Evolving Double Standards

National Review ^ | April 01, 2004 | John West

[old3030]

But, of course, darwinism/secularism/materialism/socialism is not a religion, it is a philosophical worldview consistent with the scientific method; hence not covered by the First Amendment's Establishment clause. That only applies to grubby fundamentalist Christians. [/sarcasm off]

[general_re]

What gives? The creationists finally got what they wanted - religion in the schools. Welcome to the brave new world that you were supposed to be in favor of - enjoy the ride, and please keep your hands and feet inside the car at all times.

[NC28203]

Just wondering what the faith-based criticisms of evolutionary theory cited in the first paragraph are. Are they separate from science-based criticisms?

[general_re]

"It's the wrong sort of religion!"

[Cowgirl]

The National Center for Science Education is a small store front in Berkley California with about nine employees.
They are against "creationism" is the school and are promoting theology that goes along with their lies about
evolution. Certainly, we have had microevolution which means animals can evolve within their own kind to be smaller, larger, etc. You can do this with breeding different animals and in a few short years you will come
up with something that looks quite different, but it is
still a dog, cat or whatever KIND of animal you started with. We did not evolve from nothing which is what the
textbooks say happened. The textbooks are full of lies
taught to school children every day as fact. It is a total
disgrace. To teach that we evolved from nothing 4.5 billion years ago is nothing but "religion", paid for by the tax payers.

[PatrickHenry]

An earlier thread is devoted exclusively to the website in question: Evolution education down to a science on Web [debunking big time!]. The article at the start this thread certainly deserves separate treatment.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. Long-time list members get all pings, but can request evo-only status. New additions will be evo-only, but can request all pings. FReepmail me to be added or dropped. Specify all pings or you'll get evo-pings only.]

[NC28203]

That's right. We all know that the world was created on the back of a giant sea turtle as the Iroquois creation story tells us, but they refuse to teach in the schools.

[balrog666]

But, of course, darwinism/secularism/materialism/socialism is not a religion, it is a philosophical worldview consistent with the scientific method; hence not covered by the First Amendment's Establishment clause. That only applies to grubby fundamentalist Christians. [/sarcasm off]

I must have missed it. Which part was the sarcasm?

[Saturnalia]

Amaterasu will smite you for your heresy!

[narby]

darwinism/secularism/materialism/socialism is not a religion, it is a philosophical worldview consistent with the scientific method

What????

[ThinkPlease]

— John West is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an Associate Professor of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University.

Once again, a member of the Discovery Institute is reduced to making political attacks on evolution instead of attacking the science. Someday, I hope to see a DI representative with some sort of scientific pronouncement of a research program related to ID. It's been 4 years, though, and nary a scientific pronouncement has been found. Why don't they just admit that they are not interested in furthering science, but instead their perverted Wedge Strategy?

[Gritty]

We all know that the world was created on the back of a giant sea turtle as the Iroquois creation story tells us, but they refuse to teach in the schools

Now here is a strawman argument if I have ever seen one!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is on the front lines of the battle to keep religion out of the nation's science classrooms.

I stopped when I hit this little fabrication.

[NC28203]

Are you saying that the Iroquois creation story is less valid for teaching in the public schools than the Biblical creation story?

[aculeus]

Charles Darwin, shown here line-dancing with some fellow saints, has been canonized and iconized by the good people at St. Gregory's Anglican Church in a certain American city, one named after another saint.

[general_re]

Hmmmm. Nope, we can't have religion in the classroom. Errr, we can't have that religion in the classroom, but we definitely need to have my religion in the classroom.

[Stultis]

Certainly, we have had microevolution which means animals can evolve within their own kind to be smaller, larger, etc. You can do this with breeding different animals and in a few short years you will come up with something that looks quite different, but it is still a dog, cat or whatever KIND of animal you started with.

Certainly? You make it sound pretty straightforward.

So dogs and cats are different kinds? How about hyenas? Are they in the dog kind, the cat kind, or a different kind? Or maybe there are multiple "kinds" within dogs and/or cats? Are sharks all one kind, or multiple kinds? If the former, what about skates? Are they in the shark kind? How about rays? Horses all one kind? How many "kinds" of weasels? How about monkeys? Are turtles and tortoises one "kind"? Sea turtles included? (That's a lot of adaptation between a tortoise and a sea turtle!) Llamas and Camels? One kind or two (or more)? Are chimpanzees and gorillas the same kind? If so, how would you explain that chimps are genetically more similar to humans than they are to gorillas? (Maybe humans are part of a larger "ape kind"?!) Etc.

More important, how would you go about answering such questions, and how is your procedure tied to some more general theory of creationism?

[Gritty]

Are you saying that the Iroquois creation story is less valid for teaching in the public schools than the Biblical creation story?

I'm saying your throwing that in is nothing more than a "strawman" argument. I thought I said that in a pretty plain way.

You are the one who inserted the story about the Iroquois turtle myth in an attempt to discredit via absurdity rather than try and refute or even discuss any of cowgirls's comments. Instead, you chose to use a lame aside.