Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution?

Do we even have any Creationists left on A2K?

You guys have probably driven them all away. Serious evolutionists would have no need to mock and ridicule those who disagree with them. They would have enough scientific "evidence" to stand on it's own merit. Unless, of course, evolultionists have not evolved sufficiently to act civil to people.

Wht twaddle,Obviously you have no understanding of how the Creationists of the world have been attempting to infiltrate their worldview into classrooms by trying to demand an equal standing with scientific evidence and theory.(Actually you do, but you dont wish us to mock your baseless "scientific" assertions, you merely want to sneak your load of horseshit into the classroom, unchallenged)

The Creationists want to occupy several fronts at once/


1. Theywant us to dispense with logic and accept their wordlview as scientifically testable

2. They want religious doctrine to act as a cenytral point of their science

3. They want science to "relax" and not spend any effort in squashing Creationism.

4. They claim that theirs is a valid "point of view" and should be afforded equal protection from state education boards.

If Creationism stops trying to become a substitute for biological evolution in our schools, then Many of us would let it lie there as a doctrinal support thats critical to but a a few sects. Unfortunately its the Creationists who are doing all the pushing, and science is merely trying to remind the school boards and state ed boards of their responsibility under Federal Law and the Constitution.

Creationists are busy trying to deny all the mountains of evidence that support biological evolution and natural selection. THey are trying to trivialize all the basic laws of science and the robust basis of the theory behind evolution. The way they do it is with lies, half truths, quote mining, twisted logic, and mythology. I dont think we can just let weak brained doctrine like that just quietly occupy equal space and demand equal time in our public schools. If you wish to teach dangerous crap like that to your own larvae, please do it in the space afforded you by the First Amendment wherein you are able to establish your own schools (think Amish).
I may not agree with your worldview, but I cant deny your rights to teach it to your own. Just dont keep trying to teach it to my own.

The use of the term "evolutionists" and your inferential division of this mythical order of devotees into "serious" and, what? . . . fanatical evolutionists? . . . shows that you consider people who accept a theory of evolution and those who wish to stipulate their personal superstition of choice as being polar opposite but equivalent sets of believers.

But that ain't so. Certainly there are fanatics among any group of people, and that includes those who accept a theory of evolution. But accepting that theory as the best, most plausible explanation for the wide variety of species on the planet today, as well as accepting the supporting geological and archaeological evidence is not a political stance. Creationism is exactly that. In the days before Darwin and Wallace, when what is now called creationism was unknown because scriptural inerrancy went unchallenged, a term such as creationists would have been silly, because it would have implied a distinction could be made between those who stipulated scripture as inerrant truth and those who would challenge it. At that time, no challengers rose above the horizon of the public consciousness.

Furthermore, it is a polemical tactic of religious "strict constructionists" to cast what they (but no one with an ounce of sense and a reasonable appreciation of the science involved) consider a controversy into the light of a political debate, with truth on their side and propaganda on the other.

The great majority of people who accept a scientific explanation for species diversity do so because the alternative is too embarrassingly silly to contemplate. What i am saying is that most people are insufficiently well-informed of the scientific issues to use science as a basis for judging the merits of the case--but they reject a creationist point of view because the basis for it is an absurdity.

Get over it, it's not a political debate, although it's a political stalking horse for the bear leaders of the "god did it" crowd.

If any of the creationism/ID posters could produce the origins of aggressively politicizing the debate of accepting evolution science belonging in the the scientist camp instead of the Christian religion camp, especially in the US, it would at least provide a basis for Intrepid's complaint. But, no, the "debate" has been trapped in their circular straw-man argument, trying to shoehorn a pseudo-science of creationism or intelligent design, a not-so-clever disguise of creationism, into a state of credibility. Hasn't been done and can't be done without resorting to the Big Lie of there being any scientifically testable evidence existing in this world. Instead, they quote from Websites, usually blogs, the same grade school illustrated book crap that's inevitably pulled from "Of Pandas and People" and other such fantasy tomes. It does provide a giggle, here and there, for any sane and rational person. Otherwise, it's a scary window into the childish minds of adults who refuse to grow up.

Great question! I feel that most of the religious right is none too bright.

Since this question was posted, several years ago, not a single "Creationist" has demonstrated a reasonable fundamental understanding of Biological Evolution, and no argument has been presented which isn't derived from standard array of debunked pseudo-arguments which have been around for years.

The user called Real Life (who vaguely purported himself to be a Creationist) probably came the closest to demonstrating a reasonable understanding of what he was debating against, but even he continually resorted to philosophical sophistry and specious assumptions to try to support his position, and in so doing revealed deep flaws in his understanding of the basic theory as well as debating tactics intended to decrease the accuracy of the discussion rather than increase accuracy.

We are awaiting a champion of Creationism who can demonstrate an accurate and reasonable understanding of Biological Evolution. Unless Michael Behe shows up here, I think we may be waiting a long time.

Texas Board of Education votes against teaching evolution weaknesses
11:08 PM CST on Thursday, January 22, 2009

By TERENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]
AUSTIN " In a major defeat for social conservatives, a sharply divided State Board of Education voted Thursday to abandon a longtime state requirement that high school science teachers cover what some critics consider to be "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution.

Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the "strengths and weaknesses" of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life.

Also Online
Link: State Board of Education
Link: Texas Education Agency science curriculum
Darwin's theory has long been widely accepted in the scientific community, although proponents for a biblical explanation of the origin of humans continue pointing to what they say are flaws in evolution theory.

Those concerns caused the state board to adopt the so-called strengths and weaknesses requirement in the 1980s. Opponents of the requirement had warned that it would eventually open the door to the teaching of creationism in science classes. Board members who backed the rule insisted that was not their intention.

The seven Republican board members supporting the rule have been aligned with social conservative groups that in the past have worked to cast doubt on science-based theories on the origins of life.

The key vote Thursday was on an amendment to the proposed curriculum standards that would have restored the weaknesses rule. The amendment failed to pass on a 7-7 vote, with four Democrats and three Republicans voting no. Another Democrat " who would have opposed the amendment " was absent.

"We're not talking about faith. We're not talking about religion," said board member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, who opposed the amendment. "We're talking about science. We need to stay with our experts and respect what they have requested us to do."

Rep. Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, who supported the weaknesses requirement, said there have been "significant challenges" to evolution theory. She cited a recent news article in which a European scientist disputed Darwin's "tree of life" showing common ancestors for all living things.

She also denied that some board members were trying to make it easier to teach creationism in science classes.

"I don't think this means you're supposed to teach creationism or intelligent design," she said, referring to another movement related to creationism.

Board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who also supported the requirement, cast the issue as a battle about "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech" over whether students can thoroughly examine evolution.

He accused supporters of evolution theory of using false evidence to back the theory.

"Those arguing against us have a bad history of lies," he said.

Board member Geraldine Miller, R-Dallas, rejected the argument by social conservatives that teachers and students won't be able to question the theory of evolution under the new standards.

"There has never been anything in our standards that prevents a teacher from talking about all aspects of what they teach," she said.

"We need to respect what our teachers have recommended to us."

Dallas' two board members, Miller and Democrat Mavis Knight, supported the plan drafted by teachers. They were joined by Republican Pat Hardy of Fort Worth.

Evolution critics did score a minor victory, as the board agreed to an amendment that calls for students to discuss the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of Darwin's tenet that living things have a common ancestry.

That change was proposed by board chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, who also supported the defeated strengths-and-weaknesses requirement.

The new curriculum standards, tentatively approved on a voice vote, spell out not only how evolution is to be covered, but also what is supposed to be taught in all science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as providing the material for state tests and textbooks.

The standards will remain in place for the next decade, although the process for approving new textbooks won't start until 2011.

The decision will reverberate beyond Texas. Because of the large number of students here, textbook makers tend to carry curriculum decisions made in Texas to other states.

With regard to evolution and other scientific theories, the educator panel advising the state board proposed language that stated students shall "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing."

In deleting the strengths-and-weaknesses rule, the panel said the requirement suggested that the scientific community was divided on the theory of evolution when in fact there is little disagreement.

The bloc of seven Republicans supporting the rule tried to add a similar amendment calling for science students to be taught evidence "supportive of and not supportive of" the theory of evolution and other scientific explanations. But it was rejected on an 8-7 vote.

A second vote on the science curriculum standards is scheduled for today.

Action on the science standards caps several months of debate by groups who sought to influence the board on the teaching of evolution. The issue last flared up when the board adopted new biology textbooks in 2003, as social conservatives sought to reject books that were deemed too pro-evolution.

Print | RSS | | Yahoo

This statement is a huge lie in itself. Weve seen many of the Creationists trying to deny the evidence of a very old earth, or the genetic linkage among primates and hominids, as well as the fossil records display of morphological linkage. They do this by avoiding all the evidence and they merely assert that its fake .

To deny the mountains of good evidence in order to make ones religious point is just fraud.

It is fraud and these people are amazingly stubborn and resistant to fact.

A friend who was writing his dissertation in philosophy dismissed god as simply another step in describing how the universe came into existence.

The Creationists are very much like the Strict Constructionists.

That agrees fairly well with Wrights thesis in his latest book "THE EVOLUTION OF GOD"

On a discussionary plane, Is it even of any concern whether "Creationists" understand Evolution? It isnt that, if they did, they would suddenly all abandon their previous beliefs. Several have, but many havent.

Whether they do or dont, the fraud is the miscasting of evolutionary evidence as false. Idf they dont understand it, they are ignorant and defiant, if they do, they are fraudulent . EIther way, theyre probably not fun people with curious minds. Fun people retain their childlike curiosity.