2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

The Ruse quote, if you will notice is something Brad McFall posted, and he provided a link for.I responed to Brad's comments, and then shraf jumped in with the off-topic lead, as she usually does, following me around threads in this manner, without any hint of censure from you I might add.This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 10:19 PM

Here is the transcript quote. You are wrong as usual and in this case, ICR and Brad McFall who provided this quote on this thread are correct. Archives – Uncommon DescentRuse says it is "a valid comparison" and so he does exactly what ICR says he does. If anyone is lying here, I'd have to say it is you Shraf.

Because it's way off-topic. You can however check into the Great Debate thread I had with nuggins on the subject of recapitulation and see exactly where I do show that evolutionists in the field of embryology relied on overstatements and hoaxes.This message has been edited by randman, 01-01-2006 10:24 PM

Mods are ridiculous rants like this allowed? If so, please don't expect creationists and critics of evolution to treat the evos here with the sort of respect you would prefer.Shraf, your comments are basically just a bunch of lies, as usual I might add.I offer no conspiracy theories but hard facts on how evos have relied upon and taught wholesale errors as facts, some outright hoaxes, and in one instance for over 125 years.As far as crashfrog's wife, I am sure you would be just as capable of doing research if evolution is or is not true.

Percy, it's interesting you claim sham and fraud by creationists, and usually without any real data to back up your claim, and even at times to me concerning YECism despite the fact I am not a YECer, and yet expect everyone not to mention when evos teach shams as factual????

I don't most of those advocating themselves as a whole field and theory undergirding biology, and moreover, I don't them pushing shams, frauds, hoaxes, etc,...as factual, at least not on American children in schools.When the proponents of those things are included in textbooks, I will consider then whether they abide by good standards or not.

One the problems with so-called methodological naturalism is that the views of what constitutes "natural" or "material" are outdated. The assumption is God and spiritual things for example are not natural or material, and that would seem logical except that material is defined as anything real that can be observed, and we have a lot anecdotal accounts of observing spiritual things, and so presumably God, angels, spiritual things, consciousness, etc,...could perhaps be tested for, observed, etc,...at least to a degree or indirectly and so from a scientific perspective these things should be considered potentially material and part of the universe, and so potentially things that could be incorporated into science.This leads to the next issue. The view of science, so skewed as it is, to automatically reject a priori any spiritual explanations for anything, and to exclude a Designer a priori lead to flawed logic. For example, let's assume God did do something. According to the current evo view of science, even if God did do something, it would be improper to even consider that possibility, and we should adopt another explanation, even if incorrect.That's a serious flaw and needs to be adjusted. Science should have an open mind about any potential explanations. What occurs now is due to this prejudicial and fallacious reasoning, data is only viewed with the idea that it cannot be evidence for design because that is a general principle, and so there is a systematic error in analysis pervading ToE models and thinking.So what is needed in education is a little more open-mindedness. One of the better ways to do this would be, imo, to allow overt criticism of evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism to be taught along with evolution. That way, students are being indoctrinated rather than educated.I don't doubt that many of the partisan evos here won't agree, but I take some comfort that according to the poll in the OP, a good majority of Americans are coming around to such sound thinking.On the question put forth by shraf, on should we teach about aliens since people claim alien abduction, I would just say I don't know of any courses in school addressing the issue, but if they did, I would hope they wouldn't teach it from the side that automatically a priori excludes the very concept of aliens in analysis. That doesn't mean I agree with the alien abduction thing, but school should be about educating people, not indoctrinating them.

We'll have to disagree. I think methodological naturalist do define science and material in such a manner to exclude a priori any consideration of a Creator and Designer, period, at any point and assert that even to consider such a thing is perverting science with religion. I think you really underestimate their aversion to being open-minded on this subject. Simple to educate them rather than indoctrinate them, and help them maintain a keen, inquistive, and open mind.

Holmes, you provided nothing but opinion. Please show where mainstream science is willing to admit the God hypothesis into any scientific curriculum, or is open to that possibility at all.I said we have to disagree to be charitable since what we see right here at evc demonstrates quite clearly that many feel God or religious concepts and theories are off-limits to science and that it is a perversion of science to introduce these concepts as hypotheses.