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.
Yup. I own it.
After enough evos complained that being an evolutionist did not equate to being an atheist because they believed in God AND evolution, I used the term to distinguish those evos who were atheists and had the atheistic agenda of trying to destroy or eliminate religious faith and those who did not.
But as usual, evo twisted and distorted it and refused to recognize the distinction and presumed that I was implying that all evos are atheists, which I never said or implied.
But considering how evos like to lump everyone who expresses any kind of confidence in the truth of the Biblical creation account as 6 day, 6,000 year, must read the whole Bible literally in all contexts, YEC’s, that doesn’t surprise me that they would come to that conclusion.
Evos tend to be great at projecting and extrapolating and misrepresenting.
The ToE itself is based on philosophy, the interpretation of the fossil record based on a philosophical world view and as such does not belong in science class either.
Teach all or none.
Don’t give one creation account precedence over another.
If it were simply a matter of real science, I’d agree, but the ToE is one of the biggest tools used in the attack on Christianity going.
And besides, there’s not one shred of evidence that teaching creation and ID along with evolution is going to harm one’s science education in the least.
The teaching of evolution only has had a monopoly in the public school system for decades and our performance in the sciences and math has continued to tank worldwide over the same time period.
Most private Christian schools and homeschoolers teach both and consistently have better standardized test scores and SAT/ACT scores than their public school counterparts, who are not taught to think for themselves.
I’ve asked the evos several times to provide evidence that teaching creation and/or ID hurts a student in the scientific fields and have yet to receive any response other than mockery and ridicule.
No one has to date, provided one source of verifiable data to support their contention.
The students in public high schools aren’t even getting the teaching of evolution right at that grade level. It’s a pretty sure thing that grade schoolers won’t. All this just smacks of trying to brainwash the kids at an earlier age in the hopes that more will come to believe in the ToE, although why that’s so important to some is still a mystery, which is another reason that it puts the whole issue in the ideological arena.
One can understand the ToE as presented and not accept it as true or accurate, but that seems to be irrelevant. One must ACCEPT the ToE as true to satisfy the evos.
You “conservatives” on FR will bemoan big government trying to use tax dollars to indoctrinate kids and using high taxes to create a welfare state until it comes to doing so by forcing Darwinism. You rant about the media and the schools teaching leftism to the exclusion of other ideas until it comes to Darwin. You get angry about Marxism but support the Marxist school system. You’re all frauds.
Well, as all the faux conservatives who post on these threads regularly point out, so called science should be forced on kids. Sex has plenty of scientific implications, prohibitions on sex-ed are forced by theocrats. I’m speaking as a fool.
You’re a great example of a blue blood RINO that’s destroying our party.
Which is exactly what earns the evos the label of *liberal*.
It isn’t because they are evolutionists but because they support big government control of education and because of liberal positions they’ve taken on other subjects.
Science most certainly does NOT have unlimited scope!!!
They have even starting limiting what little they could see/observe when the ‘consensus’ agreed to abide by naturalism. Acting as if there is no God b/c anything super-natural may not be repeated nor proven. And in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
The biggest problem for evolution claiming to be science is that most of its’ claims are based on assumptions and interpretations of history. Nothing scientific nor empirical is involved in its’ most grandiouse claims.
Neiher are any of its’ weaknesses allowed to be discussed. I’d guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
I’ll give you a simple analogy from computer programming. A good programmer can write code to perform all the requested functions flawlessly. If not the first time then all the flaws can be eliminated upon subsequent testing.
The problem? 99.9% of the time, the real world wants and needs changes. These often cause the code to include more functions and logic paths. Over time the code can end up going through multiple programmers who may not even have the time to understand all of the logic. They change one or many lines of code to ‘enhance’ the functionality. Along with those changes come bugs - usually hidden bugs.
The point of this analogy? Anyone who studies DNA should quickly realize it represents the ultimate ‘computer code’ for each and every life-form. God declared it good or perfect when completed. The corruption of the fall (sin) has been wreaking havoc on all His intended code (purpose) ever since, with one caveat He does not allow Satan complete dominion over those changes (see book of Job).
For more in-depth answers read all of His book - The Bible.
Bravo Sierra. I am not playing by your rules. I am not converting anyone else's work product into personal gain or signing my name to it and claiming it as mine. I am putting facts on the table which is what make you feel uncomfortable. If you can refute the content of posts you might have a legitimate complaint. I recognize that you would rather debate in the absence of facts so that your accusatory, belligerent, bullying, tattle to the mods approach eventually makes those who see through your bovine scat go away. That ain't gonna happen. While you are (self)absorbed in "catching" people in grammatical and protocol errors I will continue to "catch" you on scientific and theological errors.
What is immoral is for you to continue to lie about science and scientists to advance your view of how things ought to be.
That would be a reasonable opinion, IF there were the ability to have a non-science based ID class also. Since there is not, the attempt needs to be made to get it in somewhere.
If you can’t stand truth (the recognition of reality) get out of the kitchen.
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.”
Good post but I have some questions. No flame.
Is the Big bang scientific since “it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things.”
If the big bang is "spiritual cosmology" should we expunge it from the science books? Thanks.
You are close. As in solving any problem unknowns are represented by a variable. In solving the Creation - ID - Evolution mystery the various theories can be represented by "x" in an effort to rationalize or reject the supporting data. The possibility / probability / certainty of each of the three competing theories cannot yet be fully established, hence the often heated debate.
The part of my post you referenced was in quotes where I was quoting and responding to another poster. No problem, just wanted to clarify.
“Intelligent design makes a lot of sense to me, but its not science and does not belong in a science class”.
Alot of scientists disagree.
Alot of parents if not most, also disagree.
And I know most FReepers disagree.
Virtually all conservatives and Christians disagree.
I don’t vote rino or rat. ‘your’ party destroyed itself which means you are responsible for your failure.
I think you're talking about something other than, or at least much larger than, the theory of evolution. You seem to be talking about an alternate Creation Story or something (one not based on Genesis).
Different target entirely. You are railing at the Religion of "Evolution", which is (I agree) quite non-scientific at times.
But the scientific theory of evolution is much simpler, not grandiose at all. It seeks to explain the growth and interconnections of species over time, something that is so self-evident I don't feel it needs defense or explanation.
> Neiher are any of its weaknesses allowed to be discussed. Id guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
You're joking of course.
Did you actually read any of what I wrote? The entire business and purpose of scientific method is to challenge and disprove hypotheses, to postulate better ones based on observation, to make predictions that can be tested and disproven if incorrect, and to ferret out weaknesses.
Some theories are quite strong, and have few known weaknesses. Others are still hypotheses, with numerous weaknesses. Evolution (the scientific theory, not the religion) is quite robust, has withstood countless challenges, but has many more to go.
But Evolution-as-Religion is not science, any more than Creationism is science. It's religion, and can be debated as religion (or perhaps philosophy). You can't tart up a religious position as science just by calling it science, whether it's Evolution (the religion) or Intelligent Design (the religion).
Neither is amenable to the scientific method of inquiry, prediction, testing, and disproving. So they're not science -- it simply does not apply.
> Science most certainly does NOT have unlimited scope!!!
Sure it does (for all things where the scientific method applies, of course). To limit the scope of scientific inquiry, challenge, testing, etc. is to say that "it shall not go here". For what conceivable reason?
The only places science does not go are those where the scientific method does not apply -- religion, philosophy, emotion, metaphysics, etc. But the entire physical world, past, present, and future, is completely within the scope of science. And it is unlimited.
> They have even starting limiting what little they could see/observe when the consensus agreed to abide by naturalism. Acting as if there is no God b/c anything super-natural may not be repeated nor proven. And in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
God is not amenable to the scientific method, and the scientific method does not apply to God. God is not science, and science is not God. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and a fraud.
Thanks, and I appreciate that. ;-)
> Is the Big bang scientific since it only offers an explanation without disprovable hypotheses or testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things.
The Big Bang theory does actually provide quite a few testable predictions of as-yet unobserved things. The description of the events and conditions in the first few instants following the Big Bang are surprisingly well defined by the mathematical models developed over the past decades. They offer lots of opportunities to find flaws, to disprove assumptions, to trim and improve the model and the predictions one can make from the model.
There are, of course, numerous competing variations on the model, and the math, and the challenges fly fast and furious when the better scientists get together.
The high-energy particle colliders (like the LHC) are for exactly that purpose -- to test the predictions that can only be checked under conditions similar to the first instant of the Big Bang.
> If the big bang is "spiritual cosmology" should we expunge it from the science books? Thanks.
If it were, I would say "yes", but it's not -- it's actually very decent scientific theory at this point. All the best scientists have basically lined up behind it, but continue to challenge it and test it and try to poke holes in it, because that is the scientific method.
Did you know that the scientist who first advanced the theory (Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître) was a Roman Catholic priest? ... in addition to being a professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven. Quite a guy.
It is wonderful and pleasing to me that the theory of the Big Bang, the best science can offer for the start of the universe, maps surprisingly well into my personal idea of how God created the universe. But my spiritual cosmology doesn't weaken the scientific basis for the BB -- it merely coincides well with it.
you wrote >> in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
I wrote > God is not amenable to the scientific method, and the scientific method does not apply to God. God is not science, and science is not God. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and a fraud.
There is, of course, one exceptional circumstance.
God can do anything. If God wanted to play "scientist" and run some experiments, of course He could and would. And indeed, one of my personal thoughts has been that our universe is one of God's "experiments".
But that's just my personal thought, and has no bearing on reality, whatever that may be in this context...
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.