" do it, we can do it too?


40 posted on 01/10/2007 11:53:06 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"How do you account for the hundreds of scientists who have signed the statement that ID advocates have been passing around? "
Not everyone working in a field of science, or having a degree, is a scientist. Actually, rather few are, and not all the time, either. For example, in my scientific career of 25+ years I have been a scientist proper for maybe a year or two.
41 posted on 01/10/2007 11:58:51 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: doc30; DaveLoneRanger
It was science that uncovered these frauds.

It was science that perpetrated these frauds. Glossing over, ignoring, excusing, whatever you want to do about them, they still happened and fraud is STILL happening in science today. There have been plenty of threads here on FR in the last months about fraud in science.

You can try all you want to make scientists look like the heros, but it's like painting a house that's falling apart; it may look good on the outside for a while, but it's integrity is still compromised and it's still going to collapse someday.

Glossing over the problems and trying to make it look good without addressing the problems is putting on a good face for the public and STILL being deceitful. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

42 posted on 01/10/2007 12:01:30 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Well, because "you guys" do it, we can do it too?

Nobody gets away with fraud for long in science. Manufactured fossils are no longer accepted simply because the finder is a gentleman. The most recent fraud never even made it to the journals.

The reason for this is not that scientists are good and honest people. It is because claims in science can be tested, and there are rewards for overturning established claims. None of the scientific frauds that have been mentioned were detected by creationists. How could they be? On what basis could a creationist argue against Piltdown? the only solid evidence against Piltdown is that it doesn't fit in the established evolutionary tree.

43 posted on 01/10/2007 12:07:19 PM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: js1138
None of the scientific frauds that have been mentioned were detected by creationists. How could they be?

They just might be if a *creationist* were allowed within 10 miles of a real fossil. The *creationists didn't find the fraud* argument would only hold water if they were given a chance to examine the fossils and missed it. Since I doubt that any evo would let a non-evo do that, that precludes the whole argument.

44 posted on 01/10/2007 12:15:24 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Not everyone working in a field of science, or having a degree, is a scientist.

Is this leading anywhere?

My point is that among the qualified biologists who are commonly associated with ID or with criticism of Darwin, nearly all accept common descent as "a given" (to quote Behe). I really haven't seen any published biologists who reject the fact of evolution, although there are some who publish mainstream biology in the work week, and publish creationist tracts in their spare time.

45 posted on 01/10/2007 12:17:38 PM PST by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

My theory on creationism is that basically, since the beginning of human existence and our thinking/questioning mind there have been people in positions of authority. These people are asked questions. And thats how the creation story came to be. One day a leading religious figure was asked "where did we come from?" The religious leader, being a man of power, authority, and knowledge could not respond "I don't know." And thus he weaved a tale and told the story of creation.


46 posted on 01/10/2007 12:23:02 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Behe is a laughingstock, and by quoting him you are risking becoming one, too.


47 posted on 01/10/2007 12:24:20 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: js1138
the only solid evidence against Piltdown is that it doesn't fit in the established evolutionary tree.

Penalty flag on that call. This is from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

In July 1953 an international congress of paleontologists, under the auspices of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, was held in London. The world's fossil men were put up, admired and set down again. But, according to Dr. J.S. Weiner, Piltdown man got barely a mention. He did not fit in. He was a piece of the jig-saw puzzle; the right colour but the wrong shape. It was at the congress that the possibility of fraud dawned on Weiner. Once the possibility had raised it was easy to establish that the finds were a fraud. Millar writes:

The original Piltdown teeth were produced and examined by the three scientists. The evidence of fake could seen immediately. The first and second molars were worn to the same degree; the inner margins of the lower teeth were more worn than the outer -- the 'wear' was the wrong way round; the edges of the teeth were sharp and unbevelled; the exposed areas of dentine were free of shallow cavities and flush with the surrounding enamel; the biting surface of the two molars did not form a uniform surface, the planes were out of alignment. That the teeth might have been misplaced after the death of Piltdown man was considered but an X-ray showed the lower contact surfaces of the roots were correctly positioned. This X-ray also revealed that contrary to the 1916 radiograph the roots were unnaturally similar in length and disposition.
The molar surface were examined under a microscope. They were scarred by criss-cross scratches suggesting the use of an abrasive. 'The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye' wrote Le Gros Clark. 'Indeed so obvious did they [the scratches] seem it may well be asked -- how was it that they had escaped notice before?' He answered his question with a beautiful simplicity. 'They had never been looked for...nobody previously had examined the Piltdown jaw with the idea of a possible forgery in mind, a deliberate fabrication.'


Why then was the fraud so successful? Briefly, (a) the team finding the specimans (Dawson, Woodward, Teilhard) had excellent credentials, (b) incompetence on the part of the British Paleontological community, (c) the relatively primitive analytical tools available circa 1920, (d) skill of the forgery, (e) it matched what was expected from theory, and (f) as Millar remarks, the hoax led a charmed life.

You can see from the text that the authors try to have it both ways.(expected - to explain why it took so long to discover the fraud, and unexpected - to explain why it was uncovered in 1953)

48 posted on 01/10/2007 12:29:35 PM PST by AndrewC (Duckpond, LLD, JSD (all honorary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: metmom
None of the scientific frauds that have been mentioned were detected by creationists. How could they be?

They just might be if a *creationist* were allowed within 10 miles of a real fossil. The *creationists didn't find the fraud* argument would only hold water if they were given a chance to examine the fossils and missed it. Since I doubt that any evo would let a non-evo do that, that precludes the whole argument.

Casts of all the major finds are available on the internet.

Try Bone Clones, for example.

Here is one of their offerings:

This is Homo heidelbergensis Skull Broken Hill 1 (Rhodesian Man) BH-004, and it costs $179.00.

Originally described in 1921 in Nature as Rhodesian Man (H. rhodesiensis), this is the first human ancestor to be found in Africa. The discovery, in Kabwe, Zambia, led to a radiation of interest in the search for human origins.

I think the real reason creationists don't study these fossils is that they don't want to. The believe a priori that the fossils are lies, so why waste any time on study and research.

49 posted on 01/10/2007 12:33:08 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So that excuses the frauds that scientists promoted? Justifies them? Well, because "you guys" do it, we can do it too?

I’m not justifying anything, I’m just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in your argument that since there’s been a few frauds in the past that somehow makes evolution false

There are frauds in every human endeavor, so if you want to discount evolution because of a few frauds a long time ago then you pretty much have to discount everything else too, especially religion, because let's face it, no human endeavor comes close to the amount of fraud perpetuated in the name of and by religion.

And at least science has a self correcting mechanism in place, once a fraud is discovered it is forever discounted, meanwhile many religious frauds like the ones I listed are still perpetuated to this day.

It was science that perpetrated these frauds. Glossing over, ignoring, excusing, whatever you want to do about them, they still happened and fraud is STILL happening in science today. There have been plenty of threads here on FR in the last months about fraud in science. You can try all you want to make scientists look like the heros, but it's like painting a house that's falling apart; it may look good on the outside for a while, but it's integrity is still compromised and it's still going to collapse someday. Glossing over the problems and trying to make it look good without addressing the problems is putting on a good face for the public and STILL being deceitful. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

So again by your logic,

It was science Christians that perpetrated these frauds. Glossing over, ignoring, excusing, whatever you want to do about them, they still happened and fraud is STILL happening in scienceChristianity today. There have been plenty of threads here on FR in the last months about fraud in scienceChristianity. You can try all you want to make scientistsChristians look like the heros, but it's like painting a house that's falling apart; it may look good on the outside for a while, but it's integrity is still compromised and it's still going to collapse someday. Glossing over the problems and trying to make it look good without addressing the problems is putting on a good face for the public and STILL being deceitful. The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem.

50 posted on 01/10/2007 12:43:09 PM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson