You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.
Posted on 05/18/2006 7:37:16 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Link only: Creationism debate moves to Britain
Second, the opening line beings with a bias; that creationism in schools is "a problem." That's already coming to the table labeling it as "a problem".
Also, the definition of creationism is patently false; stating that it encompasses Intelligent Design. Evolutionists (and the press, which are often hard to distinguish, voice and echo) are surely not so simple-minded that they cannot tell the difference between starkly different schools of thought. It is incredibly foolish to label all groups which disagree with Darwinism on some level as "creationists."
Big deal that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't think creation should be taught in schools. A) The Pope and the Catholic church seem to be of the same persuasion. B) Creationists don't trust the public schools to teach creationism OR intelligent design fairly, and would much rather it not be pushed. (However, it cannot be ignored, or shoved to the side while Darwinism is emphasized.)
Interesting; the polls in Britian are similar to American polls, which say the large majority don't accept evolution.
It is possible that such polls are being swayed by the influx of Muslims into the UK/Europe. They believe in a sort of creation also, but not the same creator.
Rejecting evolution does by no means deprive anyone of valuable perspective on operational science. Believing that man evolved from molecules has nothing to do with observable, applicable, repeatable, testable science of today. Many great advances in science (Germ theory, MRI scans, etc.) were by creationists. This confuses operational science with origins science or theoretical science.
Refusing physical contact with the opposite gender seems to have little to do with this. I'm a guy. I don't want a woman anywhere near me if I'm not decent, I don't care if she IS a professional.
There's more to go through, but again, I'm low on time.
What is intelligent design?It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.
Bruce Bower, Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), 2006, p. 414:
Interesting; the polls in Britian are similar to American polls, which say the large majority don't accept evolution.
Good news. From what some of us have gathered on this side of the pond, most British were anti-God.
Hopefully, the British are returning to their Christian roots.
I don't believe that. In fact, it is false. There is some discussion about whether to let a thousand flowers bloom in Britian's schools, but the fairest flower of them all is evolution, favored as being taught in schools by 69%. Yes, 69%
.
Religious fundamentalists are thin on the ground in Britain.
This comment is a real eye opener. Having to *cleanse* their students' minds? What is this? Brave New World or 1984? We certainly can't have people believing in creation now can we. Oh the horror!
Strange thing is, the attitude that comes across in this article is that they are aghast that creationism is spreading, as if it's the new kid on the block. It's probably spreading because of all the latest scientific findings that show life is far more complicated than we ever dreamed of and that the more we discover this, the less believable it is that it WASN'T designed or created.
Duck and cover. Incoming dung and other filth from homosexuals / abortionists / evolutionists.
I just Googled the above sentence fragment and found some very interesting reading pro and con. If nothing else, I was unaware of this find and the scientific investigation into it. Thanks for the post.
Rejecting evolution does by no means deprive anyone of valuable perspective on operational science. Believing that man evolved from molecules has nothing to do with observable, applicable, repeatable, testable science of today. Many great advances in science (Germ theory, MRI scans, etc.) were by creationists. This confuses operational science with origins science or theoretical science. ( From the article)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have been pointing this out at every opportunity!
The daily work of almost all scientists and those in the applied sciences has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
The daily work of all but a handful of Americans has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
Disbelief in the evolutionary model as regards the origin of life and its existence in diverse forms and functions does not necessarily imply or require belief in God or a worldview grounded in theistic religion. Atheists reject the evolutionary model purely on the basis of its improbability.
Archive
'Hopefully, the British are returning to their Christian roots.'
Our roots are pagan, not christian actually. The island I live on was not converted to christianity until 686AD when the saxon king of wessex decided we should be christian. The locals weren't keen on this foreign religion from the land of the moors so to help smooth the transition an army was sent from the mainland to murder every man, woman and child in the name of Jesus. When there was no-one left alive, the island had suddenly become christian! Shame really as it had lived in peace for 3000 years before the god-botherers turned up! :(
You are correct. That would be reversing cause and effedt.
Not true, and a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence. Detailed analysis hasn't come back yet but I expect we will find only the usual degradation products of biomolecules and mere morphological preservation. I'm crossing my fingers for some isolable bits of the original collagen molecules, though. *crosses fingers real hard!*
"Intelligent Design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes—as opposed to intelligence—can create biological complexity and diversity." - William DembskiIf you cannot distinguish between the very distinct differences of the two different schools of thought, I cannot help that. But you are being over-simplistic.
"What good is it if people believe in intelligence? That's no different than atheism in that if it's not the God of the Bible, it's not Jesus Christ, it's not salvation." - Ken Ham
Or forming new Muslim roots.
Don't be absurd. The article you link to speaks more against evolution than for it, with respect to public support. Less than half accept evolution is the best explanation for life, 40% believe ID should be included and 44% say creation should also be taught. Saying that a large majority think one side should be taught isn't terribly persuasive.
Why do you associate homosexuals and abortionists with evolutionists? To be sure, such lack of ethics can be justified through evolutionary thinking, but to assert that evolutionists are either is without basis or justification.
The daily work of almost all scientists and those in the applied sciences has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. The daily work of all but a handful of Americans has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.There's some good stuff in Chapter 1 of Jonathan Sarfati's book "Refuting Evolution 2" that deals with this. I also responded to the argument, and provided more links in this post.
What is "effedt"? ;-)
I just Googled the above sentence fragment and found some very interesting reading pro and con. If nothing else, I was unaware of this find and the scientific investigation into it. Thanks for the post.There's some interesting reading (and debates) on the topic in these two articles:
Ping
effect
Of course you know I was only kidding...
Not so. Rejecting evolution requires that you reject scientific methodology, arguments and hypotheses based on evidence, large parts of geology, mineralogy, physics, chemistry - and in the extreme case of young-earth creationism - you have to reject all of science in it's totality. Then you have to square this with the technology resulting from science.
It's a tough sell.
Citation of the UK polls please. Including poll questions, sample size, and methodology. Given that you have no credibility due to past blunders I'm not going to believe this without it. In my informed opinion, living in the UK, any idea that the large majority don't accept evolution is unmitigated nonsense, beyond laughable, unless the large majority referred to is a large majority of fundamentalist muslim immigrants.
Many great advances in science (Germ theory, MRI scans, etc.) were by creationists. This confuses operational science with origins science or theoretical science.
Indeed, creationists indulge in this particular confusion all the time, when they try to suggest that the fact that creationist scientists who made successful advances link logically with a general rejection of evolution. Like the ludicrous lists of "great scientists who were creationists" that appear on creationist websites. Usually most of the people who appear on such lists were long dead and buried before Darwin even proposed evolution. I'll be really interested if you can definitively identify five twentieth century scientists who were young earth creationists and who made significant discoveries that have impacted mainstream scientific thought. Heck, I'll be really interested if you can name two such.
Who are these people then? And please explain the probability models that they use to reject the evolutionary model. Presumably these people are biologists, so you should be able to cite their published and reviewed work that substantiates your assertion.
Citation of the UK polls please. Including poll questions, sample size, and methodology.Did you actually READ the article? I don't see why I should have to spell it all out for you, it's right there. Nevertheless, since your browser is malfunctioning or something...
A recent Mori poll for the BBC found that only 48 per cent of the British population accept the theory of evolution; 39 per cent of people surveyed preferred to put their faith in creationism or ID. Over 40 per cent believed that the controversial theories should be taught in school science lessons.Now let's have no more of this demanding information from me and maligning my character at the same time.
Indeed, creationists indulge in this particular confusion all the time, when they try to suggest that the fact that creationist scientists who made successful advances link logically with a general rejection of evolution.I think the general thrust is more of "these pioneers were creationists, and still somehow managed to eek out a place in scientific history." Not "they were smart enough to reject evolution."
Usually most of the people who appear on such lists were long dead and buried before Darwin even proposed evolution.As frevolutionists remind us, the idea was around before Darwin furthered it.
I'll be really interested if you can definitively identify five twentieth century scientists who were young earth creationists and who made significant discoveries that have impacted mainstream scientific thought. Heck, I'll be really interested if you can name two such.If mainstream scientific thought is already largely partisan towards evolution, then it would be hard for creationists to impact them., now wouldn't it.
I'm also curious, how many "past blunders" does it take to destroy one's credibility in your mind?
Non-YEC believer: "I only reject *some* modern science, although I won't look at the evolution's supporting physical evidence very carefully since I don't want to run into any inconvenient contradictions."
YEC believer: "I reject the whole kit and kaboodle."
We have both types on FR.
I missed this.
Paul Lauterbur invented Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Paul is not a creationist.
It's a crutch for a particular group of evolutionists. Only a false believer can accept evolution as the source for a single species. One who wishes to create a god that is weak and fallible, and thus need not be respected.
If evolution is a flower, then dog feces is caviar.
Nonsense! Nothing that meets the standards of compelling evidence used by true scientists has ever been presented to support evolution.
All there ever is amounts to religiously held opinion, and hundreds of pages of deceptive hand sketches. none of this tripe can be called evoidence, nor is any of the evolutionists methodology science; it is only propaganda.
Here is another hand sketch for you. Note how cleverly it is colored in:
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
none of this tripe can be called evoidence, nor is any of the evolutionists methodology science; it is only propaganda.
Actually, it is evidence. You are the one who has presented no evidence.
But wait, there's more!
For your viewing pleasure, a true transitional (what the creationist websites say does not exist):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
This is of course hilariously false, unless you have an exceptionally creative definition of "true scientist".
I was referring to Raymond Damadian. Dr. Damadian first wrote that tissues and tumors reacted differently to nuclear magnetic resonance. Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield (Peter and Paul) then figured out how to translate NMR into images. Damadian then used their techniques for an MRI. For whatever reason, Lauterbur and Mansfield got the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work, and Damadian was excluded. (Perhaps because he is a creationist?)
Damadian did receive the Lincoln-Edison medal, and United States’ National Medal of Technology, and has been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.
So, in short, no creationist has ever produced any helpful inventions or breakthroughs to the "mainstream" scientific world.
Non-YEC believer: "I only reject *some* modern science, although I won't look at the evolution's supporting physical evidence very carefully since I don't want to run into any inconvenient contradictions."And then you have people like me.
YEC believer: "I reject the whole kit and kaboodle." We have both types on FR.
Ah yes, the collection of various unrelated, and illogically grouped blacklight photographed skulls. How artsy.
These are all great finds. What's at issue is the interpretation of them.
Oh yeah, sorry:
TheoScientists: "I maintain a hypocritical attitude towards modern science. I'm happy availing myself of the fruits of it's labors, and pretend to respect it's discipline. However, I grant equal validity to a theologically-inspired belief system, parading itself as science, lacking in the tiniest shred of evidence. I pretend this approach is free of inconsistencies."
Fixed it for you.
I cited one above, in refutation. The assertion that Brits are anti evolution theory, and in particular against teaching it in the schools, is errant nonsense. Sad really.
If you are to argue against scientific data, you simply must to better.
First, it might help to understand scientific data and theory.
You are arguing from a position of disbelief, which means whatever evolutionary scientists come up with you don't agree with it. You don't know why (scientifically), but for religious reasons you don't agree with it.
That is not very convincing. When you come to a scientific debate, it would be best to bring scientific data or theory.
Lauterbur, in fact, invented nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and published it.
Damadian then used their techniques for an MRI.
Actually, he used a lame, inferior version, 5 years later.
Damadian did receive the Lincoln-Edison medal, and United States’ National Medal of Technology, and has been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.
Tribute to his lobbying persistence, not his science. If you asked people in the field of NMR, half would ask who? and the others would say 'not that nutcase!' I knew Damadian was a fruitcake fifteen years before I found out he was also a creationist. Not that the latter surprised me.
So, in short, no creationist has ever produced any helpful inventions or breakthroughs to the "mainstream" scientific world.
Damadian certainly didn't. Even the original 'discovery' of differential relaxation times in tumors is now considered questionable. Paul Lauterbur invented NMR imaging. I know the people he talked the idea out with. I inherited his lab and the test samples he used.
In recording the history of MRI, Mattson and Simon (1996) credit Damadian with describing the concept of whole-body NMR scanning, as well as discovering the NMR tissue relaxation differences that made this feasible. In 2001, the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its Lifetime Achievement Award on Dr. Damadian as "the man who invented the MRI scanner". The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia gave its recognition of Damadian's work on MRI with the Bower Award in Business Leadership. He was also named Knights of Vartan 2003 "Man of the Year". He received a National Medal of Technology in 1988 and was inducted in the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1989.You know who you remind me of, Professor?
I'm not arguing against any scientific data, I'm rejecting sham propaganda erected to fortify your vacuous philosophy. Opinion regarding fragments of a creature, in most cases less than 5% of the complete body, are not evidence, nor is there anything scientific about said opinions. They're based on heartfelt hopes and desires of fulfilment of humanist faith, not science.
I'm not arguing against any scientific data, I'm rejecting sham propaganda erected to fortify your vacuous philosophy. Opinion regarding fragments of a creature, in most cases less than 5% of the complete body, are not evidence, nor is there anything scientific about said opinions. They're based on heartfelt hopes and desires of fulfilment of humanist faith, not science.
Once again you bring your opinion to the argument. Your opinion does not constitute scientific data.
You still don't get it; opinions are of little value when the person opining has no training in a scientific field.
And that is exactly where you are trying to argue, the multiple fields of science which contribute to evolution. But you have brought no data, no facts, no evidence, just your opinion.
And you're apparently too ignorant, or of such limited cognitive ability, that you can't even see that all you're doing is repeat your own baseless opinion constantly.
That's funny. That's almost the same thing Dr. Behe said under oath in the Dover trial. Right before he said evidence doesn't matter.
So when we will we see the creationist explanation of the fossil record? Or are they just rocks?
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.