Root of all Evil
- Started
- Last post
- 260 Responses
- flagellum0
But, we've already established your intellectual dishonesty, so I'll keep my facts to myself. :)
Just wanted to link up that article which is on topic.
- Baskerville0
I take it you didn't read it, or you wouldn't be so pleased with yourself.
"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."
Ie, they are in exams so that students understand that some poeple don't believe in science. which is fine. They are not teaching creationism.
- flagellum0
The article also says:
"Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.
Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)". "
Which means that controversies regarding Darwinian Evolution will be considered and debated.
Something Mr. Dawkins will not be happy about.
- flagellum0
and children are already being taught that which is not science. ;)
- Brookoioioi0
Debate the theory of origin with a creationist?
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
roflmao
Seriously though, i think those fertility embryologists are obviously scared because they refuse to even enter into a debate with my proposal of the "stork theory" of birth.
- flagellum0
woohoo! aint it a hoot!?
It's like them Darwinian Mystics who believe that the equivalent of typographical errors turned rocks, atmospheric gasses and unspecified liquid concoctions into Chopin in 10^17 seconds and that mindless natural mechanism somehow generated Complex Specified Information.
Fun fun.
- ********0
Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)". "
flagellum
(Mar 10 06, 06:59)Yeah like teachers telling pupils that once upon a time people thought fossils were the remains of animals who died in Noah's flood and then explaining how visionary scientists in the last two hundred years debunked that using scientific method.
Nothing wrong with that. Dawkins would approve. I think you are over excited over very little. Plus the media tend to blow things out of proportion by making an issue where there isn't. No ones proposing to teach irreducible complexity or any of that nonsence. Just about how people used to try and fit creation myths into scientific method.
- Brookoioioi0
another non sequitur argument.
why am i not suprised?
- flagellum0
Wildflower,
There is little that scientists can do with fossil remains, sans soft-tissue, beyond building a narrative which fits into their presuppositions. With every new fossil find, the plot thickens and more questions are raised. What we do know is that the fossil record shows abruptly appearing and distinct body plans that do not demonstrate Darwinian gradualism.
Dawkins I do not think would approve of any mention of origin theories except strict Darwinism. But this comes down to a matter of opinion. I believe he is a Mystic anyways.
Explain to me how Irreducible Complexity is "nonsense".
- flagellum0
Another straw man argument. Why am I also not surprised? ;)
- ********0
sorry flagellum, i think you misunderstand me :)
I'm not interested in your kooky theories or discussing evengelical christianity with you. I was just tempering your excitement over the english school board syllabus. I dont see why Dawkins would have a problem kids being taught the trajectory of science, from those using science to look for the garden of eden hundreds of years ago, to what we know science to be today. I'd say he'd by quite pleased. No one seems to be saying that Creationism will be treated as though its a scientific discipline.
But i think you're just looking for an excuse to belligerently steam roll your views onto others :)
- Brookoioioi0
I love it when you blather about "the fossil record" as if you didn't read it of some fudie website like AiG, little do you know that if we did have a complete fossil record (which thankfully for all taxonomists we don't) we wouldn't be able to tell where one species stopped and another started.
And i don't believe for one second you have read any dawkins first hand. Only in the fanatical dribbblings you constantly "poast" to this forum.
- flagellum0
I find it interesting that you equate my calmly sharing views (which clearly differ from the majority here) as "belligerently steamrolling".
And "Creationism" shouldn't be taught as a "scientific discipline" it is based on the Biblical Genesis Narrative and thus does not belong in public schools. What should be taught is current science. It just so happens that current science favors much of Creation theory and Intelligent Design and points away from Darwinism.
- flagellum0
More and assumptions and straw men from Brookoi. Cute.
I think you know that I haven't said a single thing about the fossil record which isn't true. Nobody is asking for a "complete" fossil record. What we are asking for is evidence of Darwinian Gradualism and it's not there.
- ********0
Yes, i agree with you flagellum :)
Though i think your "belligerently steam rolling" happens whne you manage to sucker people into arguing absolute Christian truth with you. I mean, i know what you're doing, continuosly raising I.D on this forum. You think it's your Chrisitian duty to spread the word of Jesus, and you think constantly arguing and talking about this might convince just one, just one person on this forum to have doubts, and it will all have been worth it. Which is fair enough.
I was just sticking to the topic. That, as you say, "Creationism" isn't science, and that its only included in the english syllabus to demonstrate how people's approach to science has shifted. Though I haven't seen the proposed syllabus, by the sounds of it, it may just mean how science was first used by the religionists and today its the rationalists. Nothing wrong in being taught that. That's like teaching children how people in the old days used to believe the earth is flat. No value in itself, but its a good context to discuss the voyages of columbus.
Understand?
Anyway, take care bro.
- Brookoioioi0
The disipulem randomly babbled:
"What should be taught is current science. It just so happens that current science favors much of Creation theory and Intelligent Design and points away from Darwinism."
Maybe you didn't read it (i know you did) The Dover court ruling, ID is creationism etc, can't be taught etc, is not science, etc.................!
p.s, now is the time to tell me this Republiucan, Chritstian, Bush appointed, Judge is a 'radical' , yadda yadda.....
- flagellum0
Wildflower,
First you conflate ID with "spreading the word of Jesus". Secondly, I simply linked up a relevant article in a topic I didn't start. You'll find that I haven't started a single thread about religion or intelligent design here. I simply post my viewpoint in threads which have already started. So, I'm hardly proselytizing.
And yes, I think I agree with you that it's important to understand the world-view and intellectual climate which spawn certain ideas. Especially when they are taught to kids.
- flagellum0
Ok, brookoioil, you have demonstrated again that you just pull out red herrings and try to belittle. This is why your side is losing this issue. ID has already won scientifically, the rest is a PR battle.
Judge Jones - "the Rogue"! His decision means absolutely nothing. Judicial fiat - hah! Like small-time judges should be deciding matters of science. Here, learn about his errors and why that trial means nothing, except a growing interest into ID:
http://www.stnews.org/Commentary…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
- Brookoioioi0
the discipuleum incoherently stuttered:
>I think you know that I haven't said a single thing about the fossil record which isn't true.
Lie
>Nobody is asking for a "complete" fossil record. What we are asking for is evidence of Darwinian Gradualism and it's not there.
Lie, and this is the big one, it would take the complete fossil record, which WOULD show gradual fossil change, before you finaly would have no choice but to attempt the difficult task of re-programming yourself around the now incontraversial evidence. Or truely join the deluded and ignored.
Luckily for both of us this won't happen. You get to carry on n your childrens fantasy. I get to know i'm right anyway.
- Brookoioioi0
The disipulem obeyed with:
"Judge Jones - "the Rogue"! His decision means absolutely nothing. Judicial fiat - hah! Like small-time judges should be deciding matters of science. Here, learn about his errors and why that trial means nothing, except a growing interest into ID:
www.stnews.org/Comment...
www.evolutionnews.org/..."Ding!!! 50 points
Bonus with +25 for each fundamentalist webiste
=
100 points