What are they afraid of?

[Zunalter]

What Are They Afraid Of?

By Dr. John Morris, Ph.D.

Creation/evolution issues have been a constant subject in the news media recently, much of the reporting slanted and poorly-informed, all of it negative towards creation. Nevertheless, the events are real and warrant our attention.

A school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a small farming community, recently voted to allow a brief mention of Intelligent Design in biology classes. ID was not to be “taught,” nor was evolution removed, and most certainly Biblical creation was not mandated, but evolutionists reacted with a fervor reserved for this one issue. In an ACLU-orchestrated move, several local parents filed a lawsuit to maintain an evolution-only perspective, inviting the testimony of well-known evolutionists. Meanwhile, evolution-supporting individuals and organizations poured money into the district, mounting a successful political campaign against the “errant” school board members, replacing them with others leaning towards evolution. ID advocates had their champions too, leading to a media frenzy quite overshadowing the minimal facts of the case and size of the school district.

Similarly, debate has been raging in Kansas. There the state school board had established new state curriculum guidelines, which neither introduced creation nor removed evolution. Rather it allowed all the data to be taught, not just that supporting evolution. It permitted the exquisite design of living things to be acknowledged and studied. Once again, the same aggregate of partisans began crusading in support of evolution. Knowing the school board’s majority was behind the new guidelines evolutionists boycotted the hearings and instead took their case to a sympathetic press, who almost never correctly reported the facts.

The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?

Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a “backdoor” to religion. But the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.

Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. ICR has recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. ICR is adamant that this science be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we’re sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Perhaps evolutionists’ avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position. ICR has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.

 

[vossler]

Yes I saw that too and was thinking the same thing. Whenever something comes up that in any way could possibly challenge evolution the evolutionists circle the wagons and will do whatever it takes to keep people from seeing all the evidence and making up their own minds. Talk about censorship! The sad thing is the organizations, like the ACLU, that are supposedly such strong proponents for our rights never take up such causes. It's all quite fascinating!

 

[The Lady Kate]

What makes you think it's fear?

I spotted this over in the open forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2376724-id-is-rejectect-because-it-is-not-science.html

A few excerpts.

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

What exactly is there to teach about "Intelligent Design"?

 

[random_guy]

So what are Holocaust supporters so afraid of? If they believe the Holocaust did happen, then they shouldn't be afraid to hear both sides! Teach the controversy!

To clarify, evolution went through a process called the scientific method. It was peer reviewed and had to win over scientists before it could ever be taught in schools. Same with BB, radioactive dating, and special relativity. If you notice, at the beginning, there's always opposition to every new theory. This makes sense since new theories tend to overturn old theories, and scientists are reluctant to change.

However, once the evidence becomes so overwhelming, becomes accepted into the scientific community. Now, my question is, why isn't ID going through the same process? Why should it be allowed to leap right into schools? If we aren't going to use the scientific process any more to determine what to teach, what's stopping astrology, geocentrism, and all the whacko theories from getting into schools?

 

[vossler]

So what are Holocaust supporters so afraid of? If they believe the Holocaust did happen, then they shouldn't be afraid to hear both sides! Teach the controversy!

Wonderful, now we're going to compare Intelligent Design with the Holocaust.

However, once the evidence becomes so overwhelming, becomes accepted into the scientific community. Now, my question is, why isn't ID going through the same process? Why should it be allowed to leap right into schools? If we aren't going to use the scientific process any more to determine what to teach, what's stopping astrology, geocentrism, and all the whacko theories from getting into schools?

Obviously you're not aware of the facts in this case. No one is asking to teach intelligent design, the whole controversy is that they won't even allow a one paragraph statement to be made at the beginning of class stating that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact. If they wished to get information about ID there is a book in the library they can check out to investigate it. Those are not the exact words, but words to that effect.

O.K. random_guy if you can somehow bring this back to the Holocaust please feel free and go right ahead.

 

[Zunalter]

To clarify, evolution went through a process called the scientific method. It was peer reviewed and had to win over scientists before it could ever be taught in schools.

Or, during the Cold War American scientists got scared when the soviets made it to space first, scrambled for an answer as to why, and adopted the athiestic evolutionary theory as an attempt to catch up. If evolution was the truth, explain to me the origin of life. If radiometric decay is accurate in dating things on this planet, why is there growing evidence of accelerated decay and other such things. If evolution were true, then why is one of their main claims - that creatures get better and more complex through genetic mutation, then why is the genetic structure of humans noticably breaking down and becoming worse. Darwin was a simpleton in terms of modern science, he didnt understand how hugely complex even a single celled organism was, he believed that they were simple creatures. Also, let us just say for a moment that evolution was correct, and the earth is 6 billion years old. According to OE scientists, the earth has only been cool enough to sustain life for the last 400 million years. The chances of evolution creating creatures with the complexity we see here in the time frame we are given is (to coin a fav book) about the same as a blindfolded man picking up a marked grain of sand in the sahara desert over a billion times. For supposed "logical" thinkers, that sounds to me like it takes more faith than believing God did it.

Some argue that God used evolution as a means to create life. I would laugh at those who claim that. For one thing, it says over and over in the Word that it was because of Adam that we are all doomed to die, evolution happens through death and birth and death repeating over and over again for millions of years. So, that would seem to contradict scripture there. Also, if God had in mind us for his ultimate purpose for this planet, why would he go to all the waste of waiting millions of years (though it doesnt mean anything to Him, to the creatures on this planet it means a lot) before evolving us and going through all of these genetic revisions. It would seem to me that an omnipotent being wouldn't be as wasteful and unsure as to simply slightly alter us genetically for millions of years until we finally were in His image. He would do it all at once since He knows what He wants, He has the power to do it, and there is no useful reason to take millions of years to do it.

Now, my question is, why isn't ID going through the same process? Why should it be allowed to leap right into schools? If we aren't going to use the scientific process any more to determine what to teach, what's stopping astrology, geocentrism, and all the whacko theories from getting into schools?

Please dont assume that just because you dont believe it, just because you have been told your entire life that evolution is the truth, that opposing theories are without merit. However, I am glad that evolution is around these days - far too long christians have sat back smiling, comforted in their faith that God created everything without ever trying to figure out how He did it. This gives us a chance to really scrutinize the evidence and come to a real conclusion. Evolution has been hailed as the logical conclusion based on observation of natural processes. While I agree that micro-evolution is observable and provable, many of the conclusions drawn (macro evolution for instance)seem far-fetched. Evolution has been so widely spread not because of its merit, but because finally you could be intellectually fulfilled as an athiest, they were looking for something to believe in just like the rest of humanity. Because of evolution, you could live without being accountable to God and not lose sleep over the origins of life.

 

[CardinalBaseball]

What Are They Afraid Of?

By Dr. John Morris, Ph.D.

Creation/evolution issues have been a constant subject in the news media recently, much of the reporting slanted and poorly-informed, all of it negative towards creation. Nevertheless, the events are real and warrant our attention.

A school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, a small farming community, recently voted to allow a brief mention of Intelligent Design in biology classes. ID was not to be “taught,” nor was evolution removed, and most certainly Biblical creation was not mandated, but evolutionists reacted with a fervor reserved for this one issue. In an ACLU-orchestrated move, several local parents filed a lawsuit to maintain an evolution-only perspective, inviting the testimony of well-known evolutionists. Meanwhile, evolution-supporting individuals and organizations poured money into the district, mounting a successful political campaign against the “errant” school board members, replacing them with others leaning towards evolution. ID advocates had their champions too, leading to a media frenzy quite overshadowing the minimal facts of the case and size of the school district.

Similarly, debate has been raging in Kansas. There the state school board had established new state curriculum guidelines, which neither introduced creation nor removed evolution. Rather it allowed all the data to be taught, not just that supporting evolution. It permitted the exquisite design of living things to be acknowledged and studied. Once again, the same aggregate of partisans began crusading in support of evolution. Knowing the school board’s majority was behind the new guidelines evolutionists boycotted the hearings and instead took their case to a sympathetic press, who almost never correctly reported the facts.

The question arises then, if evolution is so solidly proven, what are evolutionists afraid of? Why must evolution be protected from scrutiny? Why must students be shielded from other views? Why not present all the pertinent facts and encourage the students to think critically, as a good scientist should? Would this not be a good educational technique? Would this not produce better citizens and scientists?

Evolutionists purport that there is no real science supporting intelligent design, that ID is just religion, or at least a “backdoor” to religion. But the facts are that many secular scientists, through observation and experimentation and based on the scientific evidence and data they’ve obtained, have come to the conclusion that life has been designed, not created by mere chance from nothing.

Science involves conducting research, using the scientific method in various disciplines, and reporting on the data and results. There’s no religion in the facts. ICR has recently discovered groundbreaking evidence about rock dating, carbon-14 in diamonds, excess helium within zircons, and other geologic data supporting a young earth. ICR is adamant that this science be available for scrutiny by critical thinkers—that students, specifically, are able to evaluate the evidence and formulate their own beliefs If the science points to a designer, so be it. But if the evidence suggests otherwise, which we’re sure it does not, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Perhaps evolutionists’ avoidance of these kinds of data exposes a basic insecurity in their position. ICR has long held that evolution cannot stand the test of science—it must avoid the light of open inquiry. Only by limiting the debate can evolutionists hope to maintain their monopoly on education. Yet, it serves us well to recognize that the debate involves a deeper issue than just control of academic content. If evolutionists admit that science does indeed support intelligent design, then they are admitting that there is a possibility of a Creator. Perhaps what evolutionists are truly afraid of are the implications of the presence of a higher power. Higher power means higher authority and, ultimately, higher accountability.

Very nice article!

 

[random_guy]

Wonderful, now we're going to compare Intelligent Design with the Holocaust.

No, I'm comparing the teaching the controversy of evolution with teaching the controversy of the Holocaust. Just like in the history community, how there's no debate whether or not the Holocaust happened, right now, in the scientific community, there is no controversy that evolution happened. There is legitimate debate on how it happened, but that's not what the teach the controversy people want.

Obviously you're not aware of the facts in this case. No one is asking to teach intelligent design, the whole controversy is that they won't even allow a one paragraph statement to be made at the beginning of class stating that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact. If they wished to get information about ID there is a book in the library they can check out to investigate it. Those are not the exact words, but words to that effect.

O.K. random_guy if you can somehow bring this back to the Holocaust please feel free and go right ahead.

Dover wanted read a statement talking about ID as a legitimate alternate scientific theory and offer resources for it. Seems like they wanted to promote ID as a scientific alternate to evolution.

Not only that, the statement is wrong. It implies that theories are promoted to facts (false), and it fails to realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Again, why must ID go through political methods to attack evolution. If evolution was truly in danger, where's the peer reviewed journals? Science starts in the labs, not the polls.

 

[random_guy]

Or, during the Cold War American scientists got scared when the soviets made it to space first, scrambled for an answer as to why, and adopted the athiestic evolutionary theory as an attempt to catch up. If evolution was the truth, explain to me the origin of life. If radiometric decay is accurate in dating things on this planet, why is there growing evidence of accelerated decay and other such things. If evolution were true, then why is one of their main claims - that creatures get better and more complex through genetic mutation, then why is the genetic structure of humans noticably breaking down and becoming worse. Darwin was a simpleton in terms of modern science, he didnt understand how hugely complex even a single celled organism was, he believed that they were simple creatures. Also, let us just say for a moment that evolution was correct, and the earth is 6 billion years old. According to OE scientists, the earth has only been cool enough to sustain life for the last 400 million years. The chances of evolution creating creatures with the complexity we see here in the time frame we are given is (to coin a fav book) about the same as a blindfolded man picking up a marked grain of sand in the sahara desert over a billion times. For supposed "logical" thinkers, that sounds to me like it takes more faith than believing God did it.

Your post is full of errors. I bolded the easy to catch mistakes. First, do you even know what the ToE is? From your post, it seems that you don't. Next, are you aware of who Lysenko is? He was the leading biologist in the USSR that was against evolution due to political reasons. He advocated a form of Lamarckian evolution, and based the USSR's agriculture around this pseudoscience.

The result?

he is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudoscientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.

Unless a theory goes through peer review, which ID has not, it shouldn't be taught. Simple as that.

Some argue that God used evolution as a means to create life. I would laugh at those who claim that. For one thing, it says over and over in the Word that it was because of Adam that we are all doomed to die, evolution happens through death and birth and death repeating over and over again for millions of years. So, that would seem to contradict scripture there. Also, if God had in mind us for his ultimate purpose for this planet, why would he go to all the waste of waiting millions of years (though it doesnt mean anything to Him, to the creatures on this planet it means a lot) before evolving us and going through all of these genetic revisions. It would seem to me that an omnipotent being wouldn't be as wasteful and unsure as to simply slightly alter us genetically for millions of years until we finally were in His image. He would do it all at once since He knows what He wants, He has the power to do it, and there is no useful reason to take millions of years to do it.

It seems to me that you know the mind of God. Perhaps you can continue to tell us what else God thinks.

Please dont assume that just because you dont believe it, just because you have been told your entire life that evolution is the truth, that opposing theories are without merit. However, I am glad that evolution is around these days - far too long christians have sat back smiling, comforted in their faith that God created everything without ever trying to figure out how He did it. This gives us a chance to really scrutinize the evidence and come to a real conclusion. Evolution has been hailed as the logical conclusion based on observation of natural processes. While I agree that micro-evolution is observable and provable, many of the conclusions drawn (macro evolution for instance)seem far-fetched. Evolution has been so widely spread not because of its merit, but because finally you could be intellectually fulfilled as an athiest, they were looking for something to believe in just like the rest of humanity. Because of evolution, you could live without being accountable to God and not lose sleep over the origins of life.

This is the main difference between many Creationists and people like me. I don't believe evolution is the truth like Creationists believe Creation or some scientific theory is the truth. I accept evolution as the best current theory we have for explaining the diversity of life. I've actually studied the material, and unlike most Creationists, I know what it actually says.

EDITTED TO BE MORE FAIR

 

[Zunalter]

First, do you even know what the ToE is?

I am not 100% what that acronym stands for.

It seems to me that you know the mind of God. Perhaps you can continue to tell us what else God thinks.

So, thats all then? Well, I would love to, however the Bible is much more detailed and accessible about God's mind.

This is the main difference between Creationists and people like me. I don't believe evolution is the truth like Creationists believe Creation or some scientific theory is the truth. I accept evolution as the best current theory we have for explaining the diversity of life. I've actually studied the material, and unlike Creationists, I know what it actually says.

Your post is full of errors. I bolded the easy to catch mistakes.

First off, you seem to be contradicting yourself in this first part with an earlier statement you made:

it fails to realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory

If it is a fact, how could it not be true, isnt a fact in essense, truth?

Secondly, I enjoy your last statement there. Since, of course, you claim to be so learned and informed, please grace us ignorant peons with the proof you have stumbled upon that shows that NO creationist is aware of what the material ACTUALLY SAYS. Please back up your claim that no person of intelligence has done actual research into the evidence and still believed in Creation.

 

[vossler]

No, I'm comparing the teaching the controversy of evolution with teaching the controversy of the Holocaust. Just like in the history community, how there's no debate whether or not the Holocaust happened, right now, in the scientific community, there is no controversy that evolution happened. There is legitimate debate on how it happened, but that's not what the teach the controversy people want.

So there are historians who wish to teach, in the public schools, that the Holocaust never happened and these same historians have a large number of supporters? Hmmm...

There's no controversy as to whether evolution happened? I was under the impression you were aware of what was going on.

Dover wanted read a statement talking about ID as a legitimate alternate scientific theory and offer resources for it. Seems like they wanted to promote ID as a scientific alternate to evolution.

They wanted people, those who had questions, to see what all the hoopla was about. Obviously you don't believe kids should be made aware of all sides of an issue and you're somehow in favor of censorship. That in and of itself is astounding, but what is even more astounding is the censorship you favor is one that tells people is that no higher power created the world we live in. We're not to tell students what the most published book of all time has to say on this subject. Whew! I hope you're actually hearing this and grasping what you are advocating. Who needs the ACLU when Christians themselves want censorship.

Not only that, the statement is wrong. It implies that theories are promoted to facts (false), and it fails to realize that evolution is both a fact and a theory. Again, why must ID go through political methods to attack evolution. If evolution was truly in danger, where's the peer reviewed journals? Science starts in the labs, not the polls.

What I really can never seem to understand about evolutionists is; when someone challenges their assumptions (which they fervently believe to be the truth) they become extremely territorial and wish to censor any adversarial point of view. That would be no different than if someone were to say I believe the Bible is false and the truths proclaimed within it to be a hoax and that Jesus never really lived. I'd tell the person, be my guest, have at it, you can even present it as an alternative in my community or even my church. What will happen is this person will have to support his claims or shut up and go home. ID is no different, so why be scared, you know the truth. Right? Doesn't light always prevail over darkness? What's everyone scared about?

 

[random_guy]

I am not 100% what that acronym stands for.

Theory of evolution.

So, thats all then? Well, I would love to, however the Bible is much more detailed and accessible about God's mind.

Or you can go to the source first hand, you know, study his Creation.

Your post is full of errors. I bolded the easy to catch mistakes.

First off, you seem to be contradicting yourself in this first part with an earlier statement you made:

If it is a fact, how could it not be true, isnt a fact in essense, truth?

Truth (capital T) is something philosophical. Facts (in the scientific world) is something observable, but it doesn't mean that they're 100% true. Facts can change due to errors in experimentation. We observe that objects fall at 9.81 m/s^2 on Earth (Gravity on Earth). This is a fact. We think that gravity is caused from the bending of time-space (Theory of Gravity). This is a theory. Gravity is a fact and a theory.

We observe that allele frequencies change over time (Evolution). This is a fact. We think that natural selection and mutations drive these natural process (Theory of Evolution). Evolution is both a theory and a fact. No contradiction.

Secondly, I enjoy your last statement there. Since, of course, you claim to be so learned and informed, please grace us ignorant peons with the proof you have stumbled upon that shows that NO creationist is aware of what the material ACTUALLY SAYS. Please back up your claim that no person of intelligence has done actual research into the evidence and still believed in Creation.

Again, nearly every single Creationist I've seen can not define evolution, they believe theories graduate into facts, they don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. While I might've been harsh implying all Creationists do not know this, but the large majority do.

You've already made the same mistakes. You believe that evolution involves the origins of life. I bet Vossler doesn't understand what the actual controversy in the scientific community is when it comes to evolution.

Check the rest of this forum. Very few people that are Creationists actually read scientific papers. The few I know are Mark Kennedy and Jsomething. The rest regurgitate what they've heard.

 

[CardinalBaseball]

I've actually studied the material, and unlike Creationists, I know what it actually says.

I suppose that even though I have also studied it I am still ignorant of what it actually is because I don't believe it? Just like all other creationists who have also studied it?

 

[random_guy]

I suppose that even though I have also studied it I am still ignorant of what it actually is because I don't believe it? Just like all other creationists who have also studied it?

Well, I editted my post to be more fair. It seems that the majority of Creationists don't know what the ToE is.

 

[Zunalter]

Well, I editted my post to be more fair. It seems that the majority of Creationists don't know what the ToE is.

Please tell me if this meets your criteria

Theory of Evolution: the theory that states that as species evolve, certain traits may develop that will make it more likely to successfully reproduce. Those traits will be passed down through inheritance from one generation to another, becoming more common as time passes. Inversely, traits that make a species less likely to successfully reproduce will become rarer through inheritence. So basically, as our allele's change in our genes, the desirable traits will be more likely passed down, since they will be the ones that support reprocreation, whereas the opposite will be true of the other changes, since it does not support it.

 

[Zunalter]

Or you can go to the source first hand, you know, study his Creation.

If you don't trust the Bible as a (to say the least) good source of info on God, then I feel sad for the foundation of your religious belief

 

[The Lady Kate]

Wonderful, now we're going to compare Intelligent Design with the Holocaust.

If the shoe fits...

Obviously you're not aware of the facts in this case. No one is asking to teach intelligent design, the whole controversy is that they won't even allow a one paragraph statement to be made at the beginning of class stating that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact.

Does gravity, electricity, the existence of germs or atoms get the same sticker? Why single out evolution?

If they wished to get information about ID there is a book in the library they can check out to investigate it. Those are not the exact words, but words to that effect.

Which book would that be?

O.K. random_guy if you can somehow bring this back to the Holocaust please feel free and go right ahead.

Allow me... the theory that "the Holocaust" actually occured should have a sticker attached, since there is some controversey... what are historians so afraid of?

 

[The Lady Kate]

So there are historians who wish to teach, in the public schools, that the Holocaust never happened and these same historians have a large number of supporters? Hmmm...

Their numbers are about the same as ID proponents... they're just not as vocal.

There's no controversy as to whether evolution happened? I was under the impression you were aware of what was going on.

In the scientific community, none at all.

They wanted people, those who had questions, to see what all the hoopla was about. Obviously you don't believe kids should be made aware of all sides of an issue and you're somehow in favor of censorship.

And you wish to censor those who claim the holocaust never happened.

That in and of itself is astounding, but what is even more astounding is the censorship you favor is one that tells people is that no higher power created the world we live in.

Evolution is not Atheism. Haven't you noticed you're in the Christian-Only forum?

We're not to tell students what the most published book of all time has to say on this subject.

That might be because scientific fact is not a popularity contest.

Whew! I hope you're actually hearing this and grasping what you are advocating. Who needs the ACLU when Christians themselves want censorship.

keep science in science class, religion in the religion class, and the philosophy in philosophy class. That's not censorship...that's prudence.

What I really can never seem to understand about evolutionists is; when someone challenges their assumptions (which they fervently believe to be the truth) they become extremely territorial and wish to censor any adversarial point of view.

Actually, scientists welcome challenges to established theories... it's just that once the challenge has been refuted, that's supposed to be the end of it. When the IDers and other Creationists insist on beating their dead horse, and realize that it's no longer any use to parade it through the front door of scientific study... they sneak it in the back door of courtrooms and public opinion.

That would be no different than if someone were to say I believe the Bible is false and the truths proclaimed within it to be a hoax and that Jesus never really lived. I'd tell the person, be my guest, have at it, you can even present it as an alternative in my community or even my church.

You mean like Creationism/ID had been presented in the scientific community... and been laughed out?

What will happen is this person will have to support his claims or shut up and go home. ID is no different, so why be scared, you know the truth. Right? Doesn't light always prevail over darkness? What's everyone scared about?

Except Creationism/ID has had every oppertunity to support their claims in the scientific forum. They have not done so. They are trying to bypass the scientific system and shoehorn itself directly into the classrooms. And nobody's buying the lie.

And in case you haven't noticed... IDers have been bailing out of the Dover trial in droves...

If you don't believe me, then kindly name JUST ONE scientific theory or hypothesis can can be tested, proven or disproven, which has been presented by Creationists/IDers.

Have they ever even actually tried to DO anything that even remotely resembles an experiment?

 

[shernren]

I am a bit of an anomaly here because I do actually prefer the "two-model" approach. I think pushing it to "equal time", however, is not necessary. What I do want to see in a "two-model" approach is:

the teaching of evolution as evolutionary scientists see it
and
the teaching of creation science as creation scientists see it.

Now, it's very easy to say "Fair time! Fair time!" but the whole problem is that IDism in particular is not at all suited to a didactic approach, but to an oratorical approach. Oratory suits the teaching of IDism perfectly fine. Somebody can just go on stage and say "This is too complex for me to imagine an evolutionary pathway. Therefore it is designed!" And everybody cheers and goes home with their creationist leanings reinforced.

But in a didactic approach, with a true two-model approach, the IDist still has only that to say. "This is too complex for me to imagine an evolutionary pathway!" Furthermore, he only has that to say about a precious few items in biology. Whereas the evolutionist can quite calmly and rationally list all the items for which there already is an evolutionary pathway quite well elucidated.

I agree that we should have disclaimers - not to evolution, but to science in general. (The American public seems to be a very naive, trusting audience to require this sort of thing.) The disclaimer should be: "Science hasn't explained the whole world yet." And we should budge no further. Saying that "Evolution is just a theory and not a fact" uses technicalities to try and emotionalize things. The obvious implication is that "evolution should not be trusted." Is that true? When people say "evolution is just a theory and not a fact" they mean that evolution cannot explain everything yet. This does not show in any way that evolution is not trustworthy in the many things it already does explain.

I agree that the two-model system should be practiced both in the science classroom and in the church. Since the creation scientists are so hung up on fairness let's see how fair they think it is if we demand that TEism be given equal time to creationism in church. I personally think that we should teach creation science in schools so that schoolchildren will be able to put it next to evolutionism and see just how pale it is in comparison ... instead of only hearing it in church and getting subliminally conditioned to think that it is so holy, it doesn't get mentioned in public schools because of their secularity.

The best way for anyone to disprove me would be to show me a five-lesson, one hour per lesson curriculum plan on scientific IDism that contains no debunkable or ambiguous statements.

 

[shernren]

Please tell me if this meets your criteria

Theory of Evolution: the theory that states that as species evolve, certain traits may develop that will make it more likely to successfully reproduce. Those traits will be passed down through inheritance from one generation to another, becoming more common as time passes. Inversely, traits that make a species less likely to successfully reproduce will become rarer through inheritence. So basically, as our allele's change in our genes, the desirable traits will be more likely passed down, since they will be the ones that support reprocreation, whereas the opposite will be true of the other changes, since it does not support it.

And which part of this are you able to disprove?