Creationism, the belief that a god -- not evolution -- shaped life on Earth, is ... spreading in the very stronghold of evolution, Europe. Thats the conclusion of five years of research thats been put into new book on creationism. The book details how creationism is on the march throughout most of Europe. "Creationism is most dominant in Eastern Europe and Turkey, but even some schools in the Netherlands are teaching creationism," says one of the books authors Hans Henrik Hjermitslev, University College South Denmark. "Politicians in some German federal states are advocating that schools use creationist books alongside those about evolutionary theory in their lessons. This kind of struggle is going on on a small scale in many places."... "Over the last ten years weve seen the emergence of big-city creationism. London is a good example," says Kjærgaar. Here, noticeably more young people have been signed up to various local and religious groups. "And this doesnt just apply to young Muslims ...
The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria has been used by critics of creationism and intelligent design, in both print articles and on websites, to challenge creationist claims. These bacteria can produce novel enzymes that allow them to feed on by-products of nylon manufacture which did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in the 1930s. Critics of creationism have argued that this contradicts creationist claims that no new information can be added to a genome by mutation, and that proteins are too complex to evolve through a process of mutation and natural selection. Creationists have posted responses to these challenges on their own websites, which have in turn generated more responses from their critics. The issue was first raised by critics of creationism such as the National Center for Science Education, and New Mexicans for Science and Reason (NMSR) who stated that research refutes claims made by creationists and intelligent design proponents. The claims were that random mutation and ...
The fundamental hypocrisy in Dr. Cornelius argument is that he supports creationism/ID (comment above, May 2, 2010 8:57 PM), so he thinks creationism is a scientific hypothesis. However, when Darwin points out the serious flaws in all creationist hypotheses, then Cornelius says hes using a religious, theological argument. Bull. Cornelius himself defines creationism as scientific (and it was defined as a scientific hypothesis in Darwins era) so Darwins arguments against creationism are scientific arguments by Cornelius own defintion of science, no matter whether Darwins arguments sound like theology or not. By Cornelius own defintion of science, which includes creationism, an argument (like Darwins re: ichneumon wasp, above) can be both scientific and religious at the same time, because Cornelius and scientists of the 19th. century considered creationism as a scientific hypothesis. Because you define creationism as a scientific hypothesis, you have no grounds on which to bitch when Darwin ...
The fundamental hypocrisy in Dr. Cornelius argument is that he supports creationism/ID (comment above, May 2, 2010 8:57 PM), so he thinks creationism is a scientific hypothesis. However, when Darwin points out the serious flaws in all creationist hypotheses, then Cornelius says hes using a religious, theological argument. Bull. Cornelius himself defines creationism as scientific (and it was defined as a scientific hypothesis in Darwins era) so Darwins arguments against creationism are scientific arguments by Cornelius own defintion of science, no matter whether Darwins arguments sound like theology or not. By Cornelius own defintion of science, which includes creationism, an argument (like Darwins re: ichneumon wasp, above) can be both scientific and religious at the same time, because Cornelius and scientists of the 19th. century considered creationism as a scientific hypothesis. Because you define creationism as a scientific hypothesis, you have no grounds on which to bitch when Darwin ...
I dont suppose anyone has actually considered that creationism may actually be true. Many evolutionists I hear state that creationism has no scientific grounding. I would beg to differ and suggest that it is evolution that has little to go on. For example I am yet to hear how the first living cell came to life all by itself. How all the molecules needed suddenly formed, came together and then came to life. How processes formed through evolution has never been explained to me. How did photosynthesis come about gradually by mutations each adding its own benefit to the organism. It would seem to me that many mutations would be needed at once. Single mutations on there own wouldnt add value. Its the same for the formation of organs. Without vital parts theyre useless. So how did the organ work before vital parts evolved ...
Eric Meikle, project director at the National Center for Science Education, recently told Politico that he doesnt believe "the function of public education is to prepare students for the turn of the 19th century.". Good point. We should stop teaching kids about the wonders of windmills and choo-choo trains and stop demeaning the technological accomplishments of the 20th century. Because guess what? It already sounds a lot like the 19th century in classrooms.. Of course, Meikle wasnt referring to the environmental Cassandras of our public school districts; he was pondering the boogeyman of creationism. And like most efforts to warn us about the menace of religious extremism in schools, all these investigations into "creationism" offer the media a convenient way to express secular unease about the supposed outsize power of zealots while also clouding the purpose of school choice.. Yes, 14 states spend "nearly $1 billion" of taxpayer tuition on "hundreds of religious schools" that teach kids the ...
The statements on creationism (The Scientist, November 17, 1986, pp.10-11), have stimulated me to write. I believe they all missed the main point. Fundamentally, the difference between creationism and science is that the former is simpler. Thus, it is more likely to be espoused by the uninformed, the simpleminded, the intellectually idle. Comprehension and evaluation of scientific evidence about something like evolution is really very hard work, and is unlikely to be done at the highest level by
CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTIONISM. V) CONCLUSION: CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION. A) EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIMS ARE SUSPECT EVEN AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. [Henry M. Morris states, (Impact periodical #194, article entitled EVOLUTION - A HOUSE DIVIDED, 1989, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, Ca)]:. If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand (Mark 3:25). Evolutionists ardently defend their house against outsiders, but squabble vigorously with each other inside the house. In this article we present a collage of recent quotes from evolutionists attacking different aspects of their own basic theory. Lest we be accused of out-of-context quoting, we emphasize that each person quoted is a committed evolutionist, even though his remarks may make him sound like a creationist.. 1) COSMIC EVOLUTION. The standard evolutionary concept for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but many eminent astronomers flatly reject it.. Both the Big Bang model and the theoretical side of ...
TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
TalkReason provides a forum for the publication of papers with well-thought out arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics.
As I understand it, creationism is based on an unwillingness (or inability) to move too far away from a literalist interpretation of scripture. Proponents of Intelligent Design claim not to be starting from this point, while continuing to work hand in glove with their creationist ancestors/cousins/fellow travellers. In contradistinction, they claim to be basing their attitude to science on the complexities it uncovers. Were it not for the company they kept and the tactics they employed, and if they could content themselves with letting science teachers stick to the facts unearthed, this would be respectable enough. Science teachers might even venture that some sort of fine-tuning intelligence or intelligences (aliens, perhaps) may or may not be responsible for all this complexity (DNA, the Goldilocks enigma, life from nonlife, the birth of the universe, etc) - that is, after all, the mainstream theistic view. But ID proponents cannot stop there. They want pupils to be told that "an intelligent ...
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CB025.htm 20 April 2006 It is the scientific establishments own self-doubt that lies at the root of the furore over creationism. by David Perks It seems that a new spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of creationism. During the past week Britains National Union of Teachers (NUT) put forward a motion at its national conference to end state funding of religious schools. Meanwhile, the arrival of John Mackay, an Australian creationist, on British shores prompted a full-page article in the Guardian (1). Despite the current furore, the real problem is not the strength of creationism but the defensiveness of the science establishment. This is well illustrated by the recent Royal Society statement on the issue. The Royal Society has condemned the rise of creationism in our schools and universities. As Professor David Read, vice president, put it: We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent ...
Creationism is not falsifiable as its proponents base the conjecture on a human text (the Bible) which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment but are instead accepted as infallible truth. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that creationism can be contradicted. Even when evolution in action is observed, creationism always allows for an after-the-fact justification of the inconsistent observation with an argument to authority. Put differently, for any possible observation you can imagine Creationism can explain away both that observation and its opposite. Only an observation proving that God does not exist would undermine the theory, and obviously that is impossible. Since no observation is allowed to contradict creationism and it has no predictive value, it cannot be science. It is important to remember that even though a theory is falsifiable it may never be ...
This list is for the debate between evolution and creationism. Other permitted topics are any nexus between science and religion and church-state separation. Things that will get you moderated: Personal attacks. Unsupported ad hominem attacks on public figures or others in general. Posts without content. That is, you cant just reply with this is idiotic or you are right! Make your arguments and support them with evidence. Thats debate. Creationists are idiots! or Evolution is a religion! do not constitute debate. A few minimal posts are acceptable but consistent content-free posts are not. Excessive quote-mining. Quote to support your point, otherwise debate in your own voice. NOBODY BUT A BONA FIDE MODERATOR CAN PUT MODERATOR IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF A POST! There will be no exceptions to this rule. If you want to reply to a post with moderator in the subject line, start a new thread. There is a 10 post per day limit. If you can say it in 10 emails a day, you need to work on your writing
Get an answer for What do you think of the always popular debate of CREATIONISM .VS. EVOLUTION?The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you dont agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether youre a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, youre condemned and exposed as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass relig
Ottienilo da una biblioteca! Science, evolution, and creationism. [National Academy of Sciences (U.S.); Institute of Medicine (U.S.);]
Iowa has joined the ranks of crazy, putting first in a straw poll someone out to destroy social security and medicare. This agenda would lead to the biggest increase in abject poverty the United States has ever seen. Meanwhile, Texas Governor Rick Perry is being touted as the new savior of the radical right, proof positive all economic theory comes from God. This fundamentalist radical right is nothing new. The Tea party is simply the moral majority, wrapped in a new bow. What is new is the bold faced economic fiction being spun right, left and center. Its like the idea that Creationism is equal to Evolution and the biological sciences has invaded the world of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics. We are re-entering the dark ages. Down is up, left is right and if you float in water, you must be a witch. Most economists know in a severe recession increasing government spending to take up the slack in demand is a good thing to do. Yet, a group of crazies have kidnapped the national discourse and
Creation Moments : Science / Creationism - Books Product Sets Videos Donations Creation Moments Closeouts Public School Use Curriculum ecommerce, open source, shop, online shopping
According to yesterdays Guardian, a group of scientists that include David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Paul Nurse (head of the Royal Society), Lewis Wolpert, Helena Cronin, and Colin Blakemore, have banded together to fight creeping creationism in Britain, both in schools and elsewhere: A group of 30 scientists have signed a statement saying it is unacceptable…
By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)--Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children.
By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)--Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children.
The principal source given for this information is a web page written by the Australian creationist Ken Ham (1996), entitled Kangaroos, dinosaurs and Eden. Readers should remember that the entries at Conservapedia are frequently updated, so although the quotation is correct at the time of writing it may not survive subsequent editing. In addition, the term baramin is unlikely to be familiar to most biologists: it refers to an attempt to place the biblical notion of a kind of animal on a scientific footing.. CREATIONISM AND BIOLOGY IN THE USA. The creationist threat to biology in the USA is so well known that it requires little discussion here, but it is worthwhile to correct a widespread misapprehension. The trial of John T. Scopes in 1925 is often regarded as a de facto victory for the rational teaching of biology in the USA, because, although the fundamentalists won the case, their spokesmen made themselves so ridiculous in the process that other states were discouraged from proposing laws ...
Page 4 of 5 - Evolutionists: What Have You Devoted To Creationism? - posted in Creation vs Evolution: 1. Why cant I compare a designed system with an undesigned one? Doesnt that depend on what processes I am trying to study? For instance, if I want to see how much damage a hailstone will do on my newly designed roofing material, is it valid for me to make my own hailstones, calculate the velocity at which hail would strike the ground and then shoot them at my new material or m...
Page 4 of 5 - Evolutionists: What Have You Devoted To Creationism? - posted in Creation vs Evolution: 1. Why cant I compare a designed system with an undesigned one? Doesnt that depend on what processes I am trying to study? For instance, if I want to see how much damage a hailstone will do on my newly designed roofing material, is it valid for me to make my own hailstones, calculate the velocity at which hail would strike the ground and then shoot them at my new material or m...
4) There are well-informed YEC scientists, like Wise, or the people who worked on the RATE project, who are scientifically qualified, fair and reasonably objective in their discussion of the evidence for and against Young-Earth Creationism. But they are few and far between. There are charlatans, tax dodgers (see here), and demagogues out there, many with little or no scientific training, with web sites, radio programs, books to sell, and seminars to present in churches. It is much easier to get a following, including financial support, if you scream that anyone who doesnt believe in YEC is anti-God, and that there is abundant scientific evidence that YEC is true, than if you are fair and reasonably objective. Christians who dont agree with the screamers are seldom heard in the non-scientific media, or in conservative churches. As a result, conservative Christians, as individuals, in congregations, and in Christian schools, including home schools, colleges, and others, are being cut off from ...
CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION, (CONT.) IV) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE REFUTES EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES. A) EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM REFUTED. CREATION-EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIA:. http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Basic Theory. 1) INTRODUCTION. "Here are 26 reasons why the seven evolutionary solar system theories are worthless... The Basic Evolutionary theory - Proximate and balanced planets and moons cannot be explained away Disproving the 7 Theories - A close look at each evolutionary theory of how our solar system made itself by accident Page numbers without book references refer to the book, ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on..., ...only 164 statements are by creationists.... The evolutionists have several theories about how the [solar system] came into existence..... Our ...
Available in: Paperback. The clash between evolution and creationism is one of the most hotly contested topics in education today. This book, written
academia (43) accommodation (1) activities (1) advice (4) agriculture (5) animals (67) apple (15) apps (20) art (22) asimov (2) atheism (16) australia (49) babies (1) bacteria (4) bbc (15) beer (8) best of british (23) bioinformatics (19) biology (84) birds (6) blog (4) blogs (41) bognor regis (1) books (34) brexit (1) brunch (4) cabbagesofdoom (16) cafe (4) cake (3) calendar (3) cartoon (10) cats (34) cgi tools (1) charity (2) chemistry (1) chocolate (11) christmas (9) citation metrics (10) climate change (15) coffee (15) conferences (10) conservation (10) crafts (3) creationism (28) curry (3) darwin (19) data visualisation (1) dawkins (10) death (6) dinosaurs (7) dna (5) dublin (11) education (29) emigration (2) energy (3) environment (21) ethics (1) etymology (2) events (11) evolution (64) fails (2) fashion (1) fave (134) films and tv (17) finance (1) food (58) fossils (4) fun (16) fun with words (12) funny (34) gadgets (20) games (6) geekcraft (14) geeks (16) genetics (29) geology (13) gm ...
Day-age creationism is an exegetical approach[1] to reading the Genesis 1:1-1:23 according to a literal framework. It is an attempt to shoehorn the biblical myth into something resembling scientific fact. Day-age creationists believe that God created the universe in six days (Hebrew: "יוֹם", yom), but they also believe that there has been a consistent mistranslation of yom which should be read as "era", and not "24-hour, solar day". This stands in contrast to Young Earth creationists who hold that the yom in question is necessarily a 24-hour period. The Day-Age and Framework approaches are utilized by Old Earth creationists, who both accept an age of the Earth that is consistent with scientific evidence (about 4.54 billion years) and read the Genesis creation story literally. ...
Charles Thaxton, the "academic editor" of Pandas , is the director of curriculum research for FTE and a fellow of the CSC. In a proto-ID book on the origin of life, Thaxton argued that "Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin science.". Given Pandas pedigree and the affiliations of its authors, it is not surprising that the book is nothing more than disguised creationism. What is surprising is the transparency of this disguise. Despite the efforts of IDers to come up with new anti-Darwinian arguments, Pandas turns out to be nothing more than recycled scientific creationism, with most of the old arguments buffed up and proffered as new. (Unlike scientific creationism, however, Pandasadopts a studied neutrality toward the facts of astronomy and geology, instead of denying them outright.). •. Pandas discussion of the Earths age is a prime example of the books creationist roots, and of its anti-scientific attitude. If the Earth were young ó say, the 6,000 ...
The biochemists behind IDiocy are completely at odds with genesis, just as much as evolutionists are. Basically, they accept evolution between kinds of animals and even the evolution of man from lower primates, but they feel that a few structures, such as bacterial flagella, are so intricate and complex and irreducible as to be only possible by purposeful and intelligent design. This type of design is supposed to be in opposition to natural design, whereing things like natural selection, which IDists accept, result in structures that appear designed, but arent. How they are able to distinguish between complex naturally designed objects and intelligently designed organic objects I dont know. They seem to base it entirely on a claim of personal disbeleif, ie I dont see how it couldve been formed naturally, therefore it mustve been formed by a pre-existing thing ...
Voted a 2000 Book of the Year by Christianity Today The Intelligent Design movement is three things: a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes an intellectual movement that challenges naturalistic evolutionary theories a way of understanding divine action Although the fast-growing movement has gained considerable grassroots support, many scientists and theologians remain skeptical about its merits. Scientists worry that its bad science (merely creationism in disguise) and theologians worry that its bad theology (misunderstanding divine action). In this book William Dembski addresses these concerns and brilliantly argues that intelligent design provides a crucial link between science and theology. Various chapters creatively and powerfully address intelligent discernment of divine action in nature, why the significane of miracles should be reconsidered, and the demise and unanswered questions of British natural theology. Effectively challenging the hegemony of naturalism
The Creation Science Curriculum: Evolution or Intelligent Design?. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his revolutionary work, On the Origin of the Species. In it he proposed that life as we know it evolved over a great length of time by a haphazard, fully natural process called natural selection. Now, over 150 years later, Darwins legacy dominates biology; yet his ideas are not unopposed, and the opposition has never been stronger. Since the beginning, religious people have rejected evolution in favor of creationism: the idea that God created life. And now, in the last 20 years, the Intelligent Design movement has created a powerful non-religious case for opposing evolution. Are the critics of evolution just religious zealots, incapable of being rational or scientific? Or was Darwin right?. Its more than just an intellectual debate. Whether or not life was a mere accident has a huge impact on law, culture, ethics, and every imaginable aspect of life. The question is whether human beings are ...
Today, I want to defend the proposition that we should be teaching intelligent design in science classes.. Recent events (and not-so-recent events) have shown us that there is a serious deficiency in our education system. There are a lot of people in this country who think that intelligent design counts as a scientific theory. The numbers of people who believe this tells us that our education system has let us down. It has failed in its mission to help students to understand what a scientific theory is. Armed with that knowledge, they should find it much easier to see through the smoke and mirrors and legislative bullying of those who advocate creationism in its various forms.. It is a travesty of our educational system that so many young students can go through science classes in this country and graduate with such a poor understanding of what science is. The mere fact that we have such an ignorant population should be a cause of embarrassment in its own right. When America shows up at the ...
I. Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable?. Some reviewers of Darwin s Black Box (Behe 1996) have raised philosophical objections to intelligent design. I will discuss several of these over the next few sections, beginning with the question of falsifiability. To decide whether, or by what evidence, it is falsifiable, one first has to be sure what is meant by intelligent design. By that phrase someone might mean that the laws of nature themselves are designed to produce life and the complex systems that undergird it. In fact, something like that position has been taken by the physicist Paul Davies and the geneticist Michael Denton in their recent books, respectively, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life (Davies 1999) and Nature s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe. (Denton 1998) That stance also seems to pass muster with the National Academy of Sciences:. Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and ...
To answer your three questions Mr. Reinhold, "What are evolutionists so scared of?", "Why are they so close-minded?", and "Why cant they study creationism?" I put to you that biologists who study evolution are not afraid of Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. When such religious ideas attempt to be passed off as science, scientists became active in preventing a travesty in education! They are not very close-minded, unless you are referring to not willing to share the scientific classroom with unscientific ideas. At that point I want them to close ranks and prepare to repel boarders. If you want Creationism in science class, then why are you also not promoting Astrology in Astronomy class, Alchemy in Chemistry class, and Numerology in Mathematics class? Science dismiss all of these as pseudoscience, as well they should. Now if you think scientists are close-minded about valid scientific ideas, then you need a better science education yourself. Look at the changes in scientific ...
There are several confusions running through this thread about the character of ID. This seems to be occurring on both sides of the issue and maybe worth noting.. 1. Jason says that "Klinghoffer is full of it when he says its a dishonest tactic to compare ID to creationism. The proper analogy is that they are different dialects of the same language" because of "their religious motivations." This is correct in the sense that they are both religiously oriented views. But, of course, its wrong to lump ID and Creationism together in another sense. ID is a branch of "natural theology" that appeals to empirical evidence. Creationism is a branch of "revealed theology" that appeals to revelation from the Bible. Thats probably what Klinghoffer is taking about.. 2. There is also a related confusion by posters here about the status of ID as "scientific." It is noted in the original post that "ID is not a model, but rather an inference to the best explanation based on uniform experience with the ...
While it was clear that the National Trust was not promoting creationism as a plausible explanation for the formation of the Causeway, many observers were still troubled by the fact that it had consulted with Northern Irelands most prominent creationist organisation, the Caleb Foundation, when planning the contents of the visitors centre. The Trust has stressed that the Foundation was just one of a "wide range of groups" that was consulted, but the problem is that by doing so, and by including creationism in the final exhibition, it has provided an opportunity for the Caleb Foundation to exploit its relationship with one of the countrys most prestigious conservation organisations and claim the inclusion of creationism at the Causeway visitors centre as a significant victory. For evidence of this, look no further than the statement released by the Caleb Foundation last week, which praised the National Trust for its "acknowledgement both of the legitimacy of the creationist position on the ...
Not quite. Darwin said that the continuum of micro changes existed, over time, for each species, but he understood clearly why the fossil record would be spotty.] And it is spotty. Discontinuous is a better word.. What youre missing is that its discontinuous IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. It is NOT discontinous in a way consistent with creationism. Yet again, this *support* evolutionary biology and falsifies a non-evolutionary creationism. Furthermore, periodically nwe fossils are found which help fill in some of the discontinuities, and these consistently MATCH THE PREDICTIONS OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. This again is stunning confirmation that evolutionary biology is correct, and creationism is wrong (see my earlier posts about the many and varied fossils which have been found fulfilling predictions of evolutionary biology, and *refuting* the confident statements of creationists about how such missing links would forever remain missing because evolution was off on the wrong ...
The issue of Young Earth Creationism (the idea that the world was created in the last 6-10 thousand years) is specific to the US. It didnt really exist at the time of the Scopes Trial. In fact, the main proponent of creationism at the trial, the colorful William Jennings Bryan, was an old earth creationist. The idea of a young earth took hold after the publication of a couple of books in the 60s arguing for flood geology - that all of the geologic features of the Earth have been shaped by Noahs flood only a few thousand years ago. This kind of fantasy geology is, thankfully, missing from most of the Muslim world. This is very encouraging! An acceptance of the age of the Earth in billions of years opens up the possibility for the acceptance of a change of species over this very long time. It is really a shame that a significant fraction of population of the most scientifically advanced country in the world accepts such young earth creationism. I know that social and political factors, colored ...
As you can see via the chart below, the two largest biblical creation ministry websites are now receiving about 1,200,000 unique visitors a month. This is only the beginning as the number of unique vistors for these two websites has doubled in the last 2 years. With global Christianity/creationism growing fast and with the English language being so prevalent in the world, it is reasonable to assume that the growth of online biblical creationism will continue to be impressive. See: Global creationism ...
So at some point I invoked Ockhams razor and the principle that where mere ignorance suffices as an explanation there is no need to propose a vast conspiracy and started to suspect that this silence is indeed due to ignorance. It might be hard at first to wrap ones mind around that - after all that stuff was thought in schools during communist times - but after some more reflection is not that hard to see how it could happen. First, it was taught but was taught through an ideological prism, so people developed suspicion towards it. Second, it might have been taught, but it was only once and superficially (even if aggressively), and at an age where the conflict might not have been apparent in the case of these people, and after that they were never exposed to the subject, because of the early specialization of college majors in the Eastern European university systems, where you enroll in a major from the very beginning and if its in the humanities, you never take any science. Third, evolution ...
American Atheists Media Alert. ZINDLER WILL DEBATE CREATIONISM, "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" TODAY (THURSDAY, 8/4) ON JANET PARSHALLS AMERICA RADIO PROGRAM. Frank Zindler, Science Advisor for American Atheists will be the guest Thursday afternoon (August 4, 2005) on the nationally-syndicated "Janet Parshalls America" Radio Program broadcast live from Washington, DC and on the internet. Check local listings; in DC, the program airs on WAVA, 105.1. Log on to http://www.wava.com and you can listen via the internet.. Zindler is a former biology professor and now serves as Editor of American Atheists Press. He is a nationally recognized authority on the history, mythology and flaws of creationism, "intelligent design" and other pseudo-science accounts pertaining to human origins. He is a professional linguist, and the author of several books and numerous articles concerning Biblical inerrancy, scientific-cultural issues and the alleged historicity of Jesus Christ.. WHO & WHAT: Frank Zindler, American ...
There are countless forms of Creationism, of which Intelligent Design is one. Intelligent Design holds that there is evidence that the lifeforms on Earth were designed rather than naturally evolved, and typically tries to pass itself off as science (it isnt). Creationism encompasses everything from the Deistic "god created the universe and then left it to its own devices" to the old-school "God created Earth and all the life on it a few thousand years ago, as described in Genesis". All of these theories are alike inasmuch as there is no supporting evidence for them and thus no reason to tell children they are true, but they vary in the extent to which there is hard evidence AGAINST them (e.g., the Genesis story is absolutely wrong unless you also posit that God rigged the entire universe so that it *looked* billions of years old, and stuffed the Earth full of ancient-looking fossils while he was at it). ...
Photo: A slide used in NTU during the event Life on Earth: Intelligent Design or Chance?. How long was this event publicized for? In your essay, you suggested that the publicity period was quite some time.. Sharad: The event was publicized about three weeks in advance on Facebook, which is considerable in itself. But the true extent of the publicity is evidenced by the large number of people who handed out flyers for the event. In two different classes, classmates handed out flyers after class to everyone who was interested. Clearly, they were reaching out to any and everyone they could. So its safe to say it was publicized fairly extensively.. What is your impression of the initial outreach of the seminar? Sharad: Ive attached the flyer they handed out. In retrospect, I should have known by the event sub-heading ("Intelligent design or chance?") and by the fact that it was hosted by the NTU Campus Crusade for Christ, but I still held out hope that the speaker would show that faith and ...
While it is true that nature speaks persuasively about the existence of God (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 8; Ps. 19), general revelation alone cannot bring people to salvation. In his apologetic speech in Athens, St. Paul clearly indicated the need to move on from the facts of nature to the reality of the Creator and the risen Redeemer in order to persuade people to turn to God (Acts 17:22-31). Unfortunately, in spite of much good it has brought about, the ID movement only goes half way. Darwinism-bashing, although a valuable endeavour as such, does not point to the cross, the only hope for fallen man. It was on the cross that Jesus Christ, our Creator (see Col. 1: 15-16), bore the sins of entire mankind. In order to persuade sinners to accept the good news of the Gospel, they have to realise that the bad news of Genesis (the Fall) is true history ...
Posted on 12/03/2005 6:18:54 AM PST by Right Wing Professor. I m afraid we live in loopy times. How else to account for the latest entries in America s culture wars: science museum docents donning combat gloves against rival fundamentalist tour groups and evolution on trial in a Pennsylvania federal court. For those keeping score, so far this year it s Monkeys: 0, Monkey Business: 82. Thats 82 evolution versus creationism debates in school boards or towns nationwide this year alone. [1]. This past summer, when most Americans were distracted by thoughts of beaches and vacations or the high price of gasoline (even before the twin hits of Katrina and Rita), 2 heavy-weight political figures joined the President of the United States to weigh in on a supposedly scientific issue. US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, and President George W. Bush each endorsed the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in the science classroom. Can anyone reasonably convince me ...
The recent ruling (WPost,Dec 22/2005,Page A28) by Judge John E Jones III looks very much against the right to freedom of expression. When we were taught about the creation of the universe and life, we were informed about all theories including evolution and creationism, and "intelligent design" wasnt a package available then. Today, there are advocates who claim that "intelligent design" is a possibility and is also highly probable. I see no harm in informing the future generation that there are groups who believe that "intelligent design" is highly probable considering the harmony of the Cosmos. It definitely doesnt go against the scientific theory of evolution which is proven to have happened and in a continual progressive state. Advocates of "intelligent design" merely hypothesise that this process is possibly bounded and is not progressing at the pace it should be because of several reasons they mention. Those advocates may even withstand a trial in front of a scientific committee with ...
OK, here is why I think this is just so much nonsense:. "it predicts the presence of complex and functionally specific information in the cell" - This is a quite bizarre claim. The Intelligent Design variant of creationism arose in the 1990s. At that time, the presence of large amounts of genetic information in cells was well-known. In what way is the presence of information a sensible prediction? And as far as I can tell, this whole complex and functionally specific information remains remarkably ill-defined (see for example this demolition by Myers), and in particular is inconsistent with conventional information theory. If were now going to think of the origins of life and the genetic systems we see around us today, all ID creationists are saying is that they cannot understand how it happened, and in their religiously motivated world-view prefer to fall back on supernatural intervention rather than taking a genuinely scientific approach to the problem. How is complex and functionally ...
Intelligent Design theory is fascinating to study. Check out these informative & interactive intelligent design websites as science options for your child.