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 ...
You can choose to disagree but the points I made are valid.
Since science has been redefined as naturalism all the creation science is redefined as religion by the ‘powers that be’, but anyone who spends enough time reading the creation science literature will find many cogent arguments and ideas for what truly happened [the jigsaw pieces fit together much more orderly than the evolutionary explanations or lack thereof].
Also consider another FR article from today. Please feel free to respond to my latest post #105 as well:
And have you also reviewed Dr. Walt Brown’s website?
Then it's not science any more. End of argument.
You seem to want to draw me into a religious argument. I ain't going there. I'm just trying to say that science is a METHOD, not a position. Naturalism is a position. Please try to be more careful with your usage.
With regard to your post on mutations, genetic mutations are simply one mechanism for introducing inheritable changes into our DNA programming. Nothing magic about them. And I can't be bothered trying to explain, to people who don't grasp the enormity of the time since life appeared on Earth, the opportunities for variations and natural selection in that time.
Go stare at the Hubble Deep Field photo for a while, and try to grasp the length of the time that is represented there, in addition to the distance and size. It'll help reconcile our paltry human concepts of "a long time" with the intervals necessary to accommodate anything like the evolution of species.
Your analogy is fine, but misses the point. The question is how can you even know there is a programmer? Just because you perceive something to have been programmed, does it mean it has been or are you just using you pre-defined paradigm to label it programming, when it could be something different and entirely more profound?
I don’t know how you can throw around the creator label without knowing anything about the process through direct perception.
Regarding the reference to the Biblical God, you may be correct. However, the posited ID creator could be any god and you as a creationist must provide some methodology as to how you can conclude that the intelligence that creates viral encephalitis is definitely the God of Abraham and not some other nefarious deity or something entirely extra-Biblical. Gnostic sects believed the entirely of the Earthly domain to be the creation of false gods. How would you know the difference under the rubric of ID?
The scientific method is fine for present day empirical science, but evolution is historical science and therefore subject to much conjecture and interpretation. It is obvious anytime you read the articles with maybe, could be, might be etc.
Not much notice is taken either that most early scientists [and our founding fathers] were christians and simply ‘studying to show themselves approved for every good work’ iow trying to defend God and the Biblical viewpoint. A true conservative position can not be defended without understanding history and the thinking of our founding fathers. You seem to think only the past few generations have any real knowledge and intelligence yet none of that is possible without the realization of what that knowledge is built upon.
All change outside of mutations are genetic therefore inheritable from the parents and therefore just a shuffling of the DNA deck of possible changes within the same kind, but I can’t really know your background and the position(s) you are defending since some of the things you say are incongruent.
It would be good for you not to assume any ignorance on my part [i.e. ‘people who don’t grasp the enormity of the time since life appeared on Earth’] when you apparently have spent so little time researching the creation science position. Regarding millions and billions of years try reading ‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys or even the ‘101 Evidences’ at the top of my links page. Evolution nor the age of the universe is not all as cut and dry as you seem to think.
Just think how sure you are anytime you only hear one side of the story, and then repeat the one side over and over again. What has made me a freeper fanatic is simply the realization of how often I’ve been misled esp. in any areas where the government and msm have meddled [see my homepage for a few more examples of same]. Nowadays education and even our universities have joined in the same ‘consensus’ thinking. Most every american universirty was founded with the idea of defending the scriptures and in some cases [i.e. Harvard] training men to be Biblical pastors and ministers. Do you see how far the USA has slipped down the slippery slope of atheist thinking? No really do you?
Partly because I am a programmer and I know the complexities of information theory firsthand. No logic assembles itself nor makes random changes that improve the code.
There IS something different and entirely more profound, but most folks today think it is wrong to mix science with anything. Science is under constant review and has made many mistakes. Even now there are still many more questions than answers.
Read my homepage and some of my recent posts from other articles if you want to understand my thinking. The Bible is unique among all other literature and religions primarily due to the consistency of its message, history and prophecy. When God completed creation He declared it good or perfect. The imperfections in all all life, and somewhat less perceptibly, the Earth and universe, have only come about because of the fall (original sin).
Thanks for the reponse.
What evidence would disprove the big bang? What experiment could we run that would that, if successful, disprove the big bang?
The Big Bang theory depends on the support of mathematical models, known laws of physics, observations of astrophysical phenomena, and a LOT of interpretations of things that could have multiple interpretations.
The Big Bang itself could be challenged to the point of unusability if a few of its key support items were shown to be false or to not support the theory as originally posited. To disprove the entire theory would be pretty tough, but possible if some new set of observations showed massive flaws in the existing descriptions. Every year, new observations flood in as our tools and telescopes and satellites get better and more refined.
I do not doubt for a moment that some of what makes up the current theory is going to be thrown out in the coming years, and replaced with a better description of what we think went on at The Start.
That's what (to me) shows the power and beauty of the scientific method. The very process of challenging the weak parts of a theory, will often also strengthen its correct parts by providing corroboration, such as confirming predictions.
> What experiment could we run that would that, if successful, disprove the big bang?
Well, suppose someone says, "I think there's a flaw in the description, here, and it's not 'A', it's 'B', and I propose the following experiment to test which is correct." Suppose that 'A' is critical to support of the theory. So somebody funds the experiment, and it is run, and ... it turns out 'B' is a better model for the observed data. That would shake the theory a bit. Now suppose that the theory gets modified/corrected to incorporate an explanation for the 'B' observations -- without breaking the explanations for all the other observations to date. It's a better model for the challenge.
But what if it could not explain them, even when modified? That could show that some fundamental aspect of the theory is incomplete or flawed.
If that challenge could not be met, then the theory falls. Many long-standing theories have thus fallen over the course of scientific study. The Big Bang is a good theory, but it's not invincible.
My apology, since my comment was not intended personally. I see that it could be read that way, and withdraw the unintentional implication.
All I meant was that it's nearly impossible for us mortals to grasp time spans like that, except by numbers. We can't "feel" it and make useful judgments.
If I say, "I'll be back in an hour", you have a good intuitive feel for when I'll be back. You don't need a clock -- you could probably come within +/- 10 minutes of an hour, just by waiting it out.
Well, I try pretty hard, and I can't "feel" the age of the universe the way I "feel" how long an hour is. And I wager that most people can't do it either, not even close.
So I was just saying that people who make statements of the sort, "Random chance could never produce an eyeball in a billion years", are merely stating that THEY don't think that's enough time. And I say, "Your intuitive feel for how long that is, is insufficient to the task of evaluating such a thing." And try to look for something less dependent on our limited grasp of the ungraspable.
Again, I apologize for the unintended slight.