Skip to comments.Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Posted on 11/06/2009 9:39:16 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Why Evolutionary-Based Science Is A Menace To Scientific Research, Discovery, and Progress
Evolutionary-based research always begins with the inaccurate and unscientific presupposition that the Theory of Evolution, i.e. the Big Bang, the spontaneous generation of life, and common descent, is true.
Due to this systemic problem, scientific discovery and progress is severely hampered, not to mention the hundreds of millions of research dollars that are squandered every year.
In a time in which almost ANY alternative thought is given a platform, the evolution industry is silencing dissenting scientific evidence, even when its from fellow evolutionists!
See the growing list of dissenters and read the case histories of how the evolution industry is hopelessly locked in a battle with the Truth...
(Excerpt) Read more at whoisyourcreator.com ...
Religion as a defense to science. It's happened whenever the religious become scared of scientific advances. They even accused Newton, a deeply religious man, of mixing the occult and science.
It is unprovable
Leave your proofs to math where they belong. Otherwise, we're talking about a scientific theory. Meanwhile, Natural Selection was coined by a person who was deeply religious at the time, but was able to separate his personal beliefs and science.
IDERs as you call them want SCIENCE not propaganda and junk Science.
ID is founded in religion, and so is its precursor, creationism.
We use Singapore Science. There is no religion in there. It is straight SCIENCE.
I don't know anything about these people, but I just looked them up. You may be right since although they mention Behe's idiot book, they put a disclaimer on it that they in no way endorse or agree with it.
The people in Singapore and for the most part the rest of the industrialized world can't understand your problem with evolution. To them it's a non-issue. You have your belief, and that's fine. But teach the current state of science, and right now that's evolution.
Thanks for the ping!
“You might want to review your talking points with Mr. Johnson.”
You may want to review the Singapor Science curriculmn.
It’s straight Science. As I said, it’s ONLY the U.S. that dwells on Darwin and Evolution. As LEFTISTS ram PROPAGANDA in YOUR kids heads, the Pacific Rim teaches Sceince and beats the snot out of your kids when it comes to KNOWLEDGE. If you want your kids to be stupid, that’s your choice but constantly trying to frame the argument for propaganda and using “religion” doesn’t work and the TEST SCORES ALWAYS highlight how STUPID AMERICANS ARE when it comes to MATH and SCIENCE.
You can’t have strong Science when you foundation is crap.
We like Singapore Science. It focuses on SCIENCE rahter than Sci-fi tales. But hey, if you prefer fantasies that can’t be proven, that’s up to you!
BTW, I didn't bother to read your rely. Circular logic bores me and that is what you reply is all about as well as you clininging to YOUR "religion" of Darwin, atheism and evolution and why other countries don't use it. It's a losing combination.
Singapore Science doesn't dwell on Darwin or evolution as the U.S. does. The propaganda is GONE! It's PURE SCIENCE. If you prefer the propaganda approach then by all means, stay with it!
Here's an exchange between a secular home schooler and a Singapore Science vendor:
We are teaching our children biology and geology from a non-religious perspective and hope that Singapore Science can fulfill that need. (They are already profiting heavily from the Math books). We can find no other integrated series of textbooks with this feature, at least that is compatible with homeschooling programmes.
Also, we are in Canada, and because of shipping costs and exchange rates we have been buying our Singapore Math books from two local home school vendors. Neither carries the Singapore Science books though, and we have have not yet discussed with either ordering these through them. What are your shipping rates to Canada?
#2 09-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Administrator Join Date: Apr 2007
Our science books are secular, but usually what people mean by that is if they teach evolution. They are for grades 7-10, and at that level they do not teach it in Singapore. So you would have to supplement, or, best I think, do a college Biology text after the Biology, Chemistry, and Physics texts.
What is taught THERE has nothing to do with “religion” or YOUR religion of evolution. Nothing! It's straight science.
We use their Math as well as Science. BTW, I hear California schools use Singapore Math.
BTW, anyone that comes to a U.S. University/College cruises through the FIRST TWO YEARS here because they cover that in HIGH SCHOOL in the Pacific Rim.
Here is their curriculum for Science:
Here is their curriculum for Math:
There is no wonder after you start using their curriculums about why their kids are smart and beat the pants off the DUMB U.S. kids. But, if you want to continue to dumb YOUR kids down, by all means stay with the evolution and Darwin Sci-fi approach which doesn't cover true science. Continue to frame it as a "religious" thing - LOL!!!! It is YOU who is hung up on Darwin and Evolution as YOUR "RELIGION".
BTW they aren't hung up on class room size either as they are in the U.S.. Lazy union teachers do have less work but over there, they want their kids to learn. It's part of their culture. Here we fret over too many books in their back packs. Over there, there is NO COMPLAINT about that. They want to learn and as I have said many times, are BRIGHT and beat the U.S. kids EVERY TIME when it comes to KNOWLEDGE.
Nor proof read, apparently. Since you didn't bother to read my reply, it is obvious you are not honestly interested in discussion, but instead only want to blindly push your indoctrinated point of view that desires to replace science with religion. This is over.
Nice job at misdirection.
Are the quotes I provided not correct?
“Its actually the other way around. The other countries teach SCIENCE not propaganda - EVOLUTION. The other countries teach SCIENCE and let the chips fall where they may. Science in the U.S. is ONLY evolution driven - it defies logic and there is NO evidence to support it. So we suck in Science.”
—Science education in the US is hardly “evolution driven” - it’s barely mentioned. Evolution and Darwin weren’t mentioned when I was in high school, and I even took biology as an elective. Others I’ve spoken to had similar experiences. I only learned about them by reading books in my own time and later taking university courses.
I don’t know about Singapore, but people I’ve spoken to from other nations on the list that are whipping the US (Japan, Korea, Scandinavian nations, etc) were taught quite a bit about evolution and Darwinism.
I do agree with some of what you’re saying though. Science education in the US is too much about regurgitating facts and data instead of teaching actual science. I think the US should copy what the countries ahead of us are doing - and if they are teaching more straight science, than that’s what we should do. But apparently teaching the straight science and letting the chips fall where they may almost always results in the students being Darwinists. Did you notice that Darwinism is vastly more popular in the countries ahead of us?
I agree with Mr. Johnson’s first quote the most. Darwinism is a religion and Christianity is a religion. Yet, Darwinists are allowed to own science while Creationism cannot even be mentioned at all. Darwinism is not science, it is a Philosophy. Vaccination research is science, studying species variations is science, studying the universe is science, studying plants is science, but saying all life evolved from a single species is not science, it is a Philosophy and always will be. Evolution of all life from a single species over billions of years is a childish, philosophical, fairy tale and nothing more. It is not and never will be science.
I considered that possibility some years ago.
I tested it by reading several "creation science" books. I picked out some of the arguments that seemed persuasive or intriguing, and spent a number of days in libraries chasing out all the relevant citations to original sources.
The result: I found creationism to be consistently based on shoddy, incompetent, or downright dishonest scholarship; and the countervailing evolutionary / mainstream science positions to be honest and generally solidly based.
I went in agnostic about antievolutionary ideas -- suspecting there was something to them, just not sure quite what -- and came out convinced that antievolutionary creationism had no valid scientific basis at all. I went in suspicious about the foundations of evolutionary theory, and came out having found them far better evidenced than I had suspected.
After that I collected antievolutionary literature for some years, attended meetings of a local creation science group, went to a couple national creation science conventions, and etc, but found the appallingly low level of integrity I'd earlier discovered to lie behind the claims of creationism to be characteristic and persistent.
Very strange. Would you please name some of the books that you read from both sides? How long ago was this?
I don't remember precisely, but it would have been, I think, around 1982 or 1983.
I don't remember the exact order, but the first books I read were not conventional "creation science."
One was Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching was, as I later understood, a "New Ager." He did use many "creation science" type arguments (e.g. gaps in the fossil record, no transistionals) but also used, IIRC, secular anti-darwinism type arguments, probably along the lines of natural selection being tautological and arguments for neo-Lamarkism.
I think before this I'd read lawyer Norman Macbeth's Darwin Retried. This book did not use "creation science" arguments, and was basically a secular critique of Darwinism (as opposed to evolution as such) without offering any particular alternative.
I also read a couple Darwin biographies that tended to be critical of Darwinism. The one by Gertrude Himmelfarb, and another more obscure one I don't recall now, but both influenced me.
Then, directed initially by Hitchings (who had claimed to be critical of YEC, but bizarrely cribbed their arguments) but soon striking out on my own, I started reading conventional "creation science" works.
I know I read, for instance, the classic Whitcomb-Morris The Genesis Flood before doing my library project, but am equally certain I would have selected arguments from the more up to date Creation Science (or was it called Scientific Creationism?) by Henry Morris. I also read quite a few other books by Henry Morris, although I don't recall which were before and which after my library project.
I'm also certain I used Duane Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say NO! in my library project, and maybe (less certain here) a book by another ICR scientist, I believe last name Parker, although I don't recall the title. Oops. After googling that would be Gary Parker, probably What Is Creation Science?. However this was published in 1985. So if I did use that one my library project would have been a few years later than I thought.
Arguments I looked at. Hmmm. I think only a couple specific "young earth" arguments, and maybe only one. I wasn't inclined to think these were likely to pan out. But I do remember being startled by Henry Morris' claim that historic lavas (less than 100 or 200 years old, IIRC) in Hawaii dated to be millions of years old, and know I looked into that one early on. (One of my first big shocks about how blatantly dishonest creationists can be in misrepresenting their references.)
I'm equally certain I looked at one or more of Duane Gish's no transitional forms arguments, although I don't remember wrt to which critters. I think it would have most likely have been either in the area of hominids or the reptile-mammal transition.
That's the best I can recall here a quarter century or so later. I continued to follow the antievolution movement closely until around the mid 1990s, and more sporadically since.
BTW, you seem to think it "strange" that I would have read and examined creationist literature. In my experience it has been more the norm. Most other anticreationists I met were well read in "creation science" literature. Able to discuss the finer points of differences in "flood geology" scenarios and the like. Virtually all had read at least one or a few antievolution books.
It is obvious that you lack a basic understanding of science.
You really should do some additional research outside of your creationist talking points.
If you believe evolution of all species from one, then you are lacking in scientific knowledge far more than I. Unless you think science is about faith, guessing, and hoping as it seems you do.
Science is based on empirical evidence and not faith. The empirical evidence supports the evolutionary theory, for that reason I accept that fact.
All of your denial of history and regurgitation of creationist misconceptions will not change the facts. Evolution is real.
What evidence would it take for you to accept the evolutionary theory?
[The relative abundance of hydrogen/helium was well known before the Big Bang theory was formulated so how is predicting that which is already known meaningful? And it didnt require a particle accelerator to find this out.]
Because inherent in the Big Bang theory is details of the process for the synthesis of elements from simpler subatomic particles. These details not only predict the relative abundance of these elements but they also predict HOW and WHY they are produced. It’s more than just spitting out a number (which was already known) it’s about explaining the process and then using the explanation to make predictions about that which isn’t known and then running experiments to see if those predictions come true.
And they do come true which means the theory is, by definition, both “robust” and “reliable”. Search for “Quantum Electrodynamics” for more info on this.
That statement is simply not correct.
There are mountains of evidence if you just look beyond your creationist talking points, just because you say something that does not change the facts.
So what evidence would cause you to accept the evolutionary theory?
The falsity of Reverend Al's pal's story is well known.
The last three citations given are false ? I'd like to hear more about that.
“Who made you king? I didn’t vote for you.”