2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

If you aren't suggesting that the Designer is something different than the Jewish God, then I'm going to have to assume that the inverse is true - that you are suggest that the Designer is the Jewish God.How is that not religious?

sheesh fooled me.

---

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

Who or what I have concieved God to be is a complex issue, that would take threads to explain or even attempt to talk about. I agree with religions, and I disagree I guess, from what I have began to believe as truth, through experience, and life. Through those who have found what they were looking for. If you know what I mean.

---

"The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh

quote:

---

I thought you referred to Michael Ruse. Yea, the whole claim of evolution is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 shows how far removed the minds of evolutionists are from real science. It's a shame, but they are not educating people, but indoctrinating them.

---

So, can you please cite a couple of Evolutionary Biology or Population Genetics scholarly papers and explain how they do not meet the standards for being good science?You do claim that every single Evolutionary Biologists and Geneticist is incompetent or a liar, correct?

This is just a potshot or a grenade lobbed over the wall, not an argument. Your next post is of the same flavor. Responses crafted to elicit intemperate responses are discouraged by the Forum Guidelines. If you don't have any on-topic arguments to make that advance the discussion, please don't say anything.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Randman, Please don't judge us by your standards.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This would be an effective argument against evolution were it found to have any basis in fact. Organs like the appendix and tonsils are removed not because evolution thinks them vestigial, but because they cause harm or even, as can happen in the case of a burst appendix, death. The appendectomy operation predates Darwin's theory by a couple thousand years. In other words, we remove appendixes and tonsils not because they're vestigial but because they become a threat to health when they become diseased.The classification of vestigiality has been applied after the fact as an evolutionary explanation for how we could possess organs which seem so inessential to life. There are literally millions of people living normal lives without appendixes or tonsils, some without both. The question naturally arises, "How could this be?", and vestigiality is a possible explanation from within an evolutionary framework.But whether or not the appendix and tonsils and whatever other organs you had in mind are truly vestigial is not the relevant issue in this thread. The issue is that most Americans want Creationism taught. But the fact of the matter is that we don't put to a vote what are the most significant events of history, the greatest works of literature, or the significant achievements of science. It doesn't matter how many Americans want Creationism taught in school, just as it doesn't matter how many Americans want The Da Vinci Code taught in English class or Lord of the Rings taught in history class.Public school curriculums are usually developed by committees (usually appointed by Boards of Education) that solicit input from experts from the relevant fields. One of the serious problems Judge Jones found with the actions of the Dover group was that they sought out virtually no experts within science.The best judges of what constitutes actual science are scientists. A concerted program of name-calling and aspersion-casting against evolutionary scientists qualifies at best as a negative publicity campaign and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific validity of the theory of evolution.--Percy

Percy, it's not a potshot at all. Claiming that ToE is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 in an educational setting is such a gross overstatement and shows such a bizarre lack of understanding of knowledge, that indeed it shows that Dr Ruse in arguing for evolution has not clue as to what the nature of science is.In math, you can talk of proofs, and 2 plus 2 equaling 4 is not a theory, but a hard fact, something proven.The ToE, no matter how much you guys claim otherwise, is not proven. It is built up from conjecture, and often the data itself is analyzed with such an inherent bias that clear thinking among evos is impossible. If you want me to cite my usual examples of such lack of clear thinking, extremely prevalent for decades among evos both on a professional ane educational level I will.So statements that evolution is as true as 2 plus 2 equals 4 shows an extreme ignorance of the nature of science being more tentative than that, and the nature of evolutionary theory and the evidence and lack thereof supporting it. Evolutuonary theory is just not of the nature that it can be tested with a certainty as arithmetic can.If you guys cannot see that, I suggest something is wrong with your way of thinking about things. Such a gross overstatement should have been spotted immediately by the evos here. If it was not, the situation, in terms of indoctrination, is even worse than I thought.

While I disagree with his notion that ToE is not proven, I will side with Randman that there is a difference between ToE and addition.Addition is not very complex. There aren't a lot of mechanisms in 2+2.Evolution is a lot more complex and harder for people to understand.A better statement might be: "Evolution is as true as the periodic table." or "Darwin's Evolution is as true as Newton's Physics."

We remove legs, arms, kidneys and all sorts of thing when we have to. The fact you think merely we can and do remove something as evidence of an organ being vestigal and somehow validates ToE is a completely bizarre concept devoid of rationality, imo.In the past, evos considered a great many organs to be vestigal, including the thymus. Unfortunately, removing something like the thymus is far worse for you than to remove the appendix or tonsils, but then again, losing a leg is not as bad as losing a liver. So the fact some parts are more vital than others still is a very poor argument for advancing evolutionary theory. Heck, there are millions of people that have lost a finger or part of one living normal lives as well. Heck, one of them, Jerry Garcia, was even a pretty good guitar player before he passed away.There are millions without their gall bladders as well. Lots of things go bad and are removed, or removed by accident. Big deal, as far as evo arguments. I think a big problem percy is you guys think your theories are factual when a lot of other people see the propoganda nature of evolutionism. I don't think evos would be in such trouble with the public if they stuck to science and facts, but they have advanced, imo, pseudo-science, and regardless of what you feel, the American people have a right to educate their kids as they see fit.The government and schools are for and by the people, not the other way around. That's something evos would do well to remember. I suspect this case will be similar, but in reverse, to the Scopes-MOnkey trial, a harbinger of times to come....Imo, evos brought it upon themselves with all of the overstatements and hoaxes passed off as facts over the decades. Because of these things, I don't think evolution as a science deserves the respect or trust of the American people.

I think I understand your position, Randman, but it's an extreme minority view.In order to stand where you stand you have to know quite a bit about what evolutionary theory states. The majority of the anti-evolution movement are more like Calipsos "Apes don't build bridges!" comments.While I agree that the majority of American's have the right to teach their kids what they want -- IN THEIR OWN HOMES. I disagree that the majority gets to determine which religion other people's kids are taught in public schools.Even if you are right about your preceived flaws in Evolutionary theory, it would still not justify teaching Creationism in schools.

Well, my stance is teach the contoversy. Show what the critics of evolution say, side by side, with what evos claim.I think, for example, if I was allowed to post a pic of the latest and best illustration of "the first whale", Pakicetus, in a tone pointing out that it isn't a whale at all, that evos would be backtracking all over the country and forced to present sober arguments instead of wild tales and overstatements passed off as facts, and then both evos and non-evos would be better served.That would be real education instead of indoctrination.

randman, If at the same time everyone that saw your picture was taught cladistics, they would then understand why it is a basal cetacean. They would understand that classification is based on many characters & not just a few that creationists like to tout at the expense of all the others.Mark

You mean if students were subject to evo standards for cladistics, and years of virtual brainwashing, then calling a land mammal with virtually no whale features at all, the first whale, could be something they would accept. So we want the right to maintain our absurd overstatements and propaganda technigues because otherwise they might not buy things we want to teach on top of the initial overstatements and illogic.

So, you would be perfectly okay with a public school class that spent months on end picking over the Bible and pointing out all the ridiculous claims?Seems like that would trigger some sort of lawsuit from the radical right.