Should we legislate the teaching of creation science in American public school?

[citizenkyle]

I would like to open a dialogue on the following issue:
"Should we legislate the teaching of creation science in American public school science classrooms?"

Please try not to deviate from this specific topic. I do not want this thread to turn into a general "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate -- there are other threads dedicated to that. I will open the discussions with my take.

I have no problem with creation science being taught in American public schools -- on one condition. That condition is that creation science go through the same process from theory to curriculum that evolution did. In other words, when Darwin first published "Origin of the Species", evolution wasn't welcomed with open arms by the science community and adopted into the schools the next day. Darwin's ideas were met with vehement opposition at first. But as the years turned into decades, and evidence continued to mount in favor of evolution via other scientists' investigations, the science community was eventually won over. From there, evolution entered the university curriculum and spread at that level. Finally, after many years, evolution trickled down to public school level. If creation scientists would like to pursue this course and build a case strong enough to unseat evolution and replace it with the creation model within the scientific community, then entrance into the curriculum will inevitably (and rightly) follow. Of course, creation science has a long way to go in this regard.

What is unacceptable is for creation science advocates to bypass this process, opting instead to shoehorn their fringe theory into public school science classrooms via legislation at any level -- from the school board to the Supreme Court. If science curriculum is decided by legislative fiat, we will no longer be teaching science.

[J. J. Ramsey]

I think you've answered your own question, Kyle.

[Rubens]

Citizen Kyle, good question, but we need to examine your "take" carefully;

Citizenkyle

But as the years turned into decades, and evidence continued to mount in favor of evolution via other scientists' investigations, the science community was eventually won over.

This is a subjective statement. It could be argued that "evidence" has been going inconclusively either way since Darwin's book, but scientific (and public) opinion has been more successfully manipulated by civil libertarian and like-minded organisations who saw evolution as the ultimate "freedom from religion" campaign. Such agendas are real but beyond the scope of this forum (trying not to turn it into a creation vs evolution debate!)

Citizenkyle

that creation science go through the same process from theory to curriculum that evolution did

Fair enough, but the real question here is, exactly how long has "Creation Science" been around? If you refer to the more recent (two or so decades) efforts by certain scientists to align scientific observations with Biblical claims, then I would concede this is a "young" science and perhaps should endure the kind of process you have suggested.

However, there is more to Creation Science than this. Below the surface of the most accepted translations of the Christian Bible there is more than (some of) our Christian ancestors were aware. There is authenticated Biblical text that, when diligently studied, reveals details which actually underpin science!

Since this text has been around for some thousands of years, one could argue that it has earned the right to be on any curriculum, scientific or otherwise!

Again, a full explanation of the part in italics above would be beyond the scope of this post. Perhaps it is unvoidable that this could turn into a typical creation vs evolution debate after all!

Thanks for the question, Citizenkyle.

[Sozo]

No we shouldn't, but we should legislate the removal of the unscientific philosophy of evolution.

[Captain Ochre]

Sozo:
No we shouldn't, but we should legislate the removal of the unscientific philosophy of evolution.

Seems to me that a better solution--at least for students who are in the process of actually learning to reason--would be to bring philosophy of science issues more to light in conjunction with the teaching of science.
Pull the presuppositions out from under the table, as it were.

[Berserker]

This forum does not ahve polls???

Rubens and Sozo

As for your belief that evolution is unscientific that is false. It has followed the scientific process to the T. As for the statement that evidence for evolution is contradictory that is also false. Almost all evidence and test of the evolutionary process have shown positive results. Evolution has been proven over and over again so much that the only scientific principles with any more evidence would be the law of thermodynamics!

[Sozo]

Berserker:
This forum does not ahve polls???

Rubens and Sozo

As for your belief that evolution is unscientific that is false. It has followed the scientific process to the T. As for the statement that evidence for evolution is contradictory that is also false. Almost all evidence and test of the evolutionary process have shown positive results. Evolution has been proven over and over again so much that the only scientific principles with any more evidence would be the law of thermodynamics!

I guess in some ways that's true, you have proved that at least one monkey can type. It's the reasoning part where you get lost.

[Berserker]

explain?

[Sozo]

Berserker:
explain?

There is no winding up, unless there is a winder.

[Socrates]

Teachers should not be FORCED to teach creation -- I certainly wouldn't want an atheist teaching it and deliberately distorting it like they usually do! The major creationist organizations are also not involved in any lobbying for compulsion.

But teachers should be ALLOWED to present evidence contrary to evolution. But the evolutionary zealots have given teachers a hard time even when they have presented articles from scientific journals showing that the textbook diagrams of embryo "similarity" were forgeries, or presenting purely chemical arguments against chemical evolution (aka abiogenesis).

[Berserker]

How were they forgeries?

What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution? Evolution only theorizes that all life came for a common ancestor or group of ancestors. Were that ancestor came from is a subject of probiotic theory and not evolution. To put it bluntly evolution only shows how life changes and adapts over time and has nothing to do with the beginning.

May I ask why your so against evolution?

[Captain Ochre]

Berserker:
How were they forgeries?


Haeckel apparently altered images to support presentation of his theory of recapitulation:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Haekel.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar02.html
(third correspondence from the top)



What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?


It is a corollary of the evolutionary cosmology.



Evolution only theorizes that all life came for a common ancestor or group of ancestors.


That's another corollary of evolutionary cosmology, known as "common descent" but belief in common descent isn't essential to belief in either abiogenesis or "a change in frequency of alleles over time".



Were that ancestor came from is a subject of probiotic theory and not evolution. To put it bluntly evolution only shows how life changes and adapts over time and has nothing to do with the beginning.


Granted, the average evolutionary skeptic uses the vocabulary differently than the evolutionary disciple, which is an unfortunate thing with respect to effective communication.

[Berserker]

I don't see how there forgeries today since anyone can look at a embroy and make the same observations.

[Captain Ochre]

Berserker:
I don't see how there forgeries today since anyone can look at a embroy and make the same observations.

You must have missed the part at talk.origins where they said that nobody takes Haeckel's recapitulation theory seriously anymore.

[citizenkyle]

Rubens:
This is a subjective statement. It could be argued that "evidence" has been going inconclusively either way since Darwin's book, but scientific (and public) opinion has been more successfully manipulated by civil libertarian and like-minded organisations who saw evolution as the ultimate "freedom from religion" campaign. Such agendas are real but beyond the scope of this forum (trying not to turn it into a creation vs evolution debate!)

Certainly creationists would contend that the evidence for evolution is inconclusive, but I wasn't even arguing as to whether the evidence is convincing or not. All I said was that the scientific community has been overwhelmingly convinced by the evidence. And, on the whole, I think we ought to give them credit for being swayed by evidence as opposed to civil libertarian propaganda -- after all, many of these scientists (especially in Darwin's day) were not civil libertarians.


Rubens:
However, there is more to Creation Science than this. Below the surface of the most accepted translations of the Christian Bible there is more than (some of) our Christian ancestors were aware. There is authenticated Biblical text that, when diligently studied, reveals details which actually underpin science!

That view is rejected by the vast majority of scientists. If the reverse were true, perhaps we could adopt the Bible into science curriculum, but not until then.

[citizenkyle]

Sozo:
No we shouldn't, but we should legislate the removal of the unscientific philosophy of evolution.

Who has determined that evolution is "unscientific"? Certainly not the scientific community. When a particular view is held by 99.8% of earth and life scientists, I have a hard time rejecting it as "unscientific".

[citizenkyle]

Socrates:
Teachers should not be FORCED to teach creation -- I certainly wouldn't want an atheist teaching it and deliberately distorting it like they usually do! The major creationist organizations are also not involved in any lobbying for compulsion.

But teachers should be ALLOWED to present evidence contrary to evolution.

I have no problem with teachers discussing Haeckel's discredited embryo studies or the fraudulent Piltdown man. Such cases are great ways to highlight science's error correcting machinery. After all, let us remember that is it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, who uncovered these errors. But if teachers present such cases as evidence that somehow undermines evolution, they are doing their students a great disservice.

I don't think we can "allow" teachers to espouse whatever view they please. Hence, a curriculum. In the curriculum, evolution is either scientifically tenable or it is not. The teachers should not deviate from the curriculum based on personal prejudice. Should we "allow" a flat earth advocate to teach evidence as undermining the earth's curvature?

[Yog^sothoth]

:help: Who alters the perceptions of evolution more? Creationists or atheists? In the end who suffers from all this bickering? True scientists who could care one way or the other about creationists or atheists, they care about data and method.

I just wish we could all get along. Maybe they can design a brain virus which wipes out angry atheists views....:tongue:

[Berserker]

AMEN to that Yog^sothoth!!!

:cheers:

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Teach the controversy" has been suggested as a solution. If students were presented not only with the theory of evolution but with objections to the theory and objections to those objections, they would not only get a good grounding in biology, but also critical thinking. The catch is that not many would be very happy with this. The creationists of various stripes wouldn't like it, since it would involve serious scrutiny of their arguments; the teachers wouldn't like it, because it would probably lead to very heated discussion; and churches in general probably wouldn't like it because it would appear to be an attack on religion.

[citizenkyle]

J. J. Ramsey:
"Teach the controversy" has been suggested as a solution. If students were presented not only with the theory of evolution but with objections to the theory and objections to those objections, they would not only get a good grounding in biology, but also critical thinking. The catch is that not many would be very happy with this. The creationists of various stripes wouldn't like it, since it would involve serious scrutiny of their arguments; the teachers wouldn't like it, because it would probably lead to very heated discussion; and churches in general probably wouldn't like it because it would appear to be an attack on religion.

I think "teach the controversy" might have a place in schools -- but in a social studies or debate class, not a biology class. After all, there really is no controversy in the biological science community (about the *validity* of evolution, anyway). If they want to teach the controversy between punctuated equlibirium and Darwinnian gradualism, they have my blessing. :)

[JCA]

Why is everyone missing a very important point in all this?

The minute you give one group that is NOT mainstream Science, the classroom floor.. so will you have to for others who can come up with a mildly Scientific explanation for thier views, or 'religion'.

Personally, I agree that Creationism should be taught, but as suggested and not in the Science classroom. The minute you do that, you will have the Raelians, and every other semi-scientific group scrambling to ge THEIR message heard.. and personally, I don't think I want my children being indoctrinated into Scientology, or running off to join the 'mother ship'.

Think about it.. people are complaining about Science being taught, but what is being suggested will only bring more indecision and 'choice' into the classrooms than you might want.

Think about it.. look over US history.. feel the pressure of the lobbyists.. it's only one step beyond what some people are suggesting.

In Love and Peace

JCA

[J. J. Ramsey]

JCA:
Why is everyone missing a very important point in all this?

The minute you give one group that is NOT mainstream Science, the classroom floor.. so will you have to for others who can come up with a mildly Scientific explanation for thier views, or 'religion'.
. . . The minute you do that, you will have the Raelians, and every other semi-scientific group scrambling to ge THEIR message heard..


Technically speaking, that's the slippery-slope fallacy, but you do have a point in that if some religion-science debate gets into the science classroom, that sets a precedent for the Raelians and other fringe groups, etc., to at least try to get their $0.02 in. Whether or not they succeed is another matter, but it would probably make for a legal circus.

(BTW, I highly doubt that the Scientologists would want their views on creation in the classroom. From what I've read, they not only prefer to keep their more exotic beliefs out of the public eye, but have sued people for uncovering them.)

[Yog^sothoth]

I walk by a scientology...ummmm....church? every day on the way to class. They have a more than insidious sign that says, NOW HIRING! inquire within. With jobless rates like they are right now in the former high tech market of Austin this is just too mean! Someone I know joined their cult-like following not too long ago and had to leave when he owed them too much money! They are actually hurting his credit because of things they forced him to do!

Crazed, I once heard that scientology is the result of a bet put forward by L. Ron Hubbard to Issac Asimov. Hubbard wanted to bet on who could live longer seeing as how their views differed. Asimov said that by writing an astounding amount of books one could be remembered forever (reference a Philip K. Dick short about this authors of sci-fi being precogs), while hubbard said that only by creating a religion could one be remembered.

I wonder who would win? Maybe evolution shouldn't be taught about Humans until we know the absolute truth, but evolution of other species could be?

compromise....the great mediator?

[citizenkyle]

Yog^sothoth:
Crazed, I once heard that scientology is the result of a bet put forward by L. Ron Hubbard to Issac Asimov. Hubbard wanted to bet on who could live longer seeing as how their views differed. Asimov said that by writing an astounding amount of books one could be remembered forever (reference a Philip K. Dick short about this authors of sci-fi being precogs), while hubbard said that only by creating a religion could one be remembered.

I heard something along those lines too. I haven't checked it out though so it could be pure fiction for all I know.


Yog^sothoth:
I wonder who would win? Maybe evolution shouldn't be taught about Humans until we know the absolute truth, but evolution of other species could be?

compromise....the great mediator?

I don't think that's a workable compromise. The evolution of humans is not a separate issue as far as biology is concerned. If evolution is true for all other animals, it would be absurd to exclude humans. And the people this compromise is pandering to, Biblical creationists, probably would balk, as the Bible clearly describes God "creating" *all* animals.

[citizenkyle]

As an appendix to my last post, I should also mention that the idea of a political compromise determining science curriculum is distasteful in the extreme. The public shouldn't get to vote on what is taught in the classrooms (can you imagine if all curriculum content was decided that way? ) Determination of curriculum properly belongs in the hands of the professsional academics in a given field. And since 99.8% of life and earth scientists hold evolution to be true, compromise is quite unnecesary.

[Socrates]

Who has determined that evolution is "unscientific"? Certainly not the scientific community. When a particular view is held by 99.8% of earth and life scientists, I have a hard time rejecting it as "unscientific".This is just argumentum ad verecundiam. Since by far the most science is operational rather than origins/historical, this alleged majority view is irrelevant because it's outside their fields of expertise. Also, I personally know a number of medical doctors and fellow scientists who believe in evolution because they were taught the peppered moths and embryonic recapitulation. Finally, in so many cases, the evolutionary view is not the result of science, but rather a meta-scientific philosophical decision to adopt a materialist or methodological naturalistic view of Earth history.


I have no problem with teachers discussing Haeckel's discredited embryo studies or the fraudulent Piltdown man. Such cases are great ways to highlight science's error correcting machinery. After all, let us remember that is it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, who uncovered these errors.So what? It took 40 years to uncover the Piltdown hoax and even longer to uncover Haeckel's frauds. So save that "science is self-correcting" nonsense for the naive, and don't waste our time with it.

But if teachers present such cases as evidence that somehow undermines evolution, they are doing their students a great disservice. They should certainly point out that these undermine what had been regarded as irrefutable proofs of evolution.


I don't think we can "allow" teachers to espouse whatever view they please. Hence, a curriculum. In the curriculum, evolution is either scientifically tenable or it is not. The teachers should not deviate from the curriculum based on personal prejudice. Well then, present the data which is interpreted as proof for evolution, and also that which is regarded as evidence against it. It is only evolutionists who try to stifle competition. Classes in physics and astronomy go through Ptolemaic astronomy to teach why it was wrong and how criticisms helped to develop the laws of motion and gravity and the mathematical branch of calculus. But evolutionists can't bear to allow any challenges to their system, because it might break the materialist stranglehold (which of course is Kyle's main reason for wanting evolution-only).


Should we "allow" a flat earth advocate to teach evidence as undermining the earth's curvature?Since the flat earth is refuted by operational science, I would like to see kids know the reasons.

[Yog^sothoth]

Socrates, a point of clarity if you will.

Do you believe that species evolve?

This is NOT saying that species evolve into other species.

Ok, we'll put it this way.

Do you believe that species change (not into other species, just change as in adapt to a new environmental change)?

thanks in advance.

[Bill K.]

Cit. K.
I take it you are looking for a political debate and not a "general "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate"?
As a former educator, I've had some thought on this.

First off, I would say that no theory or subject should be legislated. Gov't should have nothing to do with education. I personally advocate a constitutional amendment for the separation of Education and State. How curriculums are chosen should be based on a sound theory of education proven in the courts of history coupled with parental oversight. That's my answer in a nutshell, and I could expound on this if you would like, but I think you were looking for something else, so let me look at your own answer.

You state your "one condition" with an near a-historical blindness. Remember the "Scopes Trial?" Evolution is in our schools by legislative fiat. The process you have envisioned is a myth. Creation studies are kept out of our schools not by any process you envision, but by the same fiat. (I am NOT a "Scientific Creationist" by the way, so don't think I have an agenda outside of people learning to think and remaining free.)

My own alternative would be simple. Move all THEORIES of origins to a Philosophy of Origins class. This would allow for students to test their logical and debating metal on a real point of interest. Since science is based on the reproduction of results in a controlled environment, rather than on mere trust in a hypothetical continuity between percieved likenesses aka., Evolution, I would say that the Origins class would bring up some wonderful debating point.

Still, I get the impression from your posts, that this is the last thing you would want. You are looking for "protectionism" and have chosen to believe a myth to get it. True education protects nobody's theory. My own experience has taught me that truth triumphs in an open forum, or as Thoman Jefferson put it, "Error alone needs the support of Government..."

A few other points...

You said: "and evidence continued to mount in favor of evolution via other scientists' investigations, the science community was eventually won over."

I think it is amusing that a person so against the teaching of myth for science should have swallowed such a myth himself.
Your view comes straight from our modern Dephic Oracles. I suggest you be less concerned about Science curriculum and get to slapping a lawsuit on your former history teachers.

You said: "opting instead to shoehorn their fringe theory into public school science classrooms via legislation at any level -- from the school board to the Supreme Court. If science curriculum is decided by legislative fiat, we will no longer be teaching science."

Funny, I could envision a creationist saying this same thing when Evolution was being shoved down their throats.

Some of those answering you on this thread have said some good things, I would listen to them.

Later,
Bil

[Socrates]

Yog^sothoth:
Socrates, a point of clarity if you will.How many times must I clarify it?


Do you believe that species evolve?

This is NOT saying that species evolve into other species.

Ok, we'll put it this way.

Do you believe that species change (not into other species, just change as in adapt to a new environmental change)?I can't think of any creationist who doesn't.

If you weren't so busy whinging about referring to AiG articles that clearly present creationist information and insisting that I reinvent the wheel every time, you wouldn't have needed to ask something which I've answered (and sometimes from my own brain too :tongue:) many times already. This section on What is evolution? and What is the Biblical creation model? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#what) should help :read:.

Now I see why AiG advises against taking part in web debates — they even said that one would have to keep having to explain the same thing over and over.:argh:

[citizenkyle]

02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
This is just argumentum ad verecundiam.

Maybe. But there is some validity to the argument. After all, if we are determining what is to fall under the rubric of science curriculum, should we look to the overwhelming majority of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of such subjects, or should we look to the average man on the street who can barely spell "mitochondria" much less explain it? That would be tantamount to teaching a seminary class while ignoring the vast body of Biblical scholarship and instead relying on a laymen's interpretation (or, more aptly, a fringe group's interpretation such as Mormons or JWs).

And isn’t it odd that of the tiny percentage of scientists who support Biblical creationism (and deny evolution), they are almost always conservative Christians? All those other scientists aren’t atheists, you know. The ranks of science are made up of Christians and Hindus and Jews and Deists, etc. not to mention people who just aren’t interested in religion. If the evidence was really so strong, one would think that some of these people would’ve been swayed.


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
Since by far the most science is operational rather than origins/historical, this alleged majority view is irrelevant because it's outside their fields of expertise.

Hmmm. Evolution is outside the expertise of earth and life scientists? That's a curious view. What fields are relevant? Paleontology? Genetics? Geology? I'm pretty sure our 99%+ figure holds for them as well.


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
Also, I personally know a number of medical doctors and fellow scientists who believe in evolution because they were taught the peppered moths and embryonic recapitulation.

Your personal sample is irrelevant. I personally know lots of Christians who believe in creationism because their momma told them so when they were sitting on her knee. Does that mean all creationists base their beliefs on such things?


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
So what? It took 40 years to uncover the Piltdown hoax and even longer to uncover Haeckel's frauds.

What does the length of time how to do with anything? It took over a thousand years to displace the Ptolemaic model of the solar system with the Copernican one--does this somehow damage Copernicus’ case?


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
So save that "science is self-correcting" nonsense for the naive, and don't waste our time with it.

Huh? I’m pretty sure you agreed with me in an previous thread that science has error-correcting machinery built in. Now it’s nonsense?


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
They should certainly point out that these undermine what had been regarded as irrefutable proofs of evolution.

Ok, I’ll agree with you on that. And while they are at it, the teachers should point out the folly of any scientists who actually touted such things as “irrefutable”.


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
Well then, present the data which is interpreted as proof for evolution, and also that which is regarded as evidence against it.


I have no problem with evidence against evolution being taught—so long as that evidence is accepted as valid by the vast majority of the scientific community. This disaqualifies the bulk of the creationist arsenal.


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
It is only evolutionists who try to stifle competition. Classes in physics and astronomy go through Ptolemaic astronomy to teach why it was wrong and how criticisms helped to develop the laws of motion and gravity and the mathematical branch of calculus.

But they don’t teach Ptolemaic astronomy as a “competing view”. They teach it as an outmoded worldview left in the dust by modern science. I have no problem with creationism being taught in this fashion, but I imagine you do.


02-24-2003 @ 04:17 AM
Socrates:
But evolutionists can't bear to allow any challenges to their system, because it might break the materialist stranglehold (which of course is Kyle's main reason for wanting evolution-only).

I’ll make you a deal. If all the Christian churches agree to follow readings from Genesis with readings from Darwin then I will accept the teaching of creationism in school. Until then, let’s leave the Bible to clergymen and evolution to scientists.

[citizenkyle]

02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:

First off, I would say that no theory or subject should be legislated. Gov't should have nothing to do with education. I personally advocate a constitutional amendment for the separation of Education and State. How curriculums are chosen should be based on a sound theory of education proven in the courts of history coupled with parental oversight. That's my answer in a nutshell, and I could expound on this if you would like, but I think you were looking for something else, so let me look at your own answer.

Separation of education and state is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure of its practical value. I have yet to see a model for privatization that is workable on a large scale.


02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:
You state your "one condition" with an near a-historical blindness. Remember the "Scopes Trial?"

Ummm...it was creationists who were the prosecutors in the Scopes case, and they won the decision. I fail to see how that demonstrates your case.


02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:
My own alternative would be simple. Move all THEORIES of origins to a Philosophy of Origins class. This would allow for students to test their logical and debating metal on a real point of interest. Since science is based on the reproduction of results in a controlled environment, rather than on mere trust in a hypothetical continuity between percieved likenesses aka., Evolution, I would say that the Origins class would bring up some wonderful debating point.

You appeal to the common argument that evolution is "just a theory" and therfore not real science. I say it's not up to you (or me) to make that judgment--it is in the hands of the science community. And they have emphatically judged evolution as falling within the pale of scientific orthodoxy.


02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:
Still, I get the impression from your posts, that this is the last thing you would want. You are looking for "protectionism" and have chosen to believe a myth to get it. True education protects nobody's theory. My own experience has taught me that truth triumphs in an open forum, or as Thoman Jefferson put it, "Error alone needs the support of Government..."

At the university and professional level, evolution is not protected. Any scientist is free to submit contrary evidence to journals and make a case against evolution. But that's not the job of public school educators. At that level, because of the scientific illiteracy of the general populace, some "protectionism" against demagoguery may be in order.


02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:
I think it is amusing that a person so against the teaching of myth for science should have swallowed such a myth himself.
Your view comes straight from our modern Dephic Oracles. I suggest you be less concerned about Science curriculum and get to slapping a lawsuit on your former history teachers.

If you could provide me with references demonstrating a contrary view, I would appreciate it.


02-24-2003 @ 05:59 AM
Bill K.:
You said: "opting instead to shoehorn their fringe theory into public school science classrooms via legislation at any level -- from the school board to the Supreme Court. If science curriculum is decided by legislative fiat, we will no longer be teaching science."

Funny, I could envision a creationist saying this same thing when Evolution was being shoved down their throats.

I am unaware of any court decisions mandating the teaching of evolution when it was "fringe theory". Once again, references would be appreciated.

[Stratnerd]

Soc,

fellow scientists what flavor of scientist are you?

[Socrates]

CitizenKyle wrote:

Maybe. But there is some validity to the argument. After all, if we are determining what is to fall under the rubric of science curriculum, should we look to the overwhelming majority of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of such subjectsThis begs the question of whether evolution is truly science, since it has nothing to do with real operational science.

And isn’t it odd that of the tiny percentage of scientists who support Biblical creationism (and deny evolution), they are almost always conservative Christians?Genetic fallacy anyone? All those other scientists aren’t atheists, you know.But the leaders are atheists, as are you, despite the usual strategy of anti-theists like eugenie Scott to recruit useful idiots from the ranks of the clergy. The ranks of science are made up of Christians and Hindus and Jews and Deists, etc. Of course, but evolution has nothing to do with science.
not to mention people who just aren’t interested in religion. If the evidence was really so strong, one would think that some of these people would’ve been swayed. Peer pressure is very strong. People follow the crowd. Even many churchians crave academic respectability so they kowtow to the materialistic rules of so-called science.

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Since by far the most science is operational rather than origins/historical, this alleged majority view is irrelevant because it's outside their fields of expertise.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. Evolution is outside the expertise of earth and life scientists? That's a curious view. What fields are relevant? Paleontology? Genetics? Geology? I'm pretty sure our 99%+ figure holds for them as well. That's the whole problem -- evolution is a belief system about the past, and has nothing to do with operational science, but everything to do with a naturalistic paradigm about the past by which data are interpreted.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Also, I personally know a number of medical doctors and fellow scientists who believe in evolution because they were taught the peppered moths and embryonic recapitulation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Your personal sample is irrelevant. I personally know lots of Christians who believe in creationism because their momma told them so when they were sitting on her knee. Does that mean all creationists base their beliefs on such things? No, but it shows that a simplistic appeal to majority opinion is irrelevant without knowing WHY these beliefs are held. Science is supposed to be about evidence not appeals to authority.


----------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
So what? It took 40 years to uncover the Piltdown hoax and even longer to uncover Haeckel's frauds.
----------------------------------------------------------------
[list]
What does the length of time how to do with anything? It took over a thousand years to displace the Ptolemaic model of the solar system with the Copernican one--does this somehow damage Copernicus’ case? Point missed again. Outright forgeries which weren't even very clever are hugely different from an honest model in which more and more anomalies were discovered.

I have no problem with evidence against evolution being taught—so long as that evidence is accepted as valid by the vast majority of the scientific community. This disaqualifies the bulk of the creationist arsenal. What would you know? And once again, this is an appeal to authority rather than analysis of the evidence. I've amply shown that creation is rejected NOT because of any "facts" but because it refuses to play by the atheists' self-serving rule of naturalism. I've also cited the censorship by the establishment journals of any challenges to materialism, e.g. by Scientific American, as shown by the AiG rebuttal (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp)

--------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
It is only evolutionists who try to stifle competition. Classes in physics and astronomy go through Ptolemaic astronomy to teach why it was wrong and how criticisms helped to develop the laws of motion and gravity and the mathematical branch of calculus.
--------------------------------------------------------------

But they don’t teach Ptolemaic astronomy as a “competing view”. They teach it as an outmoded worldview left in the dust by modern science. They taught both views and showed why it was left in the dust, rather than simply asserted this.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
But evolutionists can't bear to allow any challenges to their system, because it might break the materialist stranglehold (which of course is Kyle's main reason for wanting evolution-only).
----------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll make you a deal. If all the Christian churches agree to follow readings from Genesis with readings from Darwin then I will accept the teaching of creationism in school. Until then, let’s leave the Bible to clergymen and evolution to scientists.I'm a scientist, and there are plenty of other scientists who believe in creation, so cut the crap. And I notice no one trying to stop the likes of Dawko spruiking forth inanely about the Bible.

Here's the major difference—no one forces you to pay taxes to the church, but evolutionists demand that taxes are coerced to pay for evolutionary indoctrination. Your Thomas Jefferson said:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

[Stratnerd]

I'm a scientist ... what area?

[Bill K.]

Soc.,
That was a great quote from Jefferson. We live in a free Republic, that is presently being tyrannized by a "Scientific" majority.

Within our form of Gov't, it is they who are treasonous.

To CitK.
A workable form of "separation" is the voucher system whereby schools compete for students. Those that produce the "fittest" Americans will survive, those that don't, perish. (There is YOUR theory applied to Academics!!!) A true Evolutionist, who doesn't have a secret atheist agenda, should have no problem with this.

In my mind, there is no doubt who the survivors would be...

Later,
Bill

Oh, by the way, it is quite easy to produce the legislative evidence you asked for, but I think it would be much like convincing the Left that the media is biased in their direction.

[citizenkyle]

02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
This begs the question of whether evolution is truly science, since it has nothing to do with real operational science.


I'm glad we have you here to explain to us what is REAL science and what is not.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
Genetic fallacy anyone?

I'm not claiming that the exclusive membership of conservative Christians in the creationist club proves creationism to be false. I'm merely noting the suspicion that is raised when a position is only held by people with a clear ideological axe to grind.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
Of course, but evolution has nothing to do with science.

Funny, but scientists from all those different religious backgrounds disagree with you.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
Peer pressure is very strong. People follow the crowd. Even many churchians crave academic respectability so they kowtow to the materialistic rules of so-called science.

That sounds a lot like the kind of empty excuse people with extreme minority opinions desperately manufacture to in an effort salvage their position. How insulting and condescending you are to those other scientists.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
That's the whole problem -- evolution is a belief system about the past, and has nothing to do with operational science, but everything to do with a naturalistic paradigm about the past by which data are interpreted.

Don’t try to pass off your rogue philosophy of science as mainstream.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
No, but it shows that a simplistic appeal to majority opinion is irrelevant without knowing WHY these beliefs are held. Science is supposed to be about evidence not appeals to authority.

And science is about evidence. But science CURRICULUM is about how the authorities have interpreted that evidence.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
I've amply shown that creation is rejected NOT because of any "facts" but because it refuses to play by the atheists' self-serving rule of naturalism. I've also cited the censorship by the establishment journals of any challenges to materialism, e.g. by Scientific American, as shown by the AiG rebuttal (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp)

Those topics are beyond the scope of this thread.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
They taught both views and showed why it was left in the dust, rather than simply asserted this.

Again, I have no problem teaching WHY creationism was left in the dust by modern science.


02-24-2003 @ 11:24 PM
Socrates:
Here's the major difference—no one forces you to pay taxes to the church, but evolutionists demand that taxes are coerced to pay for evolutionary indoctrination. Your Thomas Jefferson said: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Give me a break. The government uses taxes to support all sorts of opinions and programs I am not in favor of. It’s called living in a representative democracy. Notwithstanding the fact that evolution is hardly a mere “opinion”.

[citizenkyle]

02-25-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Bill K.:
A true Evolutionist, who doesn't have a secret atheist agenda, should have no problem with this.

Millions of evolutionists believe in God. So drop the "secret atheist agenda" conspiracy theory.


02-25-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Bill K.:
Oh, by the way, it is quite easy to produce the legislative evidence you asked for, but I think it would be much like convincing the Left that the media is biased in their direction.

Oh gee, I guess I'll just take your word for it then. Don't cite evidence you are unwilling (or unable) to produce.

[BrianB]

Hi Kyle,
I'd like to get your reaction to this article published in the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=93

Do you consider the (what amounts to) censorship of Professor Kenyon to be acceptable or should he have been allowed to present the controversies of the origins-of-life debate to his students?

Regards,
Brian

[citizenkyle]

02-25-2003 @ 12:07 PM
BrianB:
I'd like to get your reaction to this article published in the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=93

Do you consider the (what amounts to) censorship of Professor Kenyon to be acceptable or should he have been allowed to present the controversies of the origins-of-life debate to his students?

Before I comment, I should point out that this article deals with a university and thus is not within the scope of this thread, which is dedicated to question of teaching creationism in American "public school" i.e. grades K-12.

That said, the article raises some interesting questions. University professors should be (and generally are) given considerably more leeway in determining their curriculum. Still, courses (especially introductory ones) are going to be subject to some strictures as deemed appropriate by the department chair.

As to whether the chair overstepped his bounds in this case, it is difficult to tell based on the info in the article. What exactly was Kenyon teaching? And how was it presented?

The article only specifically indicates he mentioned "that there are important disputes among scientists about whether or not chemical evolution could have taken place on the ancient earth". But it also says he presented "evidence uncongenial" to evolution. But really, these are two different issues. Evolution takes it as axiomatic that abiogenesis occurred. Maybe lightning struck the chemical soup, maybe God reached in and built some amino acids, but somehow or other life appeared. The cause is irrelevant to whether evolution is true or not. Thus, if Kenyon presented the controversy over abiogenesis as undermining evolution, I think he was in the wrong and should’ve obeyed the chair and revised his teachings.

However, if Kenyon merely wanted to note that, independent of evolution, scientists have examined the idea of abiogenesis and there is disagreement over the cause--well, that seems perfectly acceptable. I don't even mind him mentioning that an "intelligent designer" captures his own vote for the cause. But this entire subject of abiogenesis should be relegated to a brief mention in an introductory biology course--anything more in depth would be beyond the scope of such a course, on a issue that has very little concrete data to examine.

[Socrates]

---------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
This begs the question of whether evolution is truly science, since it has nothing to do with real operational science.

---------------------------------------------------------
CK:
I'm glad we have you here to explain to us what is REAL science and what is not.Yes, I knew God had a purpose for my being here even though it wastes lots of time having to explain things over an over (I'm referring to other people mainly).

I said, real operational science, the type based on observations and repeatability, which put men on the moon and cures diseases, etc.

Aside from that, philosophers of science themself cannot agree on a definition of science. It's no good simply claiming "evolution is science, creation is religion" without a demarcation criterion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Genetic fallacy anyone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CK:
I'm not claiming that the exclusive membership of conservative Christians in the creationist club proves creationism to be false. I'm merely noting the suspicion that is raised when a position is only held by people with a clear ideological axe to grind.Right, then stop whinging when I point out the clear ideological barrows that the likes of Dawko and Eugenis Scott are pushing, and it's difficult to believe that an atheist activist like yourself is without an ideological agenda.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Of course, but evolution has nothing to do with science.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CK:
Funny, but scientists from all those different religious backgrounds disagree with you. Let them demonstrate it rather than assert it.

[list]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Peer pressure is very strong. People follow the crowd. Even many churchians crave academic respectability so they kowtow to the materialistic rules of so-called science.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CK:
That sounds a lot like the kind of empty excuse people with extreme minority opinions desperately manufacture to in an effort salvage their position. How insulting and condescending you are to those other scientists.Only a non-scientist like yo/u would have this rose-tinted view of scientists.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
That's the whole problem -- evolution is a belief system about the past, and has nothing to do with operational science, but everything to do with a naturalistic paradigm about the past by which data are interpreted.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CK:
Don’t try to pass off your rogue philosophy of science as mainstream. It's so "rogue" that it's clearly stated by Lewontin and Todd as I've often cited.


----------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
No, but it shows that a simplistic appeal to majority opinion is irrelevant without knowing WHY these beliefs are held. Science is supposed to be about evidence not appeals to authority.
----------------------------------------------------------
CK:
And science is about evidence. But science CURRICULUM is about how the authorities have interpreted that evidence. Depends on the authorities. But darned if I'll let ideologues impose their meta-scientific materialistic philosophy on the data and pass it off as "science".


---------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Here's the major difference—no one forces you to pay taxes to the church, but evolutionists demand that taxes are coerced to pay for evolutionary indoctrination. Your Thomas Jefferson said: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
---------------------------------------------------------------
CK:
Give me a break. The government uses taxes to support all sorts of opinions and programs I am not in favor of. It’s called living in a representative democracy.Blame Jefferson, not me. And showing that a wrong is widely practised is hardly a justification for perpetrating more of the same wrong.

Let's get down to some specifics. Here are a number of things that do not belong in science classes:

Staged pix of peppered moths on tree trunks used as "proof" of goo-to-you evolution.
Forged embryo pix used to claim that similarities "prove" a common ancestor.
Claiming that bacteria can become antibiotic resistant proves that bacteria became biologists.
Claiming that cave fish can lose eyes is sufficient to prove that they could have evolved eyes in the first place.
Citing the Miller experiments as "proof" of chemical evolution aka abiogenesis without mentioning that his methane/ammonia atmosphere is widely discounted, and that non-reducing atmospheres produce a far lower yield and variety of biomonomers.
Pushing the "feathered dinosaurs" as intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, without mentioning that they are "dated" millions of yours younger than the beaked bird Confuciusornis.
Claiming that the production of amino acids naturally is tantamount to saying that life itself arose naturally. And omitting the major problems, e.g. how to purify and concentrate such dilute and grossly contaminated gunks, obtain the exclusively left-handed mix, polymerize them, and make sure they are in the right sequences.
Citing homologous structures like this as proof for common ancestry ...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/CEN213(29)a.gif

... without mentioning that they develop in a totally different way. The human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, below). This is the opposite of what would be predicted by inheriting of common genes from common ancestors (from here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp)):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/RemineDigits.gif

[citizenkyle]

02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
I said, real operational science, the type based on observations and repeatability, which put men on the moon and cures diseases, etc.

A discussion on the philosophy of science is, again, outside our scope here. I’ll only say that the overwhelming majority of biologists have studied fossils, genes, anatomy, etc (observation) and done so over a wide range of animals (repeatability) and considered that to fall solidly under the criteria of science. If you wish to exclude all studies of the past from the umbrella of science then we will have to toss out huge swaths of geology, astronomy, biology, (all of archaeology), etc. Surely, you must realize this is an extreme minority opinion in the science community.


02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
Aside from that, philosophers of science themself cannot agree on a definition of science. It's no good simply claiming "evolution is science, creation is religion" without a demarcation criterion.

I have never claimed that “evolution is science, creationism is religion”. On the contrary, many of the claims of creationism can be (and have been historically) studied by science. And they have been emphatically rejected by modern science as untenable (in the sense that evolution is denied anyway).



02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
Right, then stop whinging when I point out the clear ideological barrows that the likes of Dawko and Eugenis Scott are pushing, and it's difficult to believe that an atheist activist like yourself is without an ideological agenda.

1) Please cite a single example of where I have “whined” about Dawkins or Scott. I don’t recall even mentioning their names.
2) If all evolutionists were atheists, like Dawkins, then we would rightly suspect that evolution was a position driven by ideology. But since evolution is held by scientists from MANY DIFFERENT religious and philosophical backgrounds, that claim loses potency. On the other hand, creationism is held almost exclusively by conservative Christians. In other words, Evolution vs. Creationism is not Atheists vs. Conservative Christians. It is Conservative Christians vs. Everyone Else. That is the point you have consistently failed to address.
3) What qualifies me as an “atheist activist”? I’m not necessarily denying the charge; I’m just curious to know what the criterion is.



02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
Only a non-scientist like yo/u would have this rose-tinted view of scientists.

Non sequitur? You have completely evaded my point, which is that you arrogantly expect us to presume that 99%+ of life scientists are so weak willed and unprincipled that they are pressured into a game of playing “follow the leader” despite their misgivings. I know enough scientists (some of them Christians) to recognize this for the fabrication that it is.


02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
It's so "rogue" that it's clearly stated by Lewontin and Todd as I've often cited.

That’s not what I meant. I was claiming that your philosophy of science (excluding studies about the past because they are not “operational”) is rogue.


02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
Depends on the authorities.

Right. And the VAST MAJORITY of authorities in the biology field interpret the evidence in favor of evolution. Do you really think it is reasonable to base the curriculum on a tiny handful of dissenting authorities?


02-25-2003 @ 11:06 PM
Socrates:
Let's get down to some specifics. Here are a number of things that do not belong in science classes:

I certainly don’t mind excluding any studies of abiogenesis from elementary and high school biology. And Haeckel’s embryo pics should obviously be ditched, unless they are being used to demonstrate science’s error correcting machinery. I would prefer students be instructed less about text book examples like speckled moths, and more about the multiple, convergent lines of evidence for evolution such as are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Sauron]

02-19-2003 @ 01:59 PM
citizenkyle:[/b]

I would like to open a dialogue on the following issue:
"Should we legislate the teaching of creation science in American public school science classrooms?"

Please try not to deviate from this specific topic. I do not want this thread to turn into a general "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate -- there are other threads dedicated to that. I will open the discussions with my take.

I have no problem with creation science being taught in American public schools -- on one condition. That condition is that creation science go through the same process from theory to curriculum that evolution did. In other words, when Darwin first published "Origin of the Species", evolution wasn't welcomed with open arms by the science community and adopted into the schools the next day. Darwin's ideas were met with vehement opposition at first. But as the years turned into decades, and evidence continued to mount in favor of evolution via other scientists' investigations, the science community was eventually won over. From there, evolution entered the university curriculum and spread at that level. Finally, after many years, evolution trickled down to public school level.


The "vehement opposition" you speak of has, since the early part of this century, been mostly the creationists. They've had 80 or 90 years to come up with a testable theory of creationism; i.e., to satisfy the criteria you've outlined. Yet in all that while, evidence for evolutionary theory has been growing by leaps and bounds, while creationism dwindles and does no research or discovery at all.

I understand your approach. I just think that creationism has already demonstrated its failure to succeed at your approach. Why start the clock over again, when we've already seen the outcome?

[Stratnerd]

Let's get down to some specifics. Here are a number of things that do not belong in science classes:

agreed but I've never seen:

peppered moths.... as "proof" of goo-to-you evolution.

antibiotic resistant..... proves that bacteria became biologists.

cave fish can lose eyes is sufficient to prove that they could have evolved eyes in the first place.

Citing the Miller experiments as "proof" of chemical evolution

And omitting the major problems,

Forged embryo pix used to claim that similarities "prove" a common ancestor.

I know that this last one existed but I've never seen it although I go through the most popular biology textbooks every year. Where do you see this stuff published or who's teaching it this way?


Pushing the "feathered dinosaurs" as intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, without mentioning that they are "dated" millions of yours younger than the beaked bird Confuciusornis. Ditto for this.. and "intermediate" does require an organism to be dated in any particular order.

[citizenkyle]

02-27-2003 @ 09:52 PM
Sauron:
I understand your approach. I just think that creationism has already demonstrated its failure to succeed at your approach. Why start the clock over again, when we've already seen the outcome?

Of course, I am inclined to agree with you that creationism has utterly failed to make a case thus far. However, in theory, it is always possible that new evidence could emerge tomorrow vindicating the creationist claims. Science must always leave the door open to such a possibility--far fetched as it might be.

[QED]

02-25-2003 @ 06:24 AM
Socrates:
This begs the question of whether evolution is truly science, since it has nothing to do with real operational science.

Who questions whether evolution is truly science (with a straight face??) What does the term "real" have to do with the term "operational"? Obviously evolution has much to do with real science (being a collection of observations and theories from it). There is some question about whether it is "operational" science, since that term doesn't seem to be well defined in the philosophy of science. Obviously, evolution includes explanations of "mechanisms", so it does include something that I would think of as "operational" science. What do you mean by "operational" science, and what is its relevance to the issues at hand?


But the leaders are atheists, as are you, despite the usual strategy of anti-theists like eugenie Scott to recruit useful idiots from the ranks of the clergy....

Peer pressure is very strong. People follow the crowd. Even many churchians crave academic respectability so they kowtow to the materialistic rules of so-called science.

LOL! So Theodosius Dobzhansky was a "churchian" (I suppose that's because he wasn't a True Scotsman), but despite his pioneering of the Modern Synthesis, should not be considered a "leader", but instead was "kowtowing" to scientific rules of so-called science in order to gain academic respectability.. Yeah... right...

I suppose the same goes for Ken Miller. I suppose that goes for Glenn Morton (despite his former association with the ICR), and the rest of the gang at the ASA (http://www.asa3.org/) are all kowtowing churchians too. They might be suprised to learn it, though.


Also, I personally know a number of medical doctors and fellow scientists who believe in evolution because they were taught the peppered moths and embryonic recapitulation.

So simple-minded that they accepted common descent soley on the basis of one minor piece of evidence, and one category of evidence that may or may not be falsified (depending on whether they were taught Haekel's "recapitulation" or were taught about evidence for neo-Darwinism from embryology)??? And they are medical doctors?? I hope none of them treat me or my family!


I've also cited the censorship by the establishment journals of any challenges to materialism, e.g. by Scientific American, as shown by the AiG rebuttal (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp)

ROFL!!! Scientific American an "establishment journal"? LOL.. And I suppose Nature is a popular science rag? Did you claim somewhere that you were a scientist? If so, how did you make it so far without learning what a journal is? If you wish to show censorship, all you need do is provide references to rejected papers, along with reviewers comments - just a few to show a pattern of rejection without good cause on papers that are at odds with the majority view.

Oh... in your next post, I found this:

I said, real operational science, the type based on observations and repeatability, which put men on the moon and cures diseases, etc.

Unless you are saying that medical science, Newtonian mechanics, and rocketry are the only real sciences that are based on observations and repeatability, then I just don't get it.
Also, I think you might be interested in this quote on "repeatability", from possibly the greatest physicist of the twentieth century:

This is a horrible thing; in fact, philosophers have said before that one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same conditions, the same thing must happen. This is simply not true, it is not a fundamental condition of science... What is the fundamental hypothesis of science, the fundamental philosophy? We stated it in the first chapter: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment. (Feynman, R.P., Six Easy Pieces, and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, pp. 35-36, emphasis original) Many would (and have) quibbled with the word "experiment" here, since the general term "observation" should have sufficed, but you can see that "repeatability" is not the magic bullet for creationism that you had hoped.

[Socrates]

The misotheist QED once more invokes "useful idiots", as though such heretics would be convincing.

LOL! So Theodosius Dobzhansky was a "churchian" (I suppose that's because he wasn't a True Scotsman), but despite his pioneering of the Modern Synthesis, should not be considered a "leader", but instead was "kowtowing" to scientific rules of so-called science in order to gain academic respectability.. Yeah... right...That's right, a nominal cultural Russian Orthodox, but in reality was a follower of Teilhard's off-the-planet heresies.

I suppose the same goes for Ken Miller.Yes, a highly modernist Roman Catholic who denies Biblical authority. Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are one. If he denies things Christ taught, including about Genesis, then he has no credibility as a Christian.
I suppose that goes for Glenn Morton (despite his former association with the ICR), There are lots of embittered apostates around, including those lacking decent scientific qualifications like him.
and the rest of the gang at the ASA are all kowtowing churchians too. Yep, they crave respect from God-haters like you more than they want to please the true God of the Bible.

ROFL!!! Scientific American an "establishment journal"? LOL.. And I suppose Nature is a popular science rag? Did you claim somewhere that you were a scientist? If so, how did you make it so far without learning what a journal is? I'm well aware that SciAm is semi-popular, Nature is more advanced, and JACS even more specialized. It was perfectly reasonable to use the word "Journal" in a broad sense.If you wish to show censorship, all you need do is provide references to rejected papers, along with reviewers comments - just a few to show a pattern of rejection without good cause on papers that are at odds with the majority view.I've already demonstrated it. Go back and read my posts instead of wasting time.

[Socrates]

Stratnerd:

agreed but I've never seen:

peppered moths.... as "proof" of goo-to-you evolution.

antibiotic resistant..... proves that bacteria became biologists.

cave fish can lose eyes is sufficient to prove that they could have evolved eyes in the first place.

Citing the Miller experiments as "proof" of chemical evolution

And omitting the major problems,

Forged embryo pix used to claim that similarities "prove" a common ancestor.

I know that this last one existed but I've never seen it although I go through the most popular biology textbooks every year. Where do you see this stuff published or who's teaching it this way? It's hard to believe you're serious. It's hard to find a textbook that does NOT teach those things.

And so often, they teach false things about creation, either explicitly or implicitly suggesting:

Creationists deny change
Creationists deny natural selection
Creationists believe in fixity of species.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soc:
Pushing the "feathered dinosaurs" as intermediate between dinosaurs and birds, without mentioning that they are "dated" millions of yours younger than the beaked bird Confuciusornis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strat:
Ditto for this.. and "intermediate" does require an organism to be dated in any particular order.Then let the students know that the "dates" are contradictory to the evolutionary order.

[QED]

03-04-2003 @ 12:39 PM
Socrates:

The misotheist QED once more invokes "useful idiots", as though such heretics would be convincing.
[list]

Besides being pure ad hominem, your statement is incorrect on two counts:
1) I love theists.
2) the invocation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.


That's right, a nominal cultural Russian Orthodox, but in reality was a follower of Teilhard's off-the-planet heresies.
...Yes, a highly modernist Roman Catholic who denies Biblical authority. Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are one. If he denies things Christ taught, including about Genesis, then he has no credibility as a Christian.
...There are lots of embittered apostates around, including those lacking decent scientific qualifications like him.
...Yep, they crave respect from God-haters like you more than they want to please the true God of the Bible.

Apart from the false witness and ad hominem against myself, (I am not a God-hater) your dismissal falls well short. Glenn Morton is, as you guessed, embittered (by the dishonest tactics of the ICR), but not against God, and is in no way apostate. He believes in Biblical inerrancy (though how that has bearing on whether you are a "True Christian" is beyond me!). Since you obviously don't have much respect for catholics, let's try a few other protestant names in addition to Morton...

Which do you consider Francis Collins, apostate or useful idiot? Do you honestly think the director of the Human Genome Project feels the need to kow-tow to any group within the scientific community? Listen to this MP3 of his keynote address at the ASA's 2002 annual meeting (http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2002Collins.mp3) & then tell me he is an apostate.
What about evangelical Denis Lamoureux?
What about evangelical Keith Miller?
False Scotsmen, or useful idiots?

Why would any theist (whether Biblical inerrantists, protestant, or other) kowtow to the atheistic scientific minority??


I'm well aware that SciAm is semi-popular,

And semi-technical, and non-peer reviewed. It is science reporting, it is not research.


It was perfectly reasonable to use the word "Journal" in a broad sense.

Not if you wish to show censorship in scientific "establishment" journals. SciAm is not one. It is a popular science rag.


I've already demonstrated it. Go back and read my posts instead of wasting time.

I've read your posts in this thread, and all that is there is the assertion that there is censorship (not the demonstration), and a link to an AiG page about Scientific American. Not a single rejected paper, not a single reviewer's comment. Being a scientist, you should understand easily why these are necessary to support your claim of any censorship, much less a pattern of the same.