Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, hiding a performance would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents, or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. Probably a combination of both. Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right. When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools.

Depends on the definition of evolution. Change over time? - no. Common descent/millions of years - maybe not "bring it down", just bring it into perspective. You don’t think that ever happens now? That there aren’t thousands of science teachers all across the U.S. who don’t feel as strongly about it as you and almost every other poster here? A teacher wouldn’t have to introduce it themselves, all they have to do is wait for a student to bring the subject up. I suspect it occurs frequently, and nothing happens. People who introduce Bills like the one that inspired this thread probably can document how that is a common occurrence in schools today.If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights, so therefore what is taught in science classes will continue to largely be a political matter. And new bills intended to challenge atheism in science classes will continue to be introduced. The scientific community needs to get used to it.

So you wish that I’d never posted in your thread? You’d rather have had a 20, or 30, or 40 post love fest with like minded people? Your opening post gave me the impression that you’d genuinely like to better understand why ID bills concerning science education continue to be introduced, in spite of past court cases like Dover. Don’t you think there’s a chance you get that answer from someone of a like mind of those who introduce that type of bill? Most on these types of forums don’t of course, they just want to mock and ridicule, and call any non-atheist a flat earther. Are you different? We’ll soon find out. I’m not really involved in this thread to defend the ID position against the usual onslaught of evolutionist posters. I’m here to help answer the question you posed in the opening post, to explain to you why these types of ID bills keep coming up, and why, as I said, you need to get used to it.I personally, have never claimed that ID has nothing to do with religion. It has something to do with religion, to the same extent that evolution has something to do with atheism. It is claimed that evolution can be studied separate from atheism. Equally, ID can be studied separate from religion. Yet opposition to religion is always in the door. Students ask questions that promote discussions about religion. It can’t be kept out. They understand perfectly what it was about. It’s about a double standard. Fragmented, partial hypothesis of how life naturalistically arose from non life is considered science because it’s atheist friendly, while the comparably fragmented, partial scientific challenges to Darwinism called ID is not atheist friendly, so it’s blocked by the courts. The specifics of ID, as promoted by its leading proponents, aren’t religious. Mathematical improbability isn’t religious. Evidence of purpose v non-purpose, not religious. Defining and determining what testability actually is - not religious. Studying a greater range of biological possibilities is not religious. Such as predictions of certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. [Dembski] New paths of exploration that that go completely unexplored by atheists. The scientific community has to have them, and as we see, atheists gleefully point to them whenever someone questions anything the scientific community is doing. Without them, evolution wouldn’t be able to get public funding, and be publicly established, since its main interest is to oppose religion. Most of them are phonies, some are genuine, with little understanding of Christianity. Others like the Catholic church leadership, make compromises to try to avoid costly legal battles with the scientific community. I have an example of a monetary challenge from science to Catholics back in 1968, but that’s getting too far off topic. Bottom line, any religious person who believes and promotes everything put forth by the scientific community concerning common descent and millions of years has to bend and shape their religion to a secondary realm, far behind the leader, which is atheism.So called Christian evolutionists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are adored by the scientific community. To logically occupy both positions is impossible of course, they both have to flip flop back and forth to make it work. They call themselves Christians, then violate every single Christian principle by saying that God is not intelligent, whenever the scientific community demands it from them. Francis Collins for example, makes design arguments in cosmology and physics, then turns right around and dismisses them in the biological realm. When actual Christians question him and Miller on these types of things, they either do very brief dances, or ignore them completely. The scientific community never questions them of course, they love them, and assign them prestigious, financially rewarding positions. Then other top scientists like Steven Weinberg win nobel prizes and declare that one of science’s main objectives should be to weaken the hold of religion. Others like Stenger and Dawkins saturate the public realm with popular books like How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, and The God Delusion, while Miller and Collins wink and nod.As ID proponents note the rapidly declining morality in the U.S., and the staggering debt the U.S. is racking up, they see the beginnings of these things (a few decades ago) as logically corresponding to separation of church and state, including the beginnings of the teaching of atheism in science classes. Evolutionists scoff at these irrational fears, then shriek with fear that if things like mathematical improbability, distinctions of differences between design and non design etc are introduced in biology classes, that those biology classes will fill with religious rituals. Who do you really think has the most irrational fear?What is happening now is exactly the same thing that was happening 100 years ago, only in reverse. Back then, creationism/Christianity was the established paradigm in the philosophical area of science. Some people found Darwinism, a new way of exploration that was only a few decades old, to be profound. It was a challenge to, and was different from, the established paradigm. Over time, it was heavily promoted by atheists, and more and more people found it profound, and the established paradigm was overturned. Some of the overturning process was the result of court battles. Today, Darwinism is the established paradigm, with a we haven’t figured it out yet promissory note for origins of life. An increasing number of people today find the recently discovered complexities of the simplest forms of life to be profound, enough to wonder if random acts of purposelessness could possibly do the job. Atheists of course, insist that they can, no matter how orderly and complex it is. But atheists know that it’s less likely that increased complexity, purpose and order can fall together all by itself with no purposeful external guidance, and recent scientific questions of, as one example, the origin of the cilium leaves Darwinism with little to say, making atheists angry and defensive, similar to the anger and defense among religious people 100 years ago.Your link from the opening post labeled Missouri House Bill 1276 as an antievolution bill. Why did they do that? I’m constantly told that origins of life have nothing at all to do with evolution, and ID mainly seeks to address what current atheist science so far has been largely unable to, the origins of life. The fact is, using the word antievolution in this way is an emotional term, one of the many disingenuous methods the scientific community uses to shout down any challenges to its agenda. It’s similar to covering eyes, holding ears, and shouting RELIGION, RELIGION, anytime someone promoting ID says anything at all. The general public sees through this kind of BS to a far greater extent than the scientific community realizes. After all, their specialty is science, not analyzing the intelligence of other members of society that they arrogantly look down their noses upon.So just get used to ID bills being introduced in education at the state level for years to come. The scientific community / ACLU / George Soros have very impressive warchests. U.S. politics is far more corrupt and filled with big money special interests than it was 100 years ago. But as long as the general public has voting rights, things do have ways of coming around.

"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.

You put the bolded in quotation marks. Where did I say that?

Why is it that if ONE person refers to religious people’s involvement in ID, then all of ID is about religion, yet if an evolutionary leader/biologist like Dawkins says evolution is about atheism, it’s only one person’s opinion? Dawkins never gives anything away, does he? It does tend to liven up an otherwise boring thread when everyone agrees on everything, doesn't it? Why do you suppose we get messages like 40, 45, 47, 48, and 54? Evolution is in the drivers seat in the courts, why the anger? I never intended to imply that the scientific community had it perfectly right a hundred years ago, but I suppose I did, so I’ll clarify. I actually feel that change over time, changes within kinds etc. did and does have a place in science. The scales have tipped from one extreme to the other — too much religion 100 years ago, too much atheism today. But what about the atheists who see it as an issue of atheism versus religion? The Noble prize winners who say science has a responsibility to weaken religion? That doesn’t bother you at all? Would they say that Christ wasn’t much of a Christian? I believe Jar is the one who in an earlier thread told me that Christ wasn’t much of a Christian. I believe the purpose of this type of statement to be twofold, 1 Just about any Christian, myself included, is simply going to walk away from it, nonsense like this isn’t worth any actual Christians time. And 2 Atheists are going to roll on the floor laughing at this method of driving Christians off of message boards.Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes. Here is the book at amazon, with a few brief reviews if you care to check it out. Now we’ll see if I get a barrage of replies to this message, calling Monton a phony. Then we can refer to some of Jar’s statements about Christianity, and further explore double standards.

quote:

---

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a non-profit organization enacted and sanctioned by the United States federal government. According to a 1998 report in the journal Nature, a recent survey found that 93% of NAS members are either atheists or agnostics. The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God.[1]

---

National Academy of Sciences - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceIf that link is too biased for you, Steven Jay Gould’s website says the same thing.Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time. I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. And that an often bent court system that’s evolved to something far beyond the founders wildest nightmares isn’t getting it done.

It couldn’t have come sooner than one post, and I found out, thank you very much. You’re as frantic and closed minded as anyone else here. It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science. The farce of the Dover trial had Michael Behe testifying about the data you require. He didn’t testify, he was grilled, by the best lawyers money can buy. The framers never intended for the courts to become what they are today. Separation of church and state isn’t in the establishment clause, by the way. On December 29, 1968, 2600 scientists, including four Nobel laureates, published a petition in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Catholic magazine ‘Commonweal’ urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates. Their problem? — the Pope’s stance on birth control. The scientific community can’t make as much money on abortions and birth control if the Pope is getting in its way. There are countless other examples, embryonic stem cell research is just one more, of where religion and morals get in the way of what the scientific community wants to do. The Catholic church had, and still has, good reason to fear the atheist scientific community. You claim that atheists are always right, first and foremost. If they say Genesis is false, you strike it out, and only believe the rest of the Bible. If they say natural laws make the parting of the Red Sea impossible, you strike out Exodus as well. If they say there was no original sin, then you relax and say that Christ’s work wasn’t really all that important. It goes on and on until soon, you start calling Christians Biblists, and that God really isn’t omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Pretty soon there’s nothing left. But you keep calling yourself a Christian, and atheists laugh at you, but they love you. You got a whole lotta lil green dots for this post. Congratulations! You really seem to like and respect evolution, how are you with its history? Have you ever heard of Thomas Huxley, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr? These people developed modern evolutionary thought, it was their extension of Darwin’s work into a complete atheist worldview that has led us to leading evolutionists who wrote the following books;Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008This is only a partial list from the past decade, but are any of these prominently referred to at your church?

I understand, but I’m just saying that it’s not completely fair. You immediately group all ID proponents in with religious fanatics, yet cry foul when I group atheists and theistic evolutionists together in the same way. The divisions are comparable. Conflicts involve two parties. You’re trying to separate yourself from atheists, to make it a three position conflict. The religious, atheists, and your perfect neutral position. You, Jar, and Trixie simply have too much in common with atheists to be able to do that. To be fair, you need to extend the same courtesy to ID proponents that you help yourselves to. If you believe that ID is nothing but religion, you simply don’t know enough about it. Good books have been written about it by Behe and Dembski. If you dismiss it because it originated and was promoted by religious people, then you have a double standard, because common-descent evolution was originated and promoted by atheist people. Actual history shows that claims that Darwin was a devout Christian is BS. But it’s not always apparent in the court of public opinion, and that’s a large part of the Bill introduction process.

I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories.

I thought maybe there was a chance you were sincere, but I couldn’t be sure, especially with all the green dots you got. I do appreciate it. Here’s the exact Steven Weinberg quote;

quote:

---

I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.

---

Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational.

Because atheism and science exploration do the exact same thing, they assume one time dimension and three space dimensions, and that’s it. They fit all of reality into those two things, and that’s where the correlation is. Many philosophical questions, the endlessness of space, the existence of love / hate, many other things, logically suggest there could be more, much more, to all of reality. Science / atheists don’t simply work their way up to that possibility, they bypass it. For example, if there’s more than one time dimension or more than three space dimensions science’s proclamation of millions of years concerning the formation of the universe or the evolution of man wouldn’t necessarily supplement what they don’t understand about all of reality, it could be wrong, or misleading, about actual reality.Christians believe that God is beyond one time dimension and three space dimensions. Theistic evolutionists claim that science can be studied in a secular way without God being considered. It doesn’t make sense. If he isn’t considered, his ability, and his existence, is ruled out.

Not that simple. Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment.There was no atheist organization in the U.S. founders time. They couldn’t see organized atheism as a worldview complete with all the closed mindedness, rituals, and desire to dominate people who don’t share their faith as religion sometimes can. A worship of the earth (environmentalism, global warming etc) and a strong faith in big government is a big part of their rituals and domination.By the way, these forums aren't "people". They actually represent a very small minority of people in general.

$15 Trillion in debt it the main reason.From past experiences and the reading of forum rules here, anything but a quick mention of this would be off topic. So that’s about all I have to say about it, except; Your understanding is about 4 decades out of date. It used to be that way, but not anymore.

Those subjects aren’t used as weapons against religion. Science is used as a weapon against religion.

Thank you very much! His biased source only quote mined — here is the complete paragraph;

quote:

---

This is a doctrine that I endorse, though I recognize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think that there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think that there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God. The arguments I’ll consider in chapter 3 make me less certain of my atheism than I would be had I never heard the arguments. The evidence isn’t enough to make me stop being an atheist, though. Many — perhaps most — atheists wouldn’t be happy with this; they would hold that the evidence simply isn’t there. I’ll take issue with those atheists in chapter 3.

---

It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.