EC-Bills Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 linky In the past, proponents of creationism have tried to sell it as "creation science" or "intelligent design"—the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without divine intervention. Sure sounds like science to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 "They have this idea," he says, "that it's a zero-sum game, so anything you can do to knock evolution down actually promotes creationism without having to say the word." The problem is that they will by default actually strengthen evolutionary theory by causing more investigating and more information found that can be used to support discrepancies. Really, now what is scientific theory all about but doubting something and investigating it more! Duh! Fine, I think we can agree on this with conservatives as long as students are required to not just doubt, but further investigate using science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 My mantra repeats itself: trust the government to educate your children at your own risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 linky Sure sounds like science to me i like this "comment" after the article: "OK, but seriously - this is a real problem. I'm all for discussing the strenghts and weaknesses of Darwinism. Any respectable evolutionary biologist would probably agree (not that I am an evolutionary biologist). That's the way that science works. But implying that any flaw in Darwinism and evolution as it's understood today is implicitly supporting the idea of intelligent design is just, well, UNINTELLIGENT! Evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin. It's not one or the other. Evolution is a scientific theory, based in scientific study and analysis that has been tested and challenged. Creationism is a load of illogical bunk with no basis in anything other than the Bible, and I'm sorry to all those Christians out there but there's just NO PROOF that the Bible contains one lick of truth (even though it does contain a lot of wisdom - but wisdom and knowledge are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS). This issue should have been put to rest when we discovered that, regardless of what God told the Pope, the Earth moves around the Sun, and not the other way around. But I guess some people just can't let go of their ridiculous fantasies. In short - if you Believe, that's great: religion is a wonderful way to find meaning in your daily life. But keep your religion out of my science class. Cause if you don't, God help me, I'm bringing science to church on Sunday. And my biology textbook has got about 5 pounds on your Bible..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 My mantra repeats itself: trust the government to educate your children at your own risk. Wow, deep thought man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 i like this "comment" after the article: "OK, but seriously - this is a real problem. I'm all for discussing the strenghts and weaknesses of Darwinism. Any respectable evolutionary biologist would probably agree (not that I am an evolutionary biologist). That's the way that science works. But implying that any flaw in Darwinism and evolution as it's understood today is implicitly supporting the idea of intelligent design is just, well, UNINTELLIGENT! Evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin. It's not one or the other. Evolution is a scientific theory, based in scientific study and analysis that has been tested and challenged. Creationism is a load of illogical bunk with no basis in anything other than the Bible, and I'm sorry to all those Christians out there but there's just NO PROOF that the Bible contains one lick of truth (even though it does contain a lot of wisdom - but wisdom and knowledge are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS). This issue should have been put to rest when we discovered that, regardless of what God told the Pope, the Earth moves around the Sun, and not the other way around. But I guess some people just can't let go of their ridiculous fantasies. In short - if you Believe, that's great: religion is a wonderful way to find meaning in your daily life. But keep your religion out of my science class. Cause if you don't, God help me, I'm bringing science to church on Sunday. And my biology textbook has got about 5 pounds on your Bible..." There are many more creationist beliefs than just those espoused in the Bible. It's interesting to me that the bubbleheads who think 'creationism' should be taught in schools in parallel with evolution (Bush himself thinks so), only seem to consider the Judeo-Christian version of 'creationism' when discussing the matter. Not only are they stupid for even suggesting the idea in the first place but they are also extremely prejudiced concerning which creationist doctrine should be taught. I heard some caller from Alaska on a radio show a couple weeks ago mention that Palin attends an evangelical church and is also a proponent of teaching creationism in schools. Anyone know if that's true or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Really, now what is scientific theory all about but doubting something and investigating it more! Empiricism, repeatability, and falsfiability. None of which is possessed by intelligent design/creationism/whatever you want to call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I heard some caller from Alaska on a radio show a couple weeks ago mention that Palin attends an evangelical church and is also a proponent of teaching creationism in schools. Anyone know if that's true or not? It is: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU5...6zwOqAD92V3VQG0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Empiricism, repeatability, and falsfiability. None of which is possessed by intelligent design/creationism/whatever you want to call it. Agreed, but they want to advocate investigating evolution more.... I don't see the problem unless there is a but after that statement. Once again, I think there is a wide lane where one can interpret the timing in the bible and still believe in evolution and scientific theory and the two should not necessarily be in conflict. But that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Its pretty simple. Anyone believing in creationism and not evolution should not have access to the newest antibiotics. They should be given standard, out dated antibiotics from 20 years ago, because by believing in creationism, you are stating that you do NOT believe that bacteria can evolve antibiotic resistance. Therefore, you do not need the newest antibiotics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Its pretty simple. Anyone believing in creationism and not evolution should not have access to the newest antibiotics. They should be given standard, out dated antibiotics from 20 years ago, because by believing in creationism, you are stating that you do NOT believe that bacteria can evolve antibiotic resistance. Therefore, you do not need the newest antibiotics. And they'll accuse you of not believing in miracles, that God decided it was time for it to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Its pretty simple. Anyone believing in creationism and not evolution should not have access to the newest antibiotics. They should be given standard, out dated antibiotics from 20 years ago, because by believing in creationism, you are stating that you do NOT believe that bacteria can evolve antibiotic resistance. Therefore, you do not need the newest antibiotics. Why stop at small organisms like bacteria? Why is it that the some pesticides work on certain insects one year and not the next? Could they have evolved an immunity to the pesticide? Nah. That couldn't be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 And they'll accuse you of not believing in miracles, that God decided it was time for it to change. Wait a sec, is this thread about Creationism or Michael Moore and Gustav? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 It is: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU5...6zwOqAD92V3VQG0 Very heartening. Nobody agrees 100% with any candidate, and a candidate will neccessarily only push a few issues, despite having to take a position on everything. The trick is to know what their priorities will be in office. It is reassuring to know that she has not pushed her social beliefs (where I disagree with her) while she was governor, and focused instead on smaller government, corruption, and energy (where I do agree). Not that it matters - it's the VP we are talking about, who really only gets one signature issue if they are lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Agreed, but they want to advocate investigating evolution more.... So do evolutionary biologists. The difference is biologists want to further science, while creationists want to limit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Very heartening. Nobody agrees 100% with any candidate, and a candidate will neccessarily only push a few issues, despite having to take a position on everything. The trick is to know what their priorities will be in office. It is reassuring to know that she has not pushed her social beliefs (where I disagree with her) while she was governor, and focused instead on smaller government, corruption, and energy (where I do agree). Not that it matters - it's the VP we are talking about, who really only gets one signature issue if they are lucky. I know that she has said that, but in fact I think she has by certain cuts in public education and special ed that she supported. I am not sure all the details but remember reading that there is more than meets the eye with her rhetoric. I would check her record further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I know that she has said that, but in fact I think she has by certain cuts in public education and special ed that she supported. I am not sure all the details but remember reading that there is more than meets the eye with her rhetoric. I would check her record further. I'm going by the conclusion in the article you cited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts