Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Have it your way if you wish. That does not alter reality. Some folks don't wish to understand that evolution nothing but adaptation to the point either of speciation or extinction.

If you really understood what the definition of evolution was, and how it is portrayed at the acedemic level, you would realise that your statement, and many similar comments on this thread, are gross simplifications of the subject, as well as clear examples of regurgitated humanist propaganda mixed with poorly understood principles of the various Earth Sciences.

Ever visit a museum of science and history? Amazing how two schools of thought have merged.

Ever noticed how Historical Fact and Scientific Fact don't correlate? What's your point?

They don't correlate? How so?

I can tell by your name that you are right. <snicker>

Yep, there is no way we can argue about that kind of logic. I guess Bibliophile is right.

please enlighten me oh rocket scientist, Ive only been practicing poorly understood Earth Sciences for almost 30 years. Never too late to learn. Im amazed at the 'If you cant be right, then be wrong at the top of your lungs"

If youve failed to read the proofs and actual demonstrations of active evolution and its results in speciation, or if youve merely refused to understtand tthe theory, dont go spouting as if you understand. Your not cementing your credibility by displaying such profound ignorance of about 10 different sciences.



whats a specific problem youve got with genomic evidence for evolution? Do you deny genetics also?

Where is there a flaw in Earth SCience-we dont know everything buit our models are robust.

does Uniformitarianism bother you

How about sUperposition?

Theres eviidence from geophysics and geochemistry thatt the earth is very very old.

you obviously have arguments with the fossil record.

Well, all these components of a "poorly understood Earth SCience" actually work for us.You do realize that the poor schmuck scientists have spent BILLIONS of your tax dollars in the space program to better understand the geology of the Lunar and Marttian Landscapes? And, weve used Superposition and Un iformitarian models to interpret the data. you have gotta be enraged at this , especially if youd helped design or work on tthe vehicles that did the ferrying of the scientific instruments

Im accepting E browns explanation that youve "compartmentalized" various aspects of science. I couldnt sleep at night when my scientific inquiries att work start conflicting witth my religious beliefs. id either quit my job, or be a bit more critical of my flawed way of thinking.


Im kind of surprised at your revelations to us. Are there any specific areas of science that you feel support your Creationist beliefs?

'Humanist propaganda'.


I think we have reached the nub of the Creationist argument, ie

My worldview is the ONLY correct one, because it is right.
Yours is, at the best misguided, but will always be wrong (see statement 1).

...as opposed to the expansive evolutionist opinion, eh?

Snood, if you would replace the word "evolutionist" (somewhat inflammatory) with the word "scientist", we would be in agreement.

I wouldn't mind dropping the word "creationist", but I don't know what else to call people who reject the views of modern science. Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate term.

The fact is that evolution represents the prevalent scientific thought. It is accepted by 99% of scientists in the area of life sciences.

If you are willing to reject the views of life scientists in favor of religious thought, that is your right.

But to claim that the work of scientists, who happen to be quite productive are making impressive advances in fields that they claim are related to and based on evolution, is just "expansive evolutionist opinion" is overly simplistic.

Science is not religion, or philosophy. It is more than a worldview or a perspective or an opinion. Scientific statements must be tested and debated and discussed and "proven" before they are accepted by the scientific community.

Evolution has gone through this process and has been accepted.

Saying "[evolution] is the only correct [view], because it is right" is probably not right. It doesn't defined what "correct" is and is open to different world views.

It is complete valid to say "Evolution is the only correct scientific view, because it is the only theory has been tested by the scientific process and accepted by the scientific community."

I can't tell you what "truth" is, but I can tell you what "science" is.

Science is what we should teach in public school science classes.

Farmerman said: "Im kind of surprised at your revelations to us. Are there any specific areas of science that you feel support your Creationist beliefs?"

When did I say that I was a "Creationist?"

Because my moniker is "Bibliophile the BibleGuru" how does that equate with BEING a "Creationist?"

Once again, more evidence of how evolutionists make their claims...by jumping to conclusions without ANY evidence to back it up.

Bibliophile, again...

Please change your use of the word "evolutionist" to the word "scientist" it would make your posts more reasonable and less inflammatory.

In return I will drop the term "creationist" (and I am pretty sure Farmerman would too). You are free to suggest a term for those who oppose evolution.

It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists (and over 99% of life scientists) accept evolution as proven.

Given that fact, farmerman's question is reasonable (with a slight modification)... what specific areas of science do you feel support the beliefs of those who reject evolution?

ebrown said: "It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists (and over 99% of life scientists) accept evolution as proven."

Of course they "accept" it, it's what they "believe to be true" even though there is NO scientific evidence to back it up.

Believing it to be true, and having likeminded believers believing it to be true, does NOT make it so. That's religion. Which is what evolutionism REALLY is.

Bibliophile, what is your definition of scientific evidence?

Scientists say there is plenty of evidence-- in fact, most say the evidence is quite overwhelming. If you were willing to listen they would explain it to you.

But it comes down to the scientists word against yours.

I would remind anyone listening to this debate with an open mind of a few things.

1) Scientists are people who have taken the time to study the evidence. They know the arguments on both sides of all of the issues and are in careers where they have access to the latest information.

2) Scientists have been very productive in their craft. Life scientists (who base their work on evolution) are creating new drugs, curing diseases, creating new organisms and even tracking genes.

3) Scientists have a motivation to be objective. Scientists must be objective to be effective. Your claim that scientists would accept a belief with no evidence is not only false, it goes against the the core of scientific process. Scientists who held to beliefs with no evidence would not be able to accomplish the things that they are clearly accomplishing.

There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that evolution is true. These include fossil evidence, observing mutations, an understanding to the mechanism of reproduction (i.e. DNA), and genetic studies.

You are attacking science in a way that is clearly unwarranted.

Scientists are out to practice science as a way to understand the world around us. The process employed by scientists (which was used to prove evolution) has been very effective from splitting the atom, to creating computers, to putting a man on the moon.

Science is not out to attack religion, or to create a new religion. Science simply investigates, analyzes and reports its findings.

Evolution is science.

If you don't believe the scientists on this, who will you believe?

ebrown said: "...Science simply investigates, analyzes and reports its findings."

Bravo! But the evolutionary worldview does not comply with this.

You forgot to mention in your list of 1, 2, 3 etc, the following:

4. Some scientists are biased toward their beliefs, and make the "evidence" conform to such beliefs.

5. Some scientists are subject to peer pressure and refused journal publications by academics if their "evidence" doesn't conform to evolutionary tenets.

Wow, the fact that "some" scientists are biased is the best you've got?

Bibliophile,

Evolution has absolutely complied with this. If it didn't it would not be so roundly accepted by all but the religious.

Evolution was investigated extensively -- from looking at examples of animals in local environments to studying differences over time in rock strata.

Evolution has been analyzed extensively. There have been numerous papers written, discussed and debated. People have suggested alternatives from LaMarke to creation science which have been argued and found unable to explain observations. People have made predictions, and done studies from collecting DNA in living organisms, to genetic engineering.

And Evolution has been reported extensively. There is nothing hidden. With overwhelming evidence as a result of the studies and analysis, the reports-- whether in schools or popular liturature is merited.

Are you suggesting that there is a bias which permeates entire scientific community is less than your bias?

You are making an attack on the entire scientific process.

In truth, this process is designed to protect as much as possible against the type of bias you are accusing in the scientific community. As shown by the effectiveness of the scientific process, science is a pretty objective study.

4) Scientists publish papers to explain their results, describe their assumptions and support their methods. These papers are available to the community at large and the public in general. Because this process includes review by a large scientific community, it is as objective as humanly possible.

You may argue that the scientific community as a whole is biased and doesn't take input from outside this community. That is simply not true. Outside ideas that conform to scientific process are considered and debated. Creation science has even been discussed and analyzed.

5) You don't understand how science works.

If any scientist came up with credible scientific evidence that evolution was not true, she would instantly gain quite a bit of prestige. Of course she would have to publish here research and her conclusions in a paper and it would be fully discussed and debated.

But this process of publishing and discussing was the way that modern evolutionary theory was accepted by scientists in the first place.

It is this kind of argument that begins to seem pointless after a while. How is it that those who seem in other respects to be perfectly intelligent folk determine that science is false and old religious metaphors are true?

Are dinosaur bones put in those strata by the devil, too?

It was great to go to London's Kew Gardens and see the wonderful Evolution House there. It is a clear acceptance of science rather than the disturbingly radical upheaval of thought that is coming from the fundamentalism of the United States... and apparently Ireland.