What is the end goal for creationists these days?

[dmmesdale]

Generally the backlash comes as a result of creationists trying to influence the education system.

There is no backlash. It is a dead issue in most parts.

If it wasn't for the fight over education, I don't think nearly as many people would care what creationists do.

Anyone can influence the education thru their schoolboard. That is how they changed the curriculum in the first place. That being since the predominate funding for public school is thru state and property taxes. (95% in my state) Not the courts or the ACLU. Court rulings are the easiest to defy anyway. The courts do not have surrounding armies to enforce their decisions.

''John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" President Andrew Jackson.

This stuff gets little actual classroom time and is considered boring, useless, by students. They are right. It has no real value and compliance is superficial in many parts.

 

[dmmesdale]

To be fair he answered the question posed in the title of the thread, unlike you.

What fair? Personal attacks are not arguments nor are they fair.

 

[Jimmy D]

What fair? Personal attacks are not arguments nor are they fair.

Oh, dry your eyes. If he had made a personal attack you might have a point.

 

[Speedwell]

Evidently, you are continuing to ignore the facts:

SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
ESTABLISHED BY
CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

DISCIPLINE SCIENTIST
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past | The Institute for Creation Research

None of those people were creationists. Most of them weren't even Protestants.

 

[dmmesdale]

Oh, dry your eyes. If he had made a personal attack you might have a point.

He did. Go back and read it. Deny deny deny. I am just wondering why you think the rules apply to everyone else except you guys who are free to takes swipes at others and then deny and obfuscate when confronted? Facts mean nothing to you guys since they exist to be ignored or twisted.

 

[pitabread]

The breath of the field has no bearing.
Can you support the development of new random
concepts in any way at all, in any field?

I'm not trying to support anything. I'm asking for an example(s) of what it is you were talking about. If you don't want to provide anything that's fine,but don't try to flip this around.

 

[dmmesdale]

There is no backlash. It is a dead issue in most parts.


Anyone can influence the education thru their schoolboard. That is how they changed the curriculum in the first place. That being since the predominate funding for public school is thru state and property taxes. (95% in my state) Not the courts or the ACLU. Court rulings are the easiest to defy anyway. The courts do not have surrounding armies to enforce their decisions.

''John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" President Andrew Jackson.

This stuff gets little actual classroom time and is considered boring, useless, by students. They are right. it has no real value and compliance is superficial in many parts.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no backlash. It is a dead issue in most parts.

The Christian Right has ceased to exist? Who voted for Judge Roy Moore in the recent primary?

 

[Larniavc]

If there are different views out there, they should be represented and revealed.

But this question has been settled for over 100 years.

Having a different view that is unsupported by evidence (something that has been shown to be true for decades) does not have a place in a science class.

We don’t teach that ghosts exist for the same reason: people may very strongly insist that creationism is correct but without supporting evidence it has no place in science class.

 

[Larniavc]

Believe it or not (which you obviously don't), there are plenty of PhD scientists, in biological studies and the like, who are creationists.

Please do not rhetorically mis-characterise me. I know perfectly well many working scientists are creationists.

That does not make them an exception to the need for supporting evidence for any belief about the material world.

 

[Larniavc]

Many work at the creation museum.

Which is part of AiG who specifically state that their faith comes before any physical evidence.

Do you understand the implications of this? This means that they do not follow the body of evidence: they only follow the evidence that supports what they already believe.

They are free to do so but that ain’t science and does not belong in a science class.

 

[Larniavc]

I know it doesn't jive with your particular worldview and all of that, but what is the harm in admitting, "we still don't have all the answers. There's a lot we may never find out about our origins. The science changes and evolves all the time."

Again with the rhetoric?

No scientist would have any issue with that but not knowing all the answers does not mean goddidit.

We don’t know everthing and never will but that does not know a huge amount about how reality works.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be fine but cdesignproponentists want creationism taught outside of a theology class.

This is the problem.

LOL

The "problem" used to be teaching it in science class.

Now it's teaching it 'outside of a theology class.'

Faux pas?

 

[dmmesdale]

But this question has been settled for over 100 years.

Having a different view that is unsupported by evidence (something that has been shown to be true for decades) does not have a place in a science class.

We don’t teach that ghosts exist for the same reason:

How bout ghost common ancestor?

people may very strongly insist that creationism is correct but without supporting evidence it has no place in science class.

Why not assuming science is a search for truth and does study origin of life? If they are studying that then they are bumping into Theology. The problem here is double standards. For example they assert Dino extinction was caused by a meteor or a series absent any supporting evidence. It is an inference that has no evidential basis for cause (meteor) and effect (Dino extinction). They can show meteor impacts and can show dino extinction. What they cannot show is the former was the cause for the latter. So that means they are making historical truth claims absent supporting evidence using the prestige of science.

Note here. They got the names on the right sides and the title (common ancestor) on the left since they do not know the alleged creature. It is a theoretical construction and is no where near conclusive. All this is based on a 19th century postulate popularized by Darwin. We submit to you these are unsurported by evidence. So why the double standards? Why one set of rules for your home team and another for the visitors?

 

[PsychoSarah]

LOL

The "problem" used to be teaching it in science class.

Now it's teaching it 'outside of a theology class.'

Faux pas?

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to teach creationism in a math class

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes. This generation has the smallest percentage of population
involved in war in history.

So you are basing your argument on one variable out of many that effects only a minority of the global population and consider only a few centuries of history. I don't believe that merits being taken seriously.
Please note - the assertion may be correct. I would be interested to know either way, but these data do little to clarify the matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to teach creationism in a math class

Or evolution, for that matter.

Creationism can be taught in history class.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Or evolution, for that matter.

Creationism can be taught in history class.

You say that as if it's not brought up in history classes. I've taken world history in high school, various creation stories are mentioned. After all, religion is a huge part of history.

 

[Ophiolite]

Right, you guys know better than Jesus, is that it?

Do I know better than a noteworthy preacher from 2,000 years ago, who may be a composite of mutliple characters and whose secular knowledge was immensely limited in comparison with today's, then in regard to the matter of the age of the Earth . . yes. In regard to my moral compass, since much of its nature was acquired through his teachings . . . not especially.

 

[Ophiolite]

He did. Go back and read it. Deny deny deny. I am just wondering why you think the rules apply to everyone else except you guys who are free to takes swipes at others and then deny and obfuscate when confronted? Facts mean nothing to you guys since they exist to be ignored or twisted.

This is a thread to discuss the question raised in the thread title. If you have a problem with any member, or any post, then report them or it. Just don't disrupt this thread any further please. It is impolite. (That's not a personal attack it is an observation.)