Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The New York Times got the preview story wrong, and the Washington Post editorial writer probably was too rushed to question the charges of "creationism" coming from the National Center for Science Education, the Darwin-only lobby. So this week's important decisions by the Texas Board of Education (TBOE) on how to teach evolution were predicated in the media by the big question of whether teachers should provide both "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory. Those words might sound benign, readers were told, but they really are "code words" (take the press' word for it) for creationism and religion.
To the media left, any questioning of Darwin is reserved for denizens of Dogpatch.
So, what did the TBOE do? Well, it turns out that they are fairly adroit politicians. They did remove language providing for "strengths and weaknesses" and then added new language--quite a lot of it--providing that students will learn, for example, to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Perfect! A policy distinction without a difference! In fact, the new standards are just fine, an improvement, in fact. Now teachers can tell the kids about the scientific evidence in a variety of fields that seems to contradict the Darwinian account as well as the supposed evidence in support.
Once again the NCSE was too-smart-by-half. It ran blogs making fun of religion, while organizing public speakers who gave fulsome testimony to their Christian faith and how compatible it is with "evolution" (meaning Darwinian evolution). To the purists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers it probably makes them look like toadies.
In the end, the rhetoric meant to evoke fundamentalist cranks was mixed with pious statements doing the very kind of religious posturing the Darwinists project onto their foes, and reminding me of the church scenes from Blazing Saddles. It all backfired.
By demonizing specific words--and making the elimination of them the test of "science"--the NCSE and its state distributor, the Orwellian-named Texas Freedom Network, simply allowed the Board to do the obvious word shuffle. Okay, no "strengths and weakness, " but instead, we'll pass similar ideas in different words, and everyone will be happy. Except, of course, the NCSE and the TFN.
Don't expect the media to figure this out from the NCSE Talking Points memo, but the insiders get the picture. Dawkins must be enjoying a caustic chuckle at the expense of the NCSE.
Au contraire mon ami, you are no special person. GGG has a ping list which alerts us to the topic. Your specious attack caught my attention as it probably did to the others. In the case of Harun(or whatever) what criminal offense has he performed by believing what he believes?
For Mr. Lawyer, it’s not about the Yahya the man, it’s about Yahya teaching the Muslims about creation, which he pretty much lifted from Christian creationists. My main point is, not only is Yahya’s group bringing a calming influence to the Muslims in the Middle East (and Europe for that matter), he may be unwittingly bringing them the gospel by creating a cultural commonality between the *Christian* West and Islam. It’s only a matter of time before many of his creationist converts begin reading Christian Creation and ID books. And this will remind them of why the Qur’an affords special status to Christians and Jews as “people of the Book.”
— “the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core”;
I haven't seen any polls of self-identified radical Islamist terrorists, so I'm agnostic on this point. GGG may know something I don't.
— radical Islamic terrorists are actually “hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism”;
See above. Given the historical fact of Soviet sponsorship of anti-western Islamists I wouldn't be surprised that there is a Marxist influence in their beliefs, but at the same time the Koran is a creationist book in itself. They just have a really wicked idea of God and what He wants people to do to other people.
— “the more Muslims who become creationists (even if it’s of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror”; and
I think this would only help marginally. It would all depend on what sort of creationist they become (as per the above). I do lean in favor of this statement because while creationists can believe either a good God or a wicked one, atheism historically and logically drives people in the direction of practicing evil (either through hedonism or fascist/communist drives for control and domination).
— that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by Darwinist, materialist, atheists who were just disguised as radical Muslims.
Insofar as it was perpetrated by followers of the Wahhabi sect, I'm dubious. The Wahhabi doctrine is presumably uninfluenced by modern Darwinism, though elements of it may creep into their thought.
If anyone is interested in a fairly indepth *discussion*/intelligent debate on the subject, I would be glad to oblige.
You can count atlaw and his evo cohorts out on that one. Even if capable that would not be their intent
Thanks. An actual rational response. I’ll read it more closely and respond tomorrow when I’m not on the blackberry with its mini-keyboard.
“Comic relief has arrived!”
I ALWAYS MISS THE GOOD STUFF!!!
Am I way too late?
re: If anyone is interested in a fairly indepth *discussion*/intelligent debate on the subject, I would be glad to oblige.
We could start right here:
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23436-terror-russia
Let me know, and I’ll start a new thread to discuss the subject.
All the best—GGG
Not at all. If you look at my last reply, it may be only just beginning. Are you in???
Looks like a pretty deep one and I don’t know who the heck Harun Yahya or whoever he’s talking about...
But sure... I’ll bite. I’ll be off and on though.
Got to take some time to indoctrinate my kids in my simplistic faith before they say their prayers to an unknown god.
LOL. You are always welcome, GG. Don’t bother knocking, just come right in :o)
Perhaps you haven't noticed what you asserted. Here....
|
That assertion, and his others delineated in post 73 (I believe, since I'm on a blackberry) are the ones at issue. No, what is at issue is your guilt by association tack. Whether or not Muslims are materialists is not relevant since you injected the subject of Islam by accusation. |
I am left wondering if atlaw will ever admit what he did and apologize.
We're not going to get very far, atlaw, if all you've got are ad hominum attacks.
It's nice to know you hold me in such high regard though. /sarc
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to clarify your objections to what GGG wrote.
“I am left wondering if atlaw will ever admit what he did and apologize.”
Evolutionists of this ilk do not apologize. They simply pontificate.
It would take humility and an admission you are not god to apologize... I would love to think this is hyperbole, but it’s probably an understatement.
And the issue is, in fact, whether Islamic terrorism is the product of the supernatural irrationality that prevails in those contemporary societies that practice it or, as GGG asserts, the product of the western scientific rationalism that prevails in those contemporary societies that actually reject it.
And you still haven't addressed whether you agree with GGG's assertions.
You never cease to crack me up...but then I realize you’re serious (and that I’m in serious agreement with you)!
All the best—GGG
PS Hopefully, atlaw will prove us wrong!
“If you adopt another’s opinion as your own and reiterate it, “association” is a fair inference.”
“And you still haven’t addressed whether you agree with GGG’s assertions.”
DON’T DO IT, ANDY!!! IT’S A SETUP!!!
By your logic, outlaw... I’d be afraid to agree with you if you said the sky were blue for fear someone might think I was a radical, faith-based evolutionist.
==And the issue is, in fact, whether Islamic terrorism is the product of the supernatural irrationality that prevails in those contemporary societies that practice it or, as GGG asserts, the product of the western scientific rationalism that prevails in those contemporary societies that actually reject it.
See reply #109 for a pretty fair assessment of where I stand re: the roots of Islamic Terrorism. I don’t agree with every word, but it is a good launching pad for a serious discussion of the same.
All the best—GGG
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.