Evolution? How?

farmerman wrote:

are you kidding rl? Here in the US the assault by the knuckle dragging school board members who take it upon themselves to agendaize science by cramming religionist views into the curriculum has taken a concerted effort by many scientific organizations to keep the Creationist camels nose out from under the tent flap. The fact that a bunch of people dont yet understand the linkages of evolution to their medicines, agriculture, and many other areas, is responsible for the silly, ill informed pieces of legislation that keep springing up like a "whack-a-Mole" game.

We adjudicated it in Pa, but meanwhile the Creationists are active in KAnsas, Georgia , Utah and Alaska (with other pieces of idiot legislation are waiting in the wings to be entered into the hopper by the scientifically uneducated legislators).
As the UTAH ACLU stated in regards to the Kitzmiller and the Selman decision in Georgia (where Selman sued the Cobb County School District to remove little Creationist stickers from textbooks)
"...Both the Selman and Kitzmiller courts noted the sectarian motivation behind the school districts' selection of one, and only one, scientific area for particular scrutiny. In both cases, district officials ignored entire areas of science where there is more controversy(among scientists) than evolution/ and , instead , chose the one scientific theory that has long been a target of religiously motivated hostility. SB 96 (UTAHS BILL ON "CRITICAL THINKING" RE: THE ORIGINS OF LIFE) suffers from the same defect... In that SB96 unconstitutionally intereferes with scientific instruction for ideological rather than scientific , reasons.

...Americans have the right to believe, practice, and profess their religious beliefs in the public square, and the ACLU defends those rights. However, the government should not accomodate those religious beliefs by misleading public school students about the scientific basis of evolutionary theory




The introduction of SB96 was the brainchild of one guy, a legislator named Buttars , whose originally worded legislation was for the teaching of "Divine Design". "Divine design doesnt preach religion (he said)...The only people wholl be upset by this , are the atheists". This bold statement by Buttars (hardly one where RL would have us believe that creationists are being cowed by the Evolutionist world), more than anything , was responsible for the strong "coming together" of the scientific academys. The entire project was initiated by 2 Utah SCience professors who teach at Brigham Young. Its a bit ironic that it took the outrage of two teachers of a sectarian University to "get the ball rolling" so that the strongly worded statement presented herein by Wandeljw and WAlter is just one more collective "position statement" that the major organizations that embrace science and the scientific method, have produced in the history of this increasingly comedic controversy. The fact is that a very small, a teeny weeny minority of people are pushing their religious agendas upon the rest of the nation. By doing so , in forums like ours, they try to appear much more broad based and "scientifically motivated" than they really are. Rl is just an example of one person whose attached himself to a pbb and he gives the appearance of being balanced and his questions , while I enjoy them, are transparently motivated by doctrinal standards, not scientific inquiry.
Im gratified that most here just aint buying it.
"Seeing something that only has the appearnace of age" is rather a funny take on evidence, Its a conclusion without any basis in reason or fact. Its the old "vis plastica" theory of Avicenna. HWere "fossils" were really placed there by a God to fool us and test our faiths. As this forum sinks further into A religious "no logic" zone, I think we should come back every so often and dope slap rl and rex for some of their own illogical views while demanding a higher standard of science.

.

No, I'm not kidding.

Can you point out a government school district that has actually had creationism or ID consistently taught in all of it's schools for the past 30 years?

How 'bout for the last 20 years?

The last 10?

How 'bout just last year?

Is there even 1 public school district that you can point to that actually had creationism or ID taught in all it's science classrooms last year?

Evolutionists have the playing field to themselves in American public schools, but are still losing the game in influencing American public opinion.

Not that creationists/IDers haven't tried, but are you aware of anywhere that they have succeeded in getting creation or ID taught in a government establishment? I am not aware of any.

So my question to Walter was (as it relates to American schools, and as it relates to the blaring headline of the article):

Where is the 'creationist schooling' that they are upset about?

Where in American public schools is evolution being 'concealed' and 'denied' as the article states ?

Can you point out a government school district that has actually had creationism or ID consistently taught in all of it's schools for the past 30 years?

rl

Quote:

Can you point out a government school district that has actually had creationism or ID consistently taught in all of it's schools for the past 30 years?

How about the last 75?. It was, at one time until the Tennessee and Louisiana laws were overturned that it was FORBIDDEN to discuss evolution because , as Henry Morris said. "It defies Gods revealed truth".
Hows that for scientific objectivity.


Its not a clash between co-equal scientific theories. Its a clash between the overwhelming evidence and scientific facts aginst a small minority of Christians who want their own special interpretation of the world to be inserted into the science curricula. SInce Im a tax payer, Im going to want my schools to be freee of all religiously based viewpoints in science. If it cant be sustained by evidence, it cant be included in the courses.

I give a **** about all the goobers that want Creationism and ID to be taughtas sience , or the fact that X% of Americans believe that the earth was created by some guy in a shiny suit. Its all fact-free conclusions and therefore has no place in a program thats based on the scientific method.

Youve just gotten off lightly with some joking about your statement about "The appearance of age" Id like to know how you scientifically and objectively arrive at that conclusion without first inserting a master supposition that
A. The earth is not old. (since this too is a supposition based on a Biblical reference or two, it can in no way be scientific in its conclusion-youve just gone round in tighter circles of bad logic)

Star light is actually indicating a variable value of "C". Howcome then, that with Hubble floating in different orbital positions we can verify c by measuring the parallax to specific stars. The error in "C' is but a few .001 % and this is due to parallax more than anything.

Your "appearance of great age" argument is baseless and built on sand and I know you know it. Your too smart to even buy all your stated outrageous positions. I normally wouldnt think that theyre worth any consideration in an argument unless you begin to wave it around as a reason to include it as valid science to be included in your proposed"Creationist" curriculum. Im afraid that youd have kids buying that the earth and stars are closer, younger, and were all made at one time very near to our present. Your curricula bases would have so many major disagreements with accepted science (physics, chem, geo, bio) that it wouldnt even be worth teaching it to the kids.
(No matter how many of our kiddies get it or not)

Wheres your evidence, objective evidence

Where is your evidence that evolution made matter, which is an oxymoron.

It was the parameters of the earth that curbed evolution.

First clue: the earth is a living being, because it has the right environment for it, and that environment is not a (manmade) creator.

Notice that a "happy face " is round like the earth, coincidence? I think not.