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.
GGG has the decency to ping people in plain view, as opposed to the stealth tactics of discussing *TOS* on the hidden threads over at DC and notifying everyone that way.
Your attempts to associate creationists with radical islam will only be seen as not whacked out by your fellow DCers. The rest of humanity, which has more decency and integrity in their little fingers than the DC crowd has put together, will see your tactics for what they are. You’re not fooling anyone but your other blinded evos comrades.
==And you still haven’t addressed whether you agree with GGG’s assertions.
You mean your deliberate twisting of my “assertions” in your attempt to make me look like I am a paid agent of muzzy extremists. Not only that, you created a hit piece using those same distortions, and began posting them in the threads. That’s character assassination, my FRiend, no two ways about it.
So? Convince others that GGG lifted the words instead of being "convergent evolution". Darwinists should be adept at tap dancing around logic. In any case, it would still be red herring.
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.
No it isn't. You injected Islam into a thread about Texas education standards.
And you still haven't addressed whether you agree with GGG's assertions.
And I won't since your red herring has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If you wish to start one on the principles of Islam, you are free to do so.
Thanks for the warning, but I am very familiar with "their" tactics.
“Thanks for the warning, but I am very familiar with “their” tactics.”
Sorry... that was meant as sarc for outlaw. I totally assume you know what you’re doing here.
outlaw?
notsomuch.
[[Thanks, AC. I knew about Yahya long before Mr. Lawyer brought him up, but I don’t base what I think about Islamist terrorism on his writings. He’s a bit wacky here and there re: masonic conspiracies, etc.]]
NO need to explain GGG- And NO need to apologize for garnering info from Huryan when that info is spot on correct either- His views on other issues bears absolutely NO weight on those evidences he does present which happen to be correct- The evidences REFUTING Macroevolution stand on their own weight, and have stood the test of time- not to mention the silly malignings and ad hominem attacks agaisnt hte messenger, and there’s absolutely no reason to explain anything-
the whoel point of the matter is that this ‘guilt by association’ is NOTHING but a diversionary tactic perpetrated by evos when the FACTS and evidences are too much for them to handle- citing evidences no matter whom those evidences coem from does NOT align oneself with the author- Atlaw knows this- but the evidences lsited by Huryan apparently are too difficult for atlaw to tackle, so his only recourse is to attack both you and Huryan in hopes that peopel will forget that the evos stumbled over the evidences and couldn’t refute what was said with any credible coutner evidneces. Huryan has many great points about ID and IC that evos treat as though were kryptonite, and apparently their only recourse is to rabbit trail the topic- derail it at all costs- I’ve seen htis time and tiem again- infact most threads on FR abotu creation or ID or IC get derailed in like manner- with hte evidences NEVER being discussed by the evo crowd-
Apparently Macroevolution is in such terrible shape these days that derailing threads is the only way to ‘defend it’ anymore
[[And I won’t since your red herring has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.]]
That’s al lthey’ve got left is red herrings- it’s almost comical - almost
You are quite correct. Mr. Lawyer is behaving like...well...a lawyer. If my make-believe Evo glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!
No- he’s goign way beyond that- he is itnentionally trying to ruin your reputaiton here on FR with blatant outright lies- dissagreements are one thing- but intentionally lying about someone time and tiem again is quite another, and he’s proven he’s apparently going to try to ruin you one way or another- He’s evidently not even itnerested in the thread topics anymore, but just in tarnishing you any way he can and derailing your threads- Those actions are NOT parcipitating in threads- they are intentional disruptions based on flat out lies, and annoying to everyone
I'm not outraged. I'm amused by your lack of argument. Back up what you assert. Mere similarity(the hallmark of Darwinism) is not an argument. Just because it looks so does not make it so. Where in the Quran does it mention the creation story? And again, what I do or fail to do has nothing to do with your argument against GGG. If I used the guilt by association argument, all Darwinists would be Dawkinists. They are not. Neither does it make them right.
The Book of Genesis contained in the Jewish Torah is believed to have been written about 1400 BC.
Jesus referred to it regularly while he was here on earth about 1400 years later, at about 33 AD.
Islam, which borrowed heavily from both the OT and NT, didn’t come into existence until after 600 AD.
Now to conflate Christianity and creationists with islam and use it to accuse creationists of being islamic terrorists because the muslims took the same creation account as the Jews, is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.
You aren’t really a lawyer, are you? Can you represent my opponent if I ever have to go to court for something?
From the evo, no-intelligence allowed camp?
Heck if I know. Ask Harun Yahya. Or GGG, who claims to be sufficiently well versed in the subject to conclude that Muslim creationists are collectively peace-loving.
You really need to talk with GGG and Harun Yahya about this.
Can you represent my opponent if I ever have to go to court for something?
Sure. Who is he, and what's he suing you for?
And that Islamic terrorists are not Islamic if they are terrorists, and not terrorists if they are Islamic.
LOL!
That’s right.
Precisely. Rather frightening reasoning, isn’t it? But it doesn’t seem to disturb the creationists around here one whit.
Well you should know. You are the one that introduced Islam into this thread and you made this statement in post 31....
...radical Islam is creationist to the core.
Allmendream and atlaw seem to be perfectly content in taking potshots rather than making and defending their apparent position. I have offered to start an in-depth debate thread on this subject of the Soviet roots of Islamic terrorism. I even offered a starting place. Namely, right here:
Roots of Islamic Terrorism: How Communists Helped Fundamentalists
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23436-terror-russia
Also, I cantacted the author of the above article, and he said he would be glad to join us. So what are you waiting for????
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.