Evolutionists and atheists are terrified of allowing intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution.
Absolutely false! It's already been done! And creationism lost! BIGLY!
[voice=10th Doctor]Wellll ... , not intelligent design exactly.[/voice] Rather, "creation science" (AKA "creationism") since it happened before creationism adopted "Intelligent Design" as its new smokescreen replacing the old Game of "Hide the Bible" with a new Game of "Hide the Creationism" circa 1987*.
In the 1980's San Diego State University had a "two-model" class, Evolution vs Creation, in which half the lectures were given by leading creationist speakers from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR -- basically the creators of "creation science") and the other half given by the professors who created the class, Roger Awbrey and William Thwaites -- my copy of the class notes were published in 1981.
Creationism did not fare well at all. Surveys at the end of the course consistently showed creationism losing hands-down. Even though the course offered the creationists the very thing that they demanded publicly, equal time and balanced-treatment in the classroom alongside evolution, the campus Christian clubs hated that that course existed and constantly pressured the university to cancel it, which they eventually did. Typical of fundies that when you do give them what they want then they don't want it anymore.
I would be surprised if other colleges and universities didn't have similar classes even though they might not have access to that "stars of creationism" that Awbrey and Thwaites (A&T) had; I know that my alma mater, Cal-State University, Fullerton, had one.
And it would come as no surprise that creationism would fare so poorly, since it is nothing more than misrepresenting and lying about science, something that is easily countered by showing what science really is and says. For example, in one class where Duane Gish was the guest creationist, A&T countered his claim that two chemicals in the bombardier beetle explode spontaneously when mixed together by mixing those two chemicals together in class. No explosion, not even much of a visible reaction except it changed color. Gish had to immediately find an excuse, blaming his source for mistranslating the original paper, but then Gish and the rest of the creationist community continued to use that old claim that had been refuted in front of Gish and acknowledged by him.
Awbrey & Thwaites spent fifteen years frequently debating creationists (again contradicting your false assertion). They explained what their purpose was in those debates and what they had found ... or rather failed to find in their article, Our Last Debate: Our Very Last (Thwaites, W., and F. Awbrey, Creation/Evolution, Issue 33, Volume 13 Number 2, pp 1-4, Winter 1993 -- PDF of Issue 33); as I quote it on my website:
quote:
Scientists want to test their findings and find problems in their work, not only to verify the research that they will base theirs on, but also in order to find where the problems are, which indicates where they need to do further research. Two professors, William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey, developed a very effective method of debating creationists -- basically, study "creation science" so you go in knowing the truth about their claims -- and in 1993 summarized their highly successful 15-year career of debating against the leading creationists, Our last debate; our very last. They describe having entered into the debates with the hope and expectation that:
"... a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband. ... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet."
What they did discover after those 15 years was that none of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present.
In contrast, the last thing creationists would want would be to have their claims tested, since that would diminish their value in convincing people. And indeed, they do not allow their claims to be tested and when others do nonetheless perform those tests, they willfully ignore the results and continue to use those disproven claims in perpetuity. This creationist attitude and practice results in their claims being termed PRATTs, "Point(s) Refuted AThousand Times", AKA, "having to slay the slain." PRATTs are so hard to eradicate because, even though some of the creationists hearing the truth may become disaffected and abandon "creation science" (among other things), P.T. Barnum's "a sucker is born every minute" remark is proven true by the continual arrival of new generations of creationists who learn the refuted claims but not the truth about them.
quote:My first chance to start discussing all that I was learning came in Spring 1985, after I had been puzzling over the matter of Gish and the bombardier beetle. Gish claimed that the chemicals that the beetle uses in its defense explode spontaneously when mixed together (and since each generation of beetle would have blown itself up before an inhibitor enzyme could have evolved, then the bombardier beetle could not have evolved). When Awbrey and Thwaites demonstrated to Gish in public that the mixture does NOT explode spontaneously, Gish publically admitted that he was mistaken having been misled by his sources. All well and good, but then he continued to use the very same false claim for at least the next three years with full knowledge that it was false. My question was whether fundamentalist doctrine condoned lying if it would further the Faith ("lying for the Lord", if you would).
At that time we had some tech writers under contract at Ford Aerospace. When one of them, Charles, revealed himself to be a fundamentalist (of Chuck Smith's church, no less), I asked him my question. He answered to the negative and then asked me why I had that question. I told him about Gish and "Bomby", which troubled him since Gish was his "hero." We had a number of discussions and, even though he identified himself as having earned a BS in biology and having had "evolution crammed down [his] throat for years," he expressed a number of bizarre ideas about evolution, such as birds evolving wings separate from the forelimbs, so that an intermediate form would have to possess both forelimbs and wings at the same time (whereas the conventional view is that wings are modified forelimbs).
These discussions, which we had to keep to a minimum since we were at work, started me wondering about what I have recently taken to calling the "Dark Side of the Farce." Most arguments that he presented I countered and showed where and why they were wrong (of course, some I hadn't heard of yet). At one time, after I presented a number of incidents which not only questioned the quality of the ICR's science, but the honesty and integrity of its leadership as well, Charles denounced evolutionists as a pack of liars, but would not cite any specifics. It was obviously an emotional outburst, but I was unprepared to seek out its cause. Since then, I have come to understand that followers of "creation science" are led to believe that their faith depends on the truth of "creation science", or at least on the defeat of evolution. I have tried to examine the question further and have tried to engage others in discussion about it, but nobody, especially creationists, wants to talk about it.
All that I was learning came in handy, because on 28 September 1985, both Henry Morris and Duane Gish came to Long Beach to debate Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (frequent contributors to C/E who together taught a Two-Model class at San Diego State University in which half the lectures were given by the ICR -- it was in this class that Gish's false claims about the bombardier beetle were exposed). In all, it went almost exactly as I had come to expect from the debates reported in Creation/Evolution Newsletter.
I told Charles about it and he joined me there. As we cruised the book tables that the ICR had set up, there was a children's book from the ICR devoted entirely to Bomby and which perpetuated the false claims that Gish had publically denounced SIX YEARS PRIOR! I don't think that Charles had wanted to see that one, but I pointed it out to him anyway and we thumbed through it. Actually, it seemed that most of the books for sale were about Bomby.
The order of speakers was Morris, Thwaites, Gish, then Awbrey. Then rebuttals were given in the same order. Fred Edwords had said that one thing that the ICR absolutely refuses to do, and he knew of no exceptions, was to present or discuss the "creation model." Sure enough, Morris quoted a number of "leading scientists" to the effect that there were only two possible models for "origins" and then proceeded to attack the "evolution model" without ever presenting the "creation model," after which he, of course, claimed to have "proven" the "creation model" -- without ever presenting it nor any evidence FOR it. The glaring lack of any presentation for the creation model proved very disturbing for Charles, who could not understand why they did not present any evidence FOR creation.
Our project got cancelled shortly after that and I didn't see Charles again except for one night half a decade later. He was still a Christian, but he was no longer a creationist and he had nothing but contempt for creationists. I consider that to be a win.
* FOOTNOTE:
Since the "monkey laws" of the 1920's (eg, refer to the well-known Scopes Trial, 1925, a failed attempt by the ACLU to get a "monkey law" case before the US Supreme Court), the anti-evolution movement used their religious beliefs as the basis for their opposition to evolution being taught in the public schools. They succeeded for four decades, but that ended with the Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) case which led to the striking down of the "monkey laws". Then Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case established the Lemon Test for determining whether a state statute violates the Establishment Clause.
The loss of the "monkey laws" revived the anti-evolution movement that had lain dormant since the 1920's and they filed several lawsuits only to lose because their cases were based on their religious beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause as determined by the Lemon Test. It took them until the mid-70's to come up with a new strategy.
That new strategy came to be known by their critics as The Game of "Hide the Bible". They created "creation science" as a deliberate legalistic deception to get around the Lemon Test with the lie that "Our opposition to evolution is for solely scientific reasons; nothing religious about it." From that new strategy, they also came up with demanding "equal time" and "balanced-treatment" which played well in deceiving the general public.
They had been developing public school materials which were heavily religious and filled with Bible verses, so to make them "non-religious" they did a superficial scrubbing of all explicit religious references (which was repeated a few decades later) reducing God to "an unnamed Creator" and sold as the "public school edition"; when reviewed by Arkansas teachers having to develop a curriculum in accordance with the 1980 Arkansas "Balanced Treatment" law, they found even those "nonreligious" materials to be too highly religious as to be unacceptable.
Around the same time, creationists also came up with their false "Two Model Approach" which posited two "mutually exclusive models of origins", the "Creation Model" as opposed to the "atheistic" "Evolution Model" -- ironically, the "Creation Model", which was never presented, was solidly YEC making the "Evolution Model" everything else, including "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (Dr. Henry Morris), also including most of the Christian ideas of Creation. Only a creationist could classify the vast collection of theistic beliefs as "atheistic."
But even though few creationists are aware of the "Two Model Approach", it forms the most fundamental foundation of creationist thought, tactics, and strategy as it seeks to "prove Creation" solely by attacking "evolution" (which, again, is some crazy creationist strawman which has nothing to do with actual evolution). No creationist will ever try to support, let alone present the "Creation Model", but instead devote all his time and effort to attacking his strawman "Evolution Model". Even in every ICR debate, the creationist would first establish the premise of the "Two Model Approach" and then devote all his time to attacking the "Evolution Model". The only way for the "Creation Model" to be presented was if his opponent did it, and then the creationist would refuse to discuss his own "Creation Model" because, "This debate is about science, so stop trying to drag religion into it" (Dr. Henry Morris).
That superficial scrubbing of creationist texts and their subterfuge of "creation science" having nothing to do with the Bible is what led to it being called The Game of "Hide the Bible."
In 1980, a model "balanced treatment" bill made its way into the Arkansas and Louisiana legislatures with the Arkansas one being passed first. As per the model bill, the Arkansas law defined the "Creation Model" which revealed it to be purely religious, leading to it being struck down in McLean v. Arkansas (1982). To avoid the same fate, the Louisiana law had that part removed, but it was still challenged and made its way up to the US Supreme Court where it was struck down (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987). Thus legal precedence was set that "creation science" is purely religious and hence unacceptable for public schools.
That new precedence led to creationists glomming onto "intelligent design" as a new smokescreen with which to practice their deliberate deception. Thus their new efforts to scrub references to creationism and replace them with "ID" came to known as The New Game of "Hide the Creationism."
That came up in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005). A new creationist book, Of Pandas and People was being written when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision blew their cover. In order to assume the cloak of "intelligent design" and hide the fact that it was a creationist book, they used their word processor to replace every instance of every form of the word "creationist" with "design proponent" -- the same superficial-scrubbing evolution as was conducted in the early 70's with the "public school edition" creationist materials. That global find-and-replace operation messed up to form a chimera of "creationist" and "design proponent" that served as the smoking gun exposing their deception.
Edited by dwise1, : subtitle
Edited by dwise1, : Added bibliographic citation for Awbrey & Thwaites' article, "Our Last Debate: Our Very Last" and link to PDF of that issue
Only evolutionists receive grant money from the universities and government. Creation scientists need not apply.
Whatever the fuck are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense at all; on a scale of zero to ten, that's a solid minus 40. Or to quote from Catch-22 (1970; it'll be on Turner Classics 29 March):
quote:
Col. Cathcart: "That's the stupidest goddamned thing I've ever heard him say!"
First, just what the fuck is an "evolutionist" supposed to be? Someone who studies and works with evolution? Then your "Only evolutionists receive grant money ... " is completely and utterly false on its face! Evolution is not the only scientific subject that warrants grant money. There's also astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geology, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, computer science, electronics, etc, etc, etc, usw ("und so weiter"). One Google source mentions 612 branches of science, though most say either five or 15 with 22 subcategories (¿each?), each and every one of which should qualify for grant money.
And here you are claiming that evolution is the only subject that gets grant money? Complete and utter idiocy! Where do you get this stupid bullshit from?
Let me correct that for you:
Corrected writes:
Only scientists receive grant money from the universities and government. Creationists need not apply.
There, that's a lot better, though still wrong. Scientists are not the only recipients of grant money, but also any scholar in any academic field. For example, in the early 1980's, one of my German professors (PhD German) had received a grant for developing instructional software for learning a foreign language such as German.
So you're still very much wrong. Very stupidly wrong, but then you never do anything any other way but stupidly.
And we have gone over your other weird term, "creation scientist". Just say "creationist." And please don't try to imply that a creationist ever does science, because they don't.
Creationism is as close to the opposite of science as it is possible to be. Creationism is apologetics, it seeks to find any support it can for a predetermined conclusion. And in that pursuit, it will twist and distort anything it can to arrive at the desired goal.
Science and other academics conduct research in order to learn something, to advance our knowledge. The only use apologetics has for research is to find something it can misrepresent and lie about so that it can deceive more people, which constitutes a reduction of knowledge.
Clearly, grant money from universities and the government should not to go creationists and their goal of deceiving and reducing knowledge. Though they will still get funding from agencies who share their goals of spreading deception.
PS
I was in a hurry to leave for class last night, so I didn't complete this thought about creationists and science:
The contrast between "doing science" and "doing creationism" is much starker when we consider scientists who become creationists.
Scientists do actual research and publish their results. The standards for the papers they publish are rigorous, as Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" describe in relating the nature of their post-graduate science studies (where they read and critique many scientific papers); as I presented their video to you already (02-Mar-2025):
Here's a video in which the creationist calling in to Forrest Valkai and Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" makes your same ignorant claim about universities being dogmatic, etc:
The creationist makes that claim around the 23:20 mark, though what Forrest has to say winding up around 22:45 is also good.
Both Forrest and Erika are in the middle of and deeply involved in their post-graduate studies in science (Forrest on his sixth degree and Erika on her doctorate). They describe to the creationist in detail how university studies in the sciences works, and how research works, and how the evidence works.
While most creationists' qualifications do not involve training or experience in science, there are some with actual scientific training and even experience (eg, Dr. Steve Austin has a PhD Geology but no field work; John Morris (ICR) presented himself as a "petroleum geologist" without ever having worked in the field, but solely because he once taught that course in a university).
But those scientists who also do creationism live a very compartmentalized existence in which they either do science or they do creationism and they keep those two lives from ever mixing:
Most scientists who become creationists stop doing research and stop publishing. When you look them up, they started out as scientists doing research and publishing papers, but when they become creationists they stop doing scientific research, stop publishing scientific papers, and switch to writing creationist articles.
IOW, they stop being scientists and start being full-time creationists.
There are a few of those creationists who do continue to do scientific work, but they keep that work well separate from their creationism. When they do actual research and publish scientific papers, they maintain the proper standards, and when they then switch to doing creationism their writing is lowered to that level.
To steal from Kipling: Science is science and creationism is creationism and never the twain shall meet.
While Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for creationism is to misrepresent and lie about the evidence, there is a small number of creationists who try to do actual honest scientific research to support their creationist beliefs. We almost never hear about them for two reasons:
They meet with little or no success, since what they're trying to find evidence of is contrary to reality. That is the fundamental problem for creationism and the reason why they always have to deny the evidence.
They maintain proper scientific protocol and present their findings tentatively and dependent on certain factors. That means that they do not jump to unwarranted and unsupported conclusions, nor do they deal in sensationalism. Since creationism only values sensationalist claims because they sound more convincing, modest findings draw no support from creationists. Hence, creationists do not value their attempts at honest work and take no notice of them.
A couple examples:
A couple decades ago I heard of a creationist marine biologist who was doing research on sea turtles to learn the effects of body size on body heat regulation.
An article in one of the engineering trade journals I would receive when I was working reported on Carl Drews' experiments trying to recreate conditions around Moses' Parting of the Red Sea.
I already knew Carl Drews (and link to his pages via that link I just posted), a self-described theistic evolutionist. In his personal story (no longer online), he told of his first exposure to creationism as a fundamentalist Christian in which he researched into the claims made (Chick Pub's original anti-evolution tract, Big Daddy?) and found that each and every claim misrepresented its source. Because of such dishonesty he rejected creationism which, of course, still believing in The Creator. Years later he and his wife joined a fundamentalist church which was a good fit and whose good work they liked. But the pastor started pushing creationism and even pressured Carl to attend their creationism classes. Carl would take notes, research the claims, and return the next week with pages critiquing those claims and explaining why they were false -- he posted those extensive notes on his website. Of course, nobody else in the class would even go near those critiques -- I saw the same thing in a creationist meeting when someone brought in copies of his paper explaining thermodynamics and how creationists get it wrong (nobody picked up a copy and at most just cast a furtive hairy eyeball at the stack).
The straw the broke the camel's back was a later talk with his pastor in which his pastor actually advocated using lies to fight against evolution. It saddened him to leave that church, but he could not condone its attitude supporting lying.
Whatever the fuck are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense at all; on a scale of zero to ten, that's a solid minus 40. Or to quote from Catch-22 (1970; it'll be on Turner Classics 29 March):
***Stop pretending to be ignorant. Neither the government nor our universities give grant money to the Christian scientists who try to prove creation.
Never would they receive grants from these institutions for the purpose of disproving Darwinism evolution. It doesn't work that way, and you know this.
Most universities are anti-creationists. Many Christian scientists remain silent because of people like you.
I know how it works. I went to college from 2001-2005. I started at the age of 47. I observed much of this behavior from faculty and staff.
Evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism. Perhaps this is because deep down the realize the vast weaknesses of their worldview.
Many evolution/atheists scientists are deceitful. And most of the rest let them ride.
Lucy was said to have human like feet. This was based on the fact that human footprints were discovered multiple hundreds of miles away.
Atheists/Evolutionists want to be known for their contribution to their cause.
Paul states in Romans 1 that what can be known of God is clearly visible in His creation. He states that this proof of God's existence is so strong that they are left without excuse.
Satan controls our educational system. Evolutionists and atheists are terrified of allowing intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution.
False. We are defending the separation of church and state which is one of our constitutional guarantees. If you want to set up a private school where you teach all sorts of nonsense, knock yourself out. However, none of those students are going to be prepared for getting a science degree.
The last thing these atheistic professors want is to debate creation scientists.
The absence of creationists in the scientific community where the actual debate takes place demonstrates creationists are avoiding debate.
Only evolutionists receive grant money from the universities and government. Creation scientists need not apply.
What science would their grant application contain? What experiments would they be doing? It doesn't take any funding to ignore facts.
Allow A/E and creationists to hash it out in the classroom.
Science isn't debated in the classroom. It's debated in the peer reviewed scientific literature and at scientific gatherings like conferences. 9th graders aren't the arbiters of science. Science is decided by data, not debates.
Stop pretending to be ignorant. Neither the government nor our universities give grant money to the Christian scientists who try to prove creation.
No creation scientists are trying to prove creation through scientific research. All they do is make up false justifications for ignoring the work of real scientists. There are Christian universities across the countries that have lots of money (e.g. Liberty University) and yet none of them are funding research into creation science because there is no science in creation science.
Never would they receive grants from these institutions for the purpose of disproving Darwinism evolution. It doesn't work that way, and you know this.
Ignoring facts does not disprove evolution. Creation science is nothing more than the refusal to accept facts.
Evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism. Perhaps this is because deep down the realize the vast weaknesses of their worldview.
This would actually carry some weight if you could actually present any evidence that disproves evolution.
Many evolution/atheists scientists are deceitful. And most of the rest let them ride. Lucy was said to have human like feet. This was based on the fact that human footprints were discovered multiple hundreds of miles away.
Dwise, you stated: Whatever the fuck are you talking about? That makes absolutely no sense at all; on a scale of zero to ten, that's a solid minus 40. Or to quote from Catch-22 (1970; it'll be on Turner Classics 29 March): ***Stop pretending to be ignorant. Neither the government nor our universities give grant money to the Christian scientists who try to prove creation.
And yet again you completely dodged my questions.
And the points I made. If you disagree with any points I made, THEN ADDRESS EACH ONE! Instead, you just ignore them, hoping that they will simply go away. It doesn't work like that. It never has worked like that.
We have to keep asking you, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?" because everything you post is NONSENSE. It's like all your brains have leaked out and been replaced by bullshit.
We are very serious when we ask "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"AND WE FULLY EXPECT AN ANSWER!
quote:4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
You have never even tried to support any of your bare assertions. You have provided no reasoned argumentation and you have never addressed our rebuttals You yourself wrote:
Isn't the purpose of higher education to exchange ideas, and differing points of view?
That is also the purpose of this forum. What's wrong with you that you insist on obstructing that purpose?
Also, JUST WHAT THE FUCK IS A "CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST" SUPPOSED TO BE?
We have gone over that one a few times and you have never responded to my attempts to figure out what you're saying The best I can make out is that you are talking about creationists, who are the opposite of scientists.
If you mean something different by "Christian scientist", then tell us and explain it to us! We cannot read your mind! (assuming there to be any content there to be read)
Since you will never tell us what you mean by "Christian scientist", I will proceed with the best guess that you're talking about creationists.
You say (with corrections):
the creationists who try to prove creation.
So extremely wrong on several points:
Creationists never ever try to prove creation. All they ever do is attack their stupid strawman they call "evolution". I base that from having studied them for over four decades.
I already described their Two Model Approach (TMA) in the footnote of my Message 151. It is a false dichotomy falsely based on there being "two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins": the "Creation Model" (which is purely YEC and excludes all other ideas about creation) and the "atheistic Evolution Model" (which includes ALL non-YEC ideas, including as per leading creationist and co-designer and user of the TMA, Dr. Henry Morris, "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" -- please explain how a collection of ideas which is predominantly theistic can be considered as being "atheistic"). In reality, there are many thousands of different "models" (conservative figure considering the 288,000 different gods and 45,000 different forms of Christianity), but creationists chose to collapse those many thousands of models, save for one (ie, YEC), and into one big catch-all "model".
They then use their TMA to "prove the Creation Model" solely by attacking their bloated strawman "Evolution Model". That has been virtually the only approach taken by creationists for more than half a century. And that has been YOUR only approach here and, I'm certain, everywhere else that has had the distinct displeasure of your presence.
And what makes it even worse is that creationists never ever attack evolution, but rather only attack old discarded ideas and misunderstandings of it. Creationists' "Evolution Model" is a big stinking pile of junk for them to cherry pick from. Sure, evolution is in there somewhere, but it's covered by an immense amount of stuff that isn't evolution: an extremely generous estimate would be that actual evolution only exists in the "Evolution Model" as one part in a million (and that is extremely generous). All that you creationists ever do is cherry-pick parts that are not evolution to attack.
Please justify and defend your use of the Two Model Approach.
Creationists actually oppose The Creation and devote themselves to disproving it. I have explained that to you before and I will have to explain it again, even though it's so simple and easy to understand that your inability to grasp it baffles us normals.
You yourself just wrote:
Paul states in Romans 1 that what can be known of God is clearly visible in His creation. He states that this proof of God's existence is so strong that they are left without excuse.
Either the world around us was created or not -- doesn't really matter, since the world is the same as it is regardless of whether it was created or not.
Science studies the world around us, hence they study The Creation. The findings of science are based directly on the evidence in and of the world around us, hence in and of The Creation.
Creationists do not study The Creation, but rather they study their mythical books. From their studies (and endless interpretations and reinterpretations), they have constructed their own "creation" which is not the same thing as The Creation.
Furthermore, creationists insist that their made-up "creation" must be true, with the only alternative being that God doesn't exist (or variations thereof).
Therefore, in order to "prove" their made-up "creation", creationists have dedicated themselves to disproving The Creation.
That is why I keep telling you that creationists oppose The Creation and hence The Creator.
I need to leave now to help with some beginner's classes. I will return to this later.
In the meantime, please address my points and answer my questions.
"False. We are defending the separation of church and state which is one of our constitutional guarantees. If you want to set up a private school where you teach all sorts of nonsense, knock yourself out. However, none of those students are going to be prepared for getting a science degree."
***The Constitution says nothing about the "separation of church and state."
The phrase comes from a private letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, in response to a letter from them.
Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the federal government would never be permitted to interfere with their religion.
Visit the Library of Congress in order to better educate yourself on this topic.
Thomas Jefferson, as did many of our founding fathers, believed in our right to worship without interference from the government.
Thomas Jefferson (it's in the Library of Congress) gave Bibles to the Indians. Many of our forefathers did this
Church was held in government buildings, including Congress and the White House.
Dig this: church services were held in Statuary Hall, the chamber of the Supreme Court, from 1807 through 1857.
The Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment was intended to protect the church from the federal government.
No national church or religion is allowed to be established by the federal government.
Henry the eighth had established the Anglican Church as the official church of England. Before this the RCC had forced it's religion on most of the world.
Again, click into the Library of Congress. You might learn something.
Before I continue, I just heard a sound clip that's applicable to you:
King of the Hill:
Hank Hill: "Just when you've said the stupidest thing possible, you keep talking!"
Everything you've posted has been bullshit, lies, nonsense, and just plain idiocy. And then when you have said the stupidest things possible, you say something even stupider.
I really wish that weren't the case, but you appear to be unredeemable.
William Claude Fields:
There comes a time in the affairs of men where you have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.
Now back to your latest nonsense.
Never would [creationists] receive grants from these institutions for the purpose of disproving Darwinism evolution. It doesn't work that way, and you know this.
Yes, I do indeed know that it doesn't work that way. Why don't you know that? And there's so much more wrong with that.
First, why are you hung up on Darwinian evolution? That's old stuff! We've learned a lot more in the 165 years since On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. For example, Darwinian evolution does not include genetics; indeed, Darwin's ideas of how inheritance works were wrong, which is why creationists frequently quote-mine geneticists from around 1910 as saying that they had disproven Darwin (his pangenesis theory, yes, but not natural selection). Neo-Darwinism came from the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution and genetics et alia, but even that is nearly a century old (developed from 1918 to 1947) and a lot more has been discovered since then.
Why would anyone want to fund the disproof of something that's not even used anymore? It would be like getting a grant for the purpose of disproving the Ptolemaic geocentric system, utter useless.
You're not making any sense again.
However,
are often
Most universities are anti-creationists.
No, they're just not creationist. To be honest, they don't even think about you creationists ... until you show up being a nutjob getting in their faces spouting stupid bullshit lies, at which point they try to "smile you out the door." I mean, look at yourself honestly in the mirror pulling your stupid bullshit and you should also see why no sane person would want to have you around -- OK, so maybe having you try to imagine what a sane person would think is asking too much of you.
Mostly, their view of creationists is that you're all a bunch of pseudo-science loony-tunes who are the same as flat-earther. You are far beneath them and are best left ignored. Here is what Dr. Allan H. Harvey, a practicing Christian and PhD Physics (specializing in the physics of water, hence his moniker, "SteamDoc"), wrote in his essay, Science and Christian Apologetics (yes, I know that you will never read it, so it is for everyone else):
quote:I have an example of this from my own experience. When I was working on my Ph.D., I shared a lab with a man from Taiwan named Albert. One day there was an evangelist making noise on campus, and Albert asked me a question out of the blue: "How can you be a Christian and believe all that Creationism stuff?" I managed to mumble something about how "that stuff" wasn't what Christianity was all about. But Albert's question had illustrated the problems we have with science and apologetics.
Albert knew that the claims of so-called "creation science" about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. I can't blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what's worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9]
You creationists talk like idiots and you behave like idiots, and indeed you are nothing but willful idiots. Scientists and professors have far more important things to concern themselves with than to waste their time on you willful idiots.
Their mistake in dismissing you properly is that you idiots can vote other of your co-idiots to state legislatures where you can turn your bullshit lies into law. And then it's too late.
Indeed, that dismissive attitude played a role in the history of creationist debates. Around 1975, the ICR rolled out its deliberately crafted deception, "creation science" (Lie: "Our opposition to evolution is for purely scientific reasons, nothing religious about it."), with, among things, the "creation/evolution debate" -- again, go to my page, Creation / Evolution Debates, for links to several articles on the subject as well as re-reading my recent discussion of debates in Message 148.
Though this is the origin story of many opponents to creationism. In those debates, a local teacher or scientist would be recruited by a local organizer -- those articles on debate I link to immediately above include descriptions of what the author had gone through when they got suckered into a debate (including a lot of deception, switch-and-bait, and flat-out cheating by the creationists). He would go in thinking that the debate was to be about science, only to get hit by the pure bullshit which is creationism. Knowing nothing about creationism, he could not respond effectively; as Fred Edwords described it (from memory of his 1985 presentation, "Debates with Creationists"):
quote:"Of course their claims are ridiculous, but you have to be able to explain WHY they are ridiculous. To an audience who doesn't understand science to begin with.
If you're going to debate a creationist, you have to know your science very well. But more importantly, you have to know your creationism even better!
You do that by studying creationist claims and arguments, research into them (eg, find the scientific sources they are misrepresenting and finding exactly how they are lying about their sources -- one of the quickest and surest ways to refute a creationist claim is to look up their cited sources), and then write your response. The creationists' strength lies in their highly polished and thoroughly rehearsed presentations, but that works against them in that it locks them into a script. Since you know scripts from past debates, you know what claims they'll make and so can prepare accordingly. Fred Edwords described his loose-leave binder in which each page contains a single creationist claim and his response to that claim. Then during the debate he will take out the page for each claim as it's being made and put it in a pile. Then his rebuttal is to go through each and every one of the creationist's claims in order soundly refuting each and every one of the claims -- when he first used that approach, his opponent freaked out and demanded extra time to rebut Edwords' rebuttal.
Back to the history. The experience of having been suckered into a creationist debate motivated those victims to learn more about creationism and to prepare for the next time. They also started networking with other victims doing the same, sharing experiences, ideas, information, and rebuttals, first on the local and state level and then on the national level; within their states they called themselves the Committees of Correspondence (CC) after those groups in the Revolutionary War and then the various CCs established a central national clearinghouse for the information being accumulated, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE):
Wikipedia:History
In 1980 Stanley L. Weinberg, a veteran high-school teacher in Iowa, began to organize statewide Committees of Correspondence "committed to the defense of education in evolutionary theory," modelled upon the committees of correspondence in pre-Revolutionary America. Their purpose was to keep interested parties informed about creationist endeavours and to share ideas for responses, allowing a political response at a local level. This grew into volunteer networks in most states, with the Creation/Evolution Newsletter interconnecting them, which was incorporated as the NCSE in 1983. In 1987, author and lecturer Eugenie Scott became its executive director. The Board of Directors and official supporters, as explained by NCSE, "reflects our scientific roots."
I started studying "creation science" in 1981 and first heard about the NCSE in 1985 thanks to Fred Edwords' presentation and ordered the back issues of their newsletter and journal dating back to around 1980. They reported having turned the debate tide around 1980 with their new strategy resulting in creationist defeats; eg, the article linked to in my Message 148, Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now? (Creation/Evolution Journal, Volume 3 No. 2, Spring 1982).
Correcting your terminology again:
Many creationists remain silent because of people like you.
You mean people seeking the truth? People who dare to ask for you to explain your position and your claims? People who dare to ask to see your evidence or even just your sources? People who dare to try to engage you in discussion?
People who dare to ask you the forbidden question: "What are you talking about?"?
Of course that will drive creationists into silence. Because you creationists have no clue what you are talking about. Because even you creationists know that your claims are nothing but stupid bullshit lies. Because even the creationists know that they are full of shit.
If there were anything to your claims, then you would have no reason to run away from the simplest of direct questions. Yet you always run away, which tells us that you yourself know full well that you have nothing.
You're just putting on an act that's not fooling anybody. Please stop that nonsense.
More later so that you cannot bitch and moan again about your phone being too small to read anything on.
"Science isn't debated in the classroom. It's debated in the peer reviewed scientific literature and at scientific gatherings like conferences. 9th graders aren't the arbiters of science. Science is decided by data, not debates."
***I agree with you. Science is not debated in the classroom. Students are simply told what to think and believe.
Evolution is not a science. It is simply a worldview. It is so ridiculous that I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes it. It would take a being of supernatural powers to convince anyone that there is a semblance of truth to it. Satan is known as the great deceiver. Many, such as yourself, makes it easy for him.
Everything you've posted has been bullshit, lies, nonsense, and just plain idiocy. And then when you have said the stupidest things possible, you say something even stupider.
***And this from a man who believes that the simple cell, which is more specifically complicated beyond anything our minds can comprehend, created itself.
This same man believes that natural selection can actually lead to higher forms of life. This man can't seem to understand that selection is among that which is already present.
He can't seem to understand that regardless of what is selected the end result is always the same kind.
A dog can select from various eyes colors, fur length, size, etc..., a dog will never in a billion years be anything other than a dog.
Darwinian evolution is impossible. And it is impossible to convince a sane man that it is.
Dwise, you wrote: Everything you've posted has been bullshit, lies, nonsense, and just plain idiocy. And then when you have said the stupidest things possible, you say something even stupider.
***And this from a man who believes that the simple cell, which is more specifically complicated beyond anything our minds can comprehend, created itself.
No, I don't believe any such thing.
NOBODY THINKS THAT EXCEPT FOR A STUPID LYING CREATIONIST!
You're just lying again, IN SUPPORT OF MY ASSERTION WHICH YOU QUOTED.
This same man believes that natural selection can actually lead to higher forms of life. This man can't seem to understand that selection is among that which is already present.
No, I don't believe that. You are just LYING YET AGAIN!
Natural selection is only one part of evolution and one factor in evolutionary processes. Unlike your lie here, natural selection does not do everything evolution does.
You have absolutely no clue what evolution is nor how it works. Instead of babbling complete nonsense about things that you know nothing about, LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT EVOLUTION!
He can't seem to understand that regardless of what is selected the end result is always the same kind. A dog can select from various eyes colors, fur length, size, etc..., a dog will never in a billion years be anything other than a dog.
Yes, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS!
Nobody says anything different, EXCEPT FOR A STUPID LYING CREATIONIST!
Learn what evolution is and says and stop making a public display of how utterly stupid you are.
Darwinian evolution is impossible. And it is impossible to convince a sane man that it is.
Says the stupid lying creationist who constantly demonstrates he has absolutely no clue what evolution is, let alone whether it is possible.
Why should anyone listen to a stupid fucking lying idiot such as you demonstrate yourself to be?
quote:
"We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!"
(The Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state, quoted from memory from NPR circa 1990)
Obviously you have not learned that lesson yet, since you continue to try ignorance. Please realize that it doesn't work and LEARN SOMETHING INSTEAD!
Edited by dwise1, : Copy-and-pasted what he had posted from my [msg=158]; ie, completely restored my quoting him in the first qs block
"Either the world around us was created or not -- doesn't really matter, since the world is the same as it is regardless of whether it was created or not"
***Why is there anything without a Creator. Absolutely nothing should exist if it were not created.
Did nothing create the universe?
Everything is composed of chemicals. Humans and animals, as well as the materials that goes into our houses and cars, are composed of chemicals.
If an atheist believes that chemicals can create the first cell, with all its complexities, why would they not believe that a space shuttle could create itself?
Creationists actually oppose The Creation and devote themselves to disproving it. I have explained that to you before and I will have to explain it again, even though it's so simple and easy to understand that your inability to grasp it baffles us normals.
You yourself just wrote:
Paul states in Romans 1 that what can be known of God is clearly visible in His creation. He states that this proof of God's existence is so strong that they are left without excuse.
Either the world around us was created or not -- doesn't really matter, since the world is the same as it is regardless of whether it was created or not.
Science studies the world around us, hence they study The Creation. The findings of science are based directly on the evidence in and of the world around us, hence in and of The Creation.
Creationists do not study The Creation, but rather they study their mythical books. From their studies (and endless interpretations and reinterpretations), they have constructed their own "creation" which is not the same thing as The Creation.
Furthermore, creationists insist that their made-up "creation" must be true, with the only alternative being that God doesn't exist (or variations thereof).
Therefore, in order to "prove" their made-up "creation", creationists have dedicated themselves to disproving The Creation.
That is why I keep telling you that creationists oppose The Creation and hence The Creator.
Stop running away like a coward and address the issue!
Stop pretending to be ignorant. Neither the government nor our universities give grant money to the Christian scientists who try to prove creation.
Still not the topic, but anyway, flat-earthers and astrologers don't receive grant money, either. Science grants go to people and groups doing science.
™ Version 4.2