Skip to comments.Darwin Marketed to Kids (totalitarian evos on the march, use power of state to stamp out opposition)
Posted on 11/11/2009 7:52:41 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Nov 10, 2009 Theres a move on to get Darwins ideas taught to tots. Britain is giving a birthday present to Darwin, wrote Andrew Copson for The Guardian, in the form of national curriculum for primary schools that will mention evolution for the first time and prohibit teaching of creationism or intelligent design in science lessons.
The addition of evolution to elementary school curriculum was in response to a letter promoted by the British Humanist Association and signed by scientists and experts. Copson was obviously delighted with what he perceived as a long-overdue smackdown against intelligent design a belief espoused by the majority of his fellow Britons:
Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside evolution in schools. To solve this problem...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Not to beat an old horse, but it seems pretty reasonable to teach only science in science classes. Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s not science and does not belong in a science class. Science is (or used to be) about provability based on demonstrable facts, and intelligent design is in the realm of a church or a philosophy class.
Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth has never been science. As many have pointed out, it is nothing more than “a long argument” devoid of macroevolutionary detail. But just out of curiosity, why are you assuming that Creation/Intelligent Design is not science?
This is an example of logical fallacy "Proof by Assertion" in which a proposition is repeatedly restated, regardless of fact or contradiction, until those interested in the truth lose interest in the argument or tire of being insulted and withdraw. It presumes that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth". Asserting that Darwin was an atheist in hundreds of posts will not prevail. The truth will not go away.
Thanks for the ping!
How does one define whether the creator created what was intended to be created? IOW how can one tell if there is a creator without knowing the intent of said creator? In more other words, does the creator know it’s creating and if so, how do we know?
Britain is lost. They’re also mandating sex ed. Parents are prohibited from exempting their kids. I’m afraid when we look a Britain we may be seeing our future.
Darwin’s so-called “theory” of macro-evolution is not empirical...never has been. All Darwin ever established is minor changes within types, which Creationists fully accept. And when Darwinism was updated to include genetic mutations, Creationists fully accepted that as well. Where Creationists differ with Darwin’s evo-atheist creation myth is where the evos simply assert macro-evolutionary change that is not observed in nature. As such, it is the creationists who are being scientific, whereas the Temple of Darwin is just blowing smoke (as per usual).
PS Did you write that reply yourself, or are you plagiarizing again?
As is the rest of Europe, especially once the revolutionary EU collective is fully in place.
Repeating the atheist assertion ad naseum will never make it true. BTW - you wanna tell us where you "borrowed" the "evo-atheist" moniker you are trying so desperately to hang on Darwin?
If memory serves, I picked it up from Metmom. But I’m not completely sure, so don’t quote me on that. or if you do decide to quote me, make sure you put quotation marks around the quotation, followed by my name and/or a link to the source.
Suggestion: Don't bother, unless you've got asbestos underwear. Wrong thread for debate, this is a bash-Darwin thread. :)
> Science is ... about provability based on demonstrable facts...
I know what you mean, but... no.
[Climbs on soap-box...] Science does not claim to "prove" anything. Proper scientific method is about challenge and disproving, which is how conjecture is strengthened into hypothesis and hypothesis is strengthened into theory. Proper science offers testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things, which if/when they are observed, DO NOT PROVE anything, but they eliminate yet another area of disproof. See how it works?
(BTW, mathematics can "prove" things because it limits its own scope. Science (done right) can only disprove, because it has unlimited scope.)
Evolutionists have sometimes far overstepped the bounds of proper science by attempting to "prove" things about evolution. Sorry, can't be done.
OTOH, Intelligent Design is just creationism with lipstick. It is not at all like science, because it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things. If there is nothing to challenge and disprove, you don't have a scientific theory, you have a tale. Maybe a very good tale, could even be a true tale, but it's not science.
The first great mistake of creationists is that they set up the strawman of "proof" and say that science fails at it. But proof is not the goal of science. The true goal of science is to see which explanation/model holds up best against challenges which attempt to disprove its predictions. ID makes no testable predictions; it is a static model.
Those scientists who recklessly claim science "proves" anything are either speaking inaccurately for the lay press, or they are flat-out lying.
The second great mistake of creationists is that they set up the strawman of "perfection" and claim that as long as there is anything incomplete about evolution, then it must be false. This is because their model for truth is the Bible, the revealed word of God, which is (by definition) perfect. Nothing man-made can stand alongside God as an equal, so naturally evolution is seen as wrong.
FWIW, in my spiritual cosmology, God created the universe (at the Big Bang), set the rules (the laws of physics), and let 'er rip. Been going for the last 13-odd billion years pretty well. One of my personal life goals is to figure out some of how the rules work, which is why I got my degree in physics, not something else. God may be smiling patiently at my paltry efforts, I dunno.
The Hubble ultra deep field photo is the nearest I have to a picture of the smile of God.
Anyway, IMO, don't bother. :)
Now watch -me- get flamed.
Actually, I doubt metmom coined the phrase and I am not going to take scholarly or legal advice from you. Apparently copyright law, like chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics and theology, is another area of study that you know nothing about.
I am going to continue to excerpt, content skim, and cut & paste under the provisions of the "Fair Use" doctrine per 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A. "The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright".
I had hoped you would have figured this out by now, but it is impossible to underestimate you.
You’re the type of radical that the Conservative movement does not need and should not associate with. Leftists will use your intolerance as proof of right-wing extremism.
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen”
- I Timothy 6:20, 21
“Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but its not science “
Neither is evolution.
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.