Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 31 of 48 (67485)
11-18-2003 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by keith63
11-18-2003 3:56 PM


quote:
That's your opinion. More than 80% of the public sampled seem to think otherwise.
Religious Tolerance has a good correction for your numbers, with references:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
They have the 1991 poll. From the population in general, 47% of people in the US are Creationist. 40% believe in theistic evolution. 9% believe God was uninvolved. The 1997 poll data was pretty much the same.
However, look at scientists (which includes fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, engineering, etc):
Creationist: 5%
Theistic Evolution: 40%
Naturalistic Evolution: 55%
(I've seen, elsewhere, polls that exclude unrelated fields; the number shrinks down to about 2%; when you look at the "preeminent" members of a field, it nears 1%).
The page also covers what percent of Americans take a literal view of the Bible, compared to other countries (we have among the highest percentages of creationists - the British, for example, were 4 times less likely to agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word." ) They also cover religious leaders elsewhere in the world, and their beliefs.
quote:
Scientist are the only population which seems to think that evolution is the only true alternative and they seem to have a religious agenda.
As I demonstrated, that's not true - 40% of Americans (and much more of the rest of the world) believe in theistic evolution - that God created/guided life on earth, and it evolved from there. The higher the education level you go, the less likely the person is to believe in Creationism. It's a level of evidence issue.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 3:56 PM keith63 has not replied

  
keith63
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 48 (67486)
11-18-2003 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
11-18-2003 4:05 PM


No I don't. THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 4:05 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM keith63 has not replied
 Message 36 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 4:44 PM keith63 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 48 (67487)
11-18-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:21 PM


Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals. And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution. If there was not then we would have issues comming up like Kansas, Ohio and Texas. In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance. The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation.
It's our own prejudices and biases that get in the way. Where in science is there evidence for the prejudices put forth by Darwin and Hitler?
What problems are there in Kansas et al.
In 100 years we will laugh because the first life will turn out to be very simple and only become complex over time.
The theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, you seem to making that mistake over and over. The theory of evolution starts with the first life, abiogenesis starts with no life. Very distinct theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:21 PM keith63 has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 34 of 48 (67489)
11-18-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:21 PM


quote:
Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals.
Off topic again. (sorry, it takes some getting used to). You may want to join in over at Elitism and Nazism.
quote:
And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution.
(Rei waves her finger in the direction of the link to the other thread on this topic)
quote:
If there was not then we would have issues comming up like Kansas, Ohio and Texas. In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance. The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation.
Those issues were not sponsored by scientists; they were sponsored by a coalition of religious leaders and elected officials. As I demonstrated, scientists have a much worse view of creationism than the average public. Public support for evolution, even in the US, has been steadily dropping since the concept was first proposed. Also, it's essentially a non-issue in the scientific community nowadays - it's a given.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:21 PM keith63 has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 35 of 48 (67491)
11-18-2003 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:34 PM


quote:
No I don't. THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence.
It may surprise you to learn this (as you seem to be fairly new to the debate). but most of these papers have already been torn to bits in review. Present one here so that we can discuss it (start it in its own thread), just so you get an idea of how bad the level of pseudoscience is. Also, if you want to read about your favorite creationist authors, I suggest you check out their credentials first (just a small list).
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:34 PM keith63 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 8:41 PM Rei has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 48 (67492)
11-18-2003 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:34 PM


THere is a ton of data being collected by scientists who diagree with the theory of evolution but that evidence is censored by the peer reviewers who edit the journals. Here are some of them.
Do you know of any of the rejection letters from the publications? I would be interested in why they were rejected which should be pointed out quite specifically in the rejection letter.
The only way you can say this is not science is to make up a deffinition which automatically eleminates anything which points to intelligence.
ICR eliminates any evidence that contradicts the Bible off hand without any scientific justification. Which do you think is more honest, rejecting evidence because of a presupposed belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis or rejection of a theory that lacks evidence? I would vote for the latter.
In other words, ICR does a good job of eliminating intelligence on its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:34 PM keith63 has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 37 of 48 (67493)
11-18-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by keith63
11-18-2003 4:21 PM


kieth63 writes:
Funny you should mention that because that is the problem we get with evolution. Darwin thought that Blacks were inferior to whites, he also thought women were inferior to men. Hitler was an evolutionist and look what he did to the Jews and homosexuals.
What do the distorted views of a few individuals have to do with the validity of theory of evolution? One could also say that gravity requires that objects follow their natural geodesic, and therefore I should push people off of tall buildings. That a person could concoct such unreasonable consequences of scientific theories has no affect on the actual truth of the theory itself.
keith63 writes:
And there is a movement among scientists against the theory of evolution.
How many are named Steve?
Seriously, there are a lot of scientists in the world, and the law of averages says that there will be a certain small percentage of them that are loons. That's just a fact of life. I'd hardly say that these are mounting a scientific movement against evolution since those that propose theistic creationism aren't proposing a scientific theory. Maybe you could call it a political movement since its proponents more closely resemble politicians than scientists.
keith63 writes:
In 100 years we will probably be laughed at for thinking that all this complexity happened by chance.
I'll already laugh at anybody who thinks that evolution proposes "that all this complexity happened by chance," and I hope in 100 years I can still laugh at anyone who thinks that.
keith63 writes:
The theory of evolution will be placed in its rightful place with spontaneous generation.
Doubtful considering that the mechanisms that drive evolution have been directly observed, and yet spontaneous generation was specifically falsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 4:21 PM keith63 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 7:07 PM :æ: has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 38 of 48 (67532)
11-18-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by :æ:
11-18-2003 4:48 PM


Topic Drift
This is beginning to look like topic drift to me (but I'm new at this). Whaddya think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 4:48 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 8:18 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 39 of 48 (67559)
11-18-2003 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by AdminNosy
11-18-2003 7:07 PM


Re: Topic Drift
AdminNosy writes:
Whaddya think?
I concur, and in the future I shall scrutinize the contents of my replies more closely with the original topic in mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 7:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 40 of 48 (67561)
11-18-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:37 PM


Re: subtext
I think his lesson plan is intended for Mr. Spock and Commander Data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:37 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 11-19-2003 12:46 AM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 41 of 48 (67565)
11-18-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rei
11-18-2003 4:43 PM


ICR Paper
REI,
Have you had a chance to "Shread" this particular ICR paper by Keith Davies? If so could you link me so I can read what you all said.
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 4:43 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 9:04 PM Lizard Breath has replied
 Message 44 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 9:45 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 42 of 48 (67572)
11-18-2003 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Lizard Breath
11-18-2003 8:41 PM


Re: ICR Paper
You're off topic, please open another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 8:41 PM Lizard Breath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 9:07 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Lizard Breath
Member (Idle past 6696 days)
Posts: 376
Joined: 10-19-2003


Message 43 of 48 (67573)
11-18-2003 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminNosy
11-18-2003 9:04 PM


Re: ICR Paper
Roger that, I'm outta here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 9:04 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 44 of 48 (67582)
11-18-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Lizard Breath
11-18-2003 8:41 PM


Re: ICR Paper
(response moved to A young sun - a response)
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 8:41 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 48 (67628)
11-19-2003 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Lizard Breath
11-18-2003 8:35 PM


Re: subtext
What does this mean? Is there supposed to be something to respond to here?? I know nothing much about Star Trek and I did not comment on it in the Matrix thread so I can only take this a fictional comment. Please tell me otherwise else that is what I will be forced to conclude. Dan legitimately asked how the plan could be brought down to the high school level. I do not considering relating baramins only to films will work. So please lizard breath show us the Jacobsian Organ you must posses then. I do however not disregard the possiblity that Marsh *must* be respected EVEN if Croizat thought some of the same things as Remine before the late 80s but that WILL NOT be something to be simply directed or produced but rather established by the historical consensus of a majority. This is not random words. Taking Lizard Breath as saying something of substance if it is not essential IS to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 8:35 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024