Creation science II

Please read the Rules

quote:

---

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

---

We don't play link 'volley ball' here. We debate. All members share responsibility over the quality of debate here at EvC. This thread is going sharply downhill. If your post doesn't improve the quality of discussion, consider that it might be contributing to its downfall and make the revolutionary decision to not post it.Do not respond to this post.

I wasn't aware of all these technicalities. I am so glad that you took the time to investigate this for me I have been copying and pasting excerpts from AIG--usually linking them, but not always directly, for many many years. I never thought of it as anything wrong since I am not actually publishing anything or taking credit for anything or making any money, Sheesh.Now that we have straightened all this out, I wonder if anyone will seriously consider the content of the article? Probably not.

How about getting back to the other side of this discussion? Message 179Edited by AdminModulous, : edited long url down to dBcode

As it says in the movie "Happy Gilmore", it's all in the hips. The pelvis of A. afarensis is very much like that of a modern human. No other non-human ape has hips like that seen in A. afarensis. A. afarensis was a bipedal ape, just like us. That makes A. afarensis transitional. Nowhere do they refute the transitional nature of Tiktaalik. They think by calling Tiktaalik a "fish" they have somehow made a point. They haven't.

So let me get this straight. You claim that creation science has nothing to do with the bible. This seems to be contradicted by the fact that you link to stuff written by Answers in Genesis. Can you please quote for us where they describe what a real transitional between lobe finned fish and tetrapods would look like?Their entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that because Tiktaalik does not have limbs exactly like those of tetrapods that it is not a transitional fossil. But isn't that what you would expect from a transitional fossil, a morphology that is not completely like that of a tetrapod and not completely like that of a lobe finned fish? Surely even you can see through this double talk.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Because they insert mechanisms that are based on their religious beliefs but not on any evidence. They also ignore evidence which conflicts with their religious convictions, such as the presence of xenoliths in the Mt. St. Helens dacites. When they try to explain the nested hierarchy produced by a comparison of ERV's they claim that the pattern is due to God putting them there, an obvious injection of their world view.We don't have to be mind readers. It's right there in the print.

and THAT is Creation Science in a nutshell

No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.

San Dimas High School Football Rules!

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

If we stripped away these supposed worldviews, what criteria would we use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? specifically, what features would a real transitional between humans and a hypothetical commmon ancestor with chimps have? From the creationist approach, what features would link the human "kind" to the chimp "kind"? Please explain how the theory of evolution is a religious faith. Is it by faith alone that orthologous ERV's fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution? Is it by faith alone that fish fossils with legs appear in the fossil record? Is it by faith alone that bacteria produce mutations that confer antbiotic resistance and phage resistance? Is it by faith alone that rabbits are not found in Cambrian strata? Is it by faith alone that bats do not have feathers, birds do not have three middle ear bones, and fish do not have teats?What you seem to ignore is that the theory of evolution makes very specific predictions that can be tested independently of world view or faith. Your challenge is to list for us creation science hypotheses that can be tested in the same fashion. You have yet to do so.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Is that it?

quote:

---

No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.

---

Three sentences? Even with a fifteen-minute post limit, you're really happy to post so little? Just three sentences, consisting of nothing more than buzzwords? You have brought us two arguments that have already been refuted. You have ignored the refutations and merely repeated the arguments.Do you really think that this is going to convince anybody? You accuse us of being closed-minded, but when you are willing to put so little into your arguments, why should anyone be convinced? Your contribution here has been equivalent to merely repeating "But creation science is real science" over and over again.Do you imagine that we haven't heard this kind of crap before?As long as you are going to keep repeating refuted arguments and discredited creationist slogans in trite one or two paragraph messages, you are wasting your time here. Why not try arguing with evidence? Why not take the AiG Tiktaalik article and rephrase its arguments in your own words for example?Why not? Because you can't be bothered. That is astonishingly lazy, especially given that, if your world-view is correct, our immortal souls might depend upon our being brought around to your way of thinking.For God's sake, make an effort! Present something we can get our teeth into, not just bare links and the mindless repetition of creationist mantras. [/rant]Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : "You're" vs "your".

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thread moved here from the Is It Science? forum. We're now in the Free For All Forum.Moderation has been turned to low gear. If anyone thinks they get something productive out of this thread have at it. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

lyx2no and Kelly have been suspended for 24 hours. I promised that Message 196. I'm a man of my word.

Nonsense! A creationist even tried that in federal court and got his case thrown out as be frivolous: John E. PELOZA v. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994.Excerpts from the court decision, No webpage found at provided URL: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html:

quote:

---

SUMMARY

​

High school biology teacher brought action against school district, its board of trustees, and various personnel at high school, challenging school district's requirement that he teach evolutionism, as well as school district order barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The United States District Court, Central District of California, David W. Williams, J., 782 F.Supp. 1412, dismissed and awarded attorney fees to school district. Teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) teacher failed to state claim for violation of establishment clause of First Amendment in connection with school district's requiring him to teach evolution, i.e., that higher life forms evolved from lower ones; (2) school district's restriction on teacher's right of free speech in prohibiting teacher from talking with students about religion during school day, including times when he was not actually teaching class, was justified by school district's interest in avoiding establishment clause violation; (3) teacher's allegations of injury to his reputation as result of allegedly defamatory statements made to and about him were insufficient to support claim for deprivation of liberty interest under 1983; but (4) teacher's complaint was not entirely frivolous, precluding award of costs and attorney fees under Rule 11 and 1988.

​

. . .

​

He alleges in his complaint that the school district requires him to teach "evolutionism" and that evolutionism is a religious belief system.

​

. . .

​

The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court then dismissed the state claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court also determined that the action was frivolous.

​

. . .

​

The following summarizes the allegations of Peloza's complaint:

​

Peloza is a biology teacher in a public high school, and is employed by the Capistrano Unified School District. He is being forced by the defendants (the school district, its trustees and individual teachers and others) to proselytize his students to a belief in "evolutionism" "under the guise of [its being] a valid scientific theory." Evolutionism is an historical, philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory. Evolutionism is one of "two world views on the subject of the origins of life and of the universe." The other is "creationism" which also is a "religious belief system." "The belief system of evolutionism is based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process. The world view and belief system of creationism is based on the assumption that a Creator created all life and the entire universe." Peloza does not wish "to promote either philosophy or belief system in teaching his biology class." "The general acceptance of ... evolutionism in academic circles does not qualify it or validate it as a scientific theory." Peloza believes that the defendants seek to dismiss him due to his refusal to teach evolutionism. His first amendment rights have been abridged by interference with his right "to teach his students to differentiate between a philosophical, religious belief system on the one hand and a true scientific theory on the other."

​

. . .

​

A. The Establishment Clause

​

[1] To withstand an Establishment Clause challenge(2), a state statute, policy or action (1) must have a secular purpose; (2) must, as its primary effect, neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religions. Lemon V. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111, 29 L.Ed.2d,745 (1971).

​

Peloza's complaint alleges that the school district has violated the Establishment Clause "by pressuring and requiring him to teach evolutionism, a religious belief system, as a valid scientific theory." Complaint at 19-20. Evolutionism, according to Peloza, "postulates that the 'higher' life forms ... evolved from the 'lower' life forms ... and that life itself 'evolved' from non-living matter." Id. at 2. It is therefore "based on the assumption that life and the universe evolved randomly and by chance and with no Creator involved in the process." Id. at 1. Peloza claims that evolutionism is not a valid scientific theory because it is based on events which "occurred in the non-observable and non-recreatable past and hence are not subject to scientific observation." Id. at 3. Finally, in his appellate brief he alleges that the school district is requiring him to teach evolutionism not just as a theory, but rather as a fact.

​

[2] Peloza's complaint is not entirely consistent. In some places he seems to advance the patently frivolous claim that it is unconstitutional for the school district to require him to teach, as a valid scientific theory, that higher life forms evolved from lower ones. At other times he claims the district is forcing him to teach evolution as fact. Although possibly dogmatic or even wrong, such a requirement would not transgress the establishment clause if "evolution" simply means that higher life forms evolved from lower ones.

​

Peloza uses the words "evolution" and "evolutionism" interchangeably in the complaint. This is not wrong or imprecise for, indeed, they are synonyms.(3) Adding "ism" does not change the meaning nor magically metamorphose "evolution" into a religion. "Evolution" and "evolutionism" define a biological concept: higher life forms evolve from lower ones. The concept has nothing to do with how the universe was created; it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a divine Creator (who did or did not create the universe or did or did not plan evolution as part of a divine scheme).

​

[3] On a motion to dismiss we are required to read the complaint charitably, to take all well-pleaded facts as true, and to assume that all general allegations embrace whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them. Lujan V. Nat'l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Abmmson V. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir.1990). Charitably read, Peloza's complaint at most makes this claim: the school district's actions establish a state-supported religion of evolutionism, or more generally of "secular humanism." See Complaint at 24, 20. According to Peloza's complaint, all persons must adhere to one of two religious belief systems concerning "the origins of life and of the universe:" evolutionism, or creationism. Id. at 2. Thus, the school district, in teaching evolutionism, is establishing a state-supported "religion."

​

We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are "religions" for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion(4) and the clear weight of the case law(5) are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. Edwards V. Aguillard. 482 U.S. 578, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987) (holding unconstitutional, under Establishment Clause, Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment for Creation-science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act").

​

Peloza would have us accept his definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism" and impose his definition on the school district as its own, a definition that cannot be found in the dictionary, in the Supreme Court cases, or anywhere in the common understanding of the words. Only if we define "evolution" and "evolutionism" as does Peloza as a concept that embraces the belief that the universe came into existence without a Creator might he make out a claim. This we need not do. To say red is green or black is white does not make it so. Nor need we for the purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion accept a made-up definition of "evolution." Nowhere does Peloza point to anything that conceivably suggests that the school district accepts anything other than the common definition of "evolution" and "evolutionism." It simply required him as a biology teacher in the public schools of California to teach "evolution." Peloza nowhere says it required more.

​

The district court dismissed his claim, stating:

quote:

---

Since the evolutionist theory is not a religion, to require an instructor to teach this theory is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.... Evolution is a scientific theory based on the gathering and studying of data, and modification of new data. It is an established scientific theory which is used as the basis for many areas of science. As scientific methods advance and become more accurate, the scientific community will revise the accepted theory to a more accurate explanation of life's origins. Plaintiffs assertions that the teaching of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause is unfounded.

---

Id. at 12-13. We agree.

---

I only posted excerpts pertaining to the claim that evolution is a religion. He was also suing over being reprimanded for proselytizing to students.This was a local case, so I had the opportunity to hear Peloza speak. It sounded like everything he knew about biology he had learned from the ICR, practically word-for-word (somewhat like you, Kelly).Ironically, he got reassigned to teach PE. Ironic, because that was his field to begin with. His bachelor's was in PE and his MS Education with his thesis having been on coaching softball. According to fellow teachers, he had taken the bare minimum biology classes require to graduate. While teaching on Catalina Island, he got the biology class; I guess that they didn't have anyone qualified so they filled the position with him, a common enough occurance in small communities. When he transfered to San Juan Capistrano, I guess he had used his experience to get a position there teaching biology. So the final outcome was that he was finally in the position that he had been trained for.So, Kelly, if you still want to claim that evolution is a religion, then you will need to support your claim. Not that we can expect you to, since you have also refused to support your claim that "creation science" is science.

Since we're now in Free For All, I'm comfortable sinking to Kelly's level: Nuh uh!QED.On a more serious (though perhaps less satisfying) note, Kelly has failed utterly to support even in the slightest that Creation Science follows the Scientific Method, and has in fact been shown repeatedly by multiple people exactly how Creation Science methodologies are different from the Scientific Method.Creation Science is Christian apologetics. Nothing more. It is a lame attempt at justifying irrational beliefs in the face of objective evidence contradicting those beliefs by wrapping them in sciency-sounding terms and experiments. It is, in all honesty, the result of massive cognitive dissonance on the part of the true believers, and an unfortunately effective con job for the rest.Most people, people like Kelly, do not have the knowledge of actual science, nor the critical thinking skills (and willingness to apply those skills to one's own position) required to differentiate between science and apologetics. Because Creation Science engages in experiments like Percy's carbon dating example, the average individual assumes that these people are actual scientists and that their conclusions are valid. They trust the Creation Scientists because they, too, want scientific validation for their faith-based beliefs.Unfortunately, being able to con the irrational masses has no bearing on objective reality. Evolution still happens. The Theory of Evolution remains one of the most successful and accurate models in all of science, with more supporting evidence backing it than the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, or a slew of others. Human beings remain an ape, related to other extant apes through an ancient common ancestor. Transitional fossils abound, and are accepted by the vast majority of scientists, having passed through rigorous testing and the peer review process; through this process, frauds and sloppy conclusions are brought to light and discarded, while strong evidence supporting logically sound conclusions are vindicated.Kelly remains woefully ignorant of not only evolution and the processes and evidence it entails, but of science as a whole and even of basic logic. She seems incapable or unwilling to participate in debate and rationally examine her own claims or even participate in a two-sided conversation, preferring instead to talk at everyone else and parrot the same, tires PRATTs over and over and over again.Kelly, you're wrong. You're too ignorant of the subject matter to even compose an argument entirely in your own words, preferring instead to cut-and-paste from other sources when you think a relevant point is addressed. You literally lack sufficient competency in the fields of science and logic to be able to comprehend why your conclusions and even your very approach are wrong.You're debating with a group of people comprised not only of laypersons who debate these subjects as a hobby like myself (and have done so for far longer than you have), but also of college professors, biologists, physicists, and other honest-to-goodness scientists who know and comprehend this subject matter better than you ever will because they have devoted their profession lives to the study of objective evidence and the pursuit of ever-increasing accuracy through the scientific method. For you to support your barely-coherent assertions with only a few sentences and a total disregard for those who do know betteris shameful. Learn a little humility, Kelly. Concede that your position may in fact be incorrect, stop repeating already-refuted points, and you may actually be able to learn something here.