The Theory of Evolution is accepted by many if not most Christian Clergy.
You're right -they've been as brainwashed as the secular world in school as well as in their seminaries. This is not to say a deceitful bunch are propogating lies just that evolution has become the accepted paradigm no longer questioned and nobody is very forthcoming with the dissenting evidences. Any dissenting evidence is sidelined or else allotted a plausible story to allow its existance. In most cases, they (the clergy) have never heard of any of the dissenting evidence.I know some clergy that are violently anti-creation, without even hearing the opposing evidence.They may just as well be violently anti their own Bible which does not allow for evolution if taken at face value - which it must be or else every cultic interpretation will be allowed -in which case it has no meaning and can be left to every individual's vain imaginings.
I was taught evolution at university by brainwashed profs who I have no doubt were not attempting to deceive me; they also never heard the dissenting evidences and were themselves deceived by the ruling and accepted paradigm.
disproving Evolution does not add any weight to Biblical Creationism.
Absolutely! But if creation is true then there should be loads of supporting evidence which is why I support the cause -I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text.It's a logic and truth matter, not a conspiratorial motion.
there is no conflict between Creation and Evolution
Not true, they not only conflict, in a lot of ways they are polar opposites. If the Genesis account of creation is not true, then exactly when in the Bible does truth kick in? I say if Genesis 1-11 is not true then we can safely say that the Bible is not Gods Word at all (even though He promised to preserve it through His people for all generations to know the truth of what they are doing here).If the Genesis account is not true then we may as well throw the entire Bible out as questionable at best and certainly not to be relied apon. Of course if we do that then man's words will have to do but man was not there when the world began so their words would be historical speculation at best and major invention at worst.
Taking Genesis as myth leaves the entire Bible open to personal interpretation.
I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text.It's a logic and truth matter, not a conspiratorial motion.
Welcome to the arena, Beretta.
As this site is not an 'average bio text,' I look forward to your presentation here of the most paradigm-shifting facts you know. Feel free to start threads on any subject necessary to get all the data out there.
I recommend starting with the 'creation-confirming' data, since you agree that evolution denial does not add weight to other theories.
Taking Genesis as myth leaves the entire Bible open to personal interpretation.
Symbolic systems, such as myths, possess a logic of their own. You have been taught to fear metaphors by people who are not literate in them. You think of them as things that throw the lid off Pandora's box if you allow them in the door.
Not so. Anyway, I have some news for you. Are you sitting down?
The entire Bible is open to personal interpretation anyway.
This is true whether you take it as myth or not. Literalism offers no protection from this reality.
But if creation is true then there should be loads of supporting evidence which is why I support the cause -I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text.It's a logic and truth matter, not a conspiratorial motion.
Then now is the time to step up to the plate and present the support for Biblical Creation. Please remember that your task is to present those models that explain the evidence seen better than the existing ones. If you wish to introduce God or God did it into the models, you will need to place God on exhibit where She can be examined by secular science just as any other piece of evidence.
Frankly, I don't think you can do it but we are always hoping even one Biblical Creationist will try.
Remember, your task is to provide supporting models for Biblical Creationism. Good luck.
If the Genesis account of creation is not true, then exactly when in the Bible does truth kick in? I say if Genesis 1-11 is not true then we can safely say that the Bible is not Gods Word at all (even though He promised to preserve it through His people for all generations to know the truth of what they are doing here).If the Genesis account is not true then we may as well throw the entire Bible out as questionable at best and certainly not to be relied apon. Of course if we do that then man's words will have to do but man was not there when the world began so their words would be historical speculation at best and major invention at worst.
Taking Genesis as myth leaves the entire Bible open to personal interpretation.
Just a Special Pleading. If you are a Type 1 poster, then fine, announce your Special Pleading and be done with it. Do not try to pretend though that you have anything more than a Special Pleading or that you are proposing science.
Type 1 If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted.
Sorry, the whole Bible is open to interpretation. In Genesis there is not one Creation account but rather two mutually exclusive ones. If the Bible is to be examined literally then the only possible conclusion is that the Bible is false from the very beginning and there is NO truth to be found in the Bible.
If you honestly think you can support Biblical Creationism, then please, by all means, propose a topic and present your support for the position.
The reason evolutionists refuse the other option is that brainwashing has done its job and the alternative sounds preposterous to them.
I don't buy this. The scientists who study fields relevant to evolution (and old earth geology) live in so many countries and come from so many different social, political, and religious backgrounds. I have a hard time believing that so many varied people in so many different situations can be "brainwashed" for so long a time.
...there are always lots of people in the world that are exceptionally eager to accept an alternative option in order to avoid God.
And what does this have to do with evolution? There are many, many people who believe and worship God (even Christians, Jews, and Muslims) who accept evolution. What is more, if evolution were somehow demonstrated to be false, that doesn't indicate that a god exists -- someone could prove once and for all today that evolution is false, and even that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and I, for one, would remain a happy atheist.
Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
several things -- all off topic (again) for this thread
Message 161 Not as far as creationists are concerned. Let's face it creation is not ...
... about teaching ID.
If something's not true, we don't care what the majority believes or was brainwashed into believing, we only care about what is true which is why we stick our necks out against tremendous odds.
Really? Perhaps you would like to test your hypothesis then. Let's use this as an example of how ID can be taught in public school science classes ... you know, something along the lines of the topic?
I hear all the 'evidence' on both sides but the evidence against evolution impresses me as well as the evidence for creation which makes evolution sound like a fairytale of epic proportions.
Then why don't you substantiate this on your Your reason for accepting evolution where this (and the false dichotomy you are still repeating) are challenged? Why dodge back here where you are off topic?
That again is what we say about evolutionists. They don't really understand the creation/ID argument ...
Such a red-herring logical fallacy argument as this is, does not refute the issue that creationists in general, and you in specific do not seem to understand evolution. If you do not understand evolution then you are not -- cannot be -- arguing about evolution.
But the real issue on this thread is teaching ID, not creationism or the failure to understand evolution. Let us start with testing the truth of the evidence and see where it leads for ID and for science without ID.
Evolutionists have lots of stories, plausible stories unsupported by the evidence. Just because a story is plausible does notmean it is necessarily true.
Message 165 Well said. However the 150 year old theoretical proposal by Darwin has not lived up to its promises and does not fit the evidence. Nevertheless evolutionists keep trying to stuff the evidence into their paradigm they have been led to believe and everyone of the innumerable anomalies that falsify the theory are either stuffed as fa
Message 166 You're right -they've been as brainwashed as the secular world in school as well as in their seminaries. This is not to say a deceitful bunch are propogating lies just that evolution has become the accepted paradigm no longer questioned and nobody is very forthcoming with the dissenting evidences.
This is the second time you mentioned brainwashing. Perhaps you would like to substantiate this assertion on How can Biologists believe in the ToE?? So far no creationist has substantiated this kind of claim. Certainly if you are talking about truth derived from evidence you have some, otherwise it is just self-delusion.
As someone already noted above, and as I said yesterday, the recent discussion is off-topic.
Beretta, you were already advised to take this discussion to another thread, you proposed another thread, it was promoted (Your reason for accepting evolution), and discussion is taking place there. Place take the discussion about evolution to that thread. This thread is about teaching ID.
I was referring principally to how the ideas are presented to the public at large, not to school children specifically. To adults, they hear about evolution from scientists - who are generally less able to present the case in an appealing way to the lay person.
On the other hand, the spokespeople for ID and Creation are disproportionately lawyers and preachers and politicians and PR experts. People who are experts at shaping public opinion, basically.
Hence - if you judge purely on the presentation - ID and creationism wins.
Let's face it creation is not sponsered by tax dollars since it is not the official religion....even though you've been told all this rubbish about massive funding and PR for creationists, isn't it obvious that that can't be true relative to what evolutionists have at their disposal?
The biggest institute that 'defends' evolution is the NCSE. It has a budget of $700,000 pa last I heard. The biggest institute for ID has a budget of £5,000,000. Answers in Genesis, a Creationist organisation that attacks evolution has had a revenue of over $7,000,000. Their sales revenue alone is almost double that of the entire budge of NCSE. NCSE is not just dedicated to evolution either, they have other things to spend their money on.
So the money available for a public opinion campaign are significantly one sided. That's all I was saying.
There is no lack of content only content you don't really want to hear so you miss everything you don't feel like believing because you assume contradictory evidence is just propoganda when you should actually check it out and make sure of that.
You can certainly believe that if you want. However you have no evidence for that proposition, you just have to believe it otherwise how can you explain the evidence that otherwise intelligent people can reject ID?
Teach the controversy is just your opposition attempting to get the truth heard
Yes, it's a catchphrase they took from a liberal arts professor who believed the best way to learn about the arts is to learn about the history of disagreements over subjects so students have the relevant context to know how the current academic consensus came to be. I'm all for doing that, it is how I learned evolution. However, this is not what the Design Institute is proposing. They don't want students learning all about how the design hypothesis came to be rejected, they want to give the illusion that the design hypothesis is still valid.
When asked to demonstrate how they could do this, they have to redefine science in such a way as to include astrology (by their own admission). For consistency then, they should be proposing we teach astrology (and its geocentric views) as well as astronomy.
not by introducing ID or creationism into the classroom
Actually it was originally intended to introduce creationism into the classrooms, the courts shut that avenue down so they tried Intelligent Design. There is a direct link between the two ideas; the evidence is overwhelming. After the courts shot down Intelligent Design they invented 'Teach the controversy' and other such catchy phrases. However, the courts ruled that ID was just a negative argument against evolution and 'Teach the controversy' means teach a negative argument against evolution. The two are essentially the same concept - and that is why it shouldn't get into the classroom.
Why would this be so threatening?
I'm sure you would understand people getting upset if the proposal that we should teach the controversy over the holocaust was being seriously considered by school boards. Or if we should also teach the occult in general science class. How about teaching tarot card readings in business studies? Or shamanism in meteorology?
It's threatening precisely because the Wedge Strategy put forward is threatening. It is one root taken by the religious right (which heavily funds discrediting materialism, as the Wedge Strategy proposes), in an attempt to make the USA a more Christian nation and in some people's hopes and dreams: institute a theocracy.
That's a threat.
allowing the evidence against evolution to be taught alongside its so-called proofs.
There is no evidence against evolution. Otherwise I'd be happy for it to be presented. As it stands, there are things for which a complete explanation has not been developed or discovered - but that mirrors the rest of science. We could go into this in class, but it would mean sacrificing teaching other things, and if we had to go into it for all science equally - we'd barely have time to teach kids any science at all.
The mysteries and the unexplained are taught at university level, where people are being trained with an eye to solving the unexplained (ie., scientists).
They don't really want children to hear the downside just in case logic and truth takes hold of them and another potential evolutionist is lost.
When a downside is presented - I'm happy for it to be taught. As it stands, no downside has been presented - only pseudoscience. I would dearly love for children to get a better education than they do, but I am unable to create a system in which to do this. As it stands, each subject's teachers have to do what they can to teach the kids the current knowledge of the subject. If there is genuine controversy, by all means mention it. If the only controversy is one manufactured by groups with a idealogical intent (holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxers, the evolution deniers), then that should not be taught.
I'm perfectly happy for a history teacher to advise the students that some people have come to denying the reality of the holocaust in spite of the evidence. That they look for gaps in knowledge to prove their ideas, and they have to use suspicious science based on faulty research. They exist kids, beware of them - their motivation is sinister.
Likewise with creationism and ID. People naturally conclude there was a designer, but evidence was acquired that showed that no designer was inherently necessary. No positive evidence for the designer, or any mechanism for how it implements the design have emerged. As the evidence grew and grew, and the predictions started coming in - scientists realized that evolution explained nature in a useful and coherent fashion. That no evidence exists that runs directly counter to the theory or the historical overview. Beware kids, creationist's motivations are sinister.
To adults, they hear about evolution from scientists - who are generally less able to present the case in an appealing way to the lay person.
I don't think that is generally true. Less inclined perhaps but not necessarily less able, although I guess it depends what you consider 'appealing'. I'd also question the contention that this is where where most adults get their information about evolution. I would have thought that rather than scientists the media would be the primary source, perhaps only indirectly from scientists.
I don't think that is generally true. Less inclined perhaps but not necessarily less able, although I guess it depends what you consider 'appealing'.
Sure, there are some stars who can explain these things wonderfully to a receptive audience. I have observed, however, that many people are taken in by the homeliness and friendliness and charisma of the spokespersons for ID and that they report a perception of being turned off by the personalities of scientists. People will report that they talk in jargon or sound arrogant or whatever. So like I say, I think this is a PR issue for educating adults about science.
I'd also question the contention that this is where where most adults get their information about evolution.
What I was going for was 'accurate information' or at least 'correct' information.
I would have thought that rather than scientists the media would be the primary source, perhaps only indirectly from scientists.
Exactly, and we know that selling something in the media requires a different skill set than convincing one's peers. The perception many people have is that scientists either try and talk to them as if they were peers in science or that they patronise them. If science could afford to employ good PR agents, we might find ourselves in a different position. The crashing boors in academia seem to out number the Carl Sagans in the public's eye - as far as my observation has it.
Not the entirety of the public always, obviously. Those members who actively engage with science will find many speakers who can explain these concepts in a pleasing and easy manner, but they tend to require a receptive audience, not a passive one. Passive audiences are a different group to appeal to.
So yeah - given that TV and other media are the ways in which people get their science knowledge from, we need more scientific media darlings who can inspire their audiences and create the demand for more! Ratings, darling, ratings.
Re: several things -- all off topic (again) for this thread
this is something you should be discussing on your Thread Your reason for accepting evolution and not here, as it has nothing to do with ID or teaching ID.
Sorry Razd, I'm way back here trying to answer the replies from the beginning. I haven't had time to get to the other topic because I haven't had much time and I don't like starting at the end.Like I said to begin with I had no clue what was going on but I'm getting there and am keen to continue.Will move on soon.
I know of loads of facts that defy evolution and confirm creation and they just don't come up in your average bio text
Beretta, I invite you to put this to the test. Why don't you give us one of those facts, and then we'll investigate it together and find out what gives. When we reach agreement about it one way or the other, we can move on to the next fact. By the way, I won't demand that you come up with a fact that you think both defies evolution and confirms creation. For me, it's enough if your fact just either defies evolution or confirms creation. (It would be harder to defend a fact that makes both claims, so, by all means, make it easy on yourself.)
I await your response.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.