if we let our schools become guided by strict conservative doctrine of the far right we become like Iran and the Taliban
No he's not. Traditional conservatives believe individuals and market forces dictate pretty much all things, but the government should offer bare minimum services like police, fire protection, highways and (maybe) schools. Otherwise, they believe government gets in the way. Government is there for protection from crime and foreign invasions, little else. You're right in the sense that they have more hatred for levels of government with each level of removal from their locality, but it's a matter of degrees, but ultimately, less government (of any form), the better. Here's how you can distinguish the "less government, the better" folks. Trad-Cons: "Government is a necessary evil needed to keep things the way they are, and it should avoid trying to force changes. Let society take its course." Libertarians: "Government is inherently inefficient and corrupt. We can do better when left alone. I say this as I enjoy the protection of my local police force and drive on this interstate highway that the government built." Anarchists: "Laws are stupid. Authoritiy is stupid. Stop telling me what to do. Look at me, I'm bashing a mailbox!"
How does "bringing the world into focus through the lens of scripture" demonstrate that they are not open-minded?
A lens, by its nature, selects a point of view and a point of focus, and excludes all that that does not fall inside its selective viewing field. So viewing something through a lens of any sort is inherently closed-minded. Well, I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant, but it's quite unintentionally accurate.
Conservatives resist changing things that work. Evolution works for the body of evidence collected. Creationism doesn't. And no matter how hard they try, the creationists/ID folks will never put that toothpaste back in the tube. Creationists and ID theories postulate the existence of something that can't be described. This is useless as an explanation for anything, and is rightly discarded by people who need useful explanations of things.
Actually, all have been repudated. Over and over. That is because creationists, unlike real scientists, will continue to use discredited arguments over and over because their goal is not truth, but the conversion of the ignorant. 1) Moon Dust: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html (By the way, high level creationists say this argument is invalid and should not be used. See: Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. "Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System" in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42.) 2) Magnetic field: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html 3) Fossil Record: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html 4) Embryonic recapitulation http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html 5) Abiogenesis probability http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html 6) Second Law of Thermodynamics http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html 7) Vestigial Organs http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB361.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/scadding.html 8) Quick formation of fossils http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html 9) Punctuated equilibrium http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html 10) Cytochrome differences http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html 11) Initial conditions unreliable for radiometric dating methods http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html Also, if such dating methods were unrealiable, why do they produce dates that agree with each other and with isochron dating (which has built-in checks for contamination) and not totally random dates? 12) Paluxy River tracks / Loch Ness monster / Japanese plesiosaur / Ark size http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html (Also, most high level creationists also disavow this argument as well) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lochness/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html I cannot find anything pro or con about the supposed Japanese sound recording of a dinosaur except for a critical(!) mention in the Fortean Times magazine. 13) Sun shrinkage http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875 14) Nile river sediment Usually creationists use this same argument for the Mississippi, although they stopped because there is actual oil drilling in the area so we can see how deep the sediment actually goes (up to 7 miles!). In any case, there is no problem with the Nile (or at least the current path of the Nile) being far younger than the world because no one is claiming that the Nile existed at the birth of the world. It is interesting, however, that the civilization around the Nile is older than the supposed date of the Great Flood. 15) Earth rotation slowing http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html 16) Earliest date of recorded writings All this means is that the date of the start of civilization is known. It is only a valid argument for Creationism because they think that civilization is the natural state of man. 17) The Bible Some of the scientific errors in the Bible: 1Ch 16:30; Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, PS 104:5 - The Earth does not move Ge 3:14 - Snakes eat dust Le 11:6 - Rabbits chew their cud Le 11:13,19; Dt 14:11,18 - Bats are birds Le 11:20-23 - There are four-legged birds and insects
The Laws of Thermodynamics say that no energy is lost, but that it does get turned into less useful forms of energy (ie. heat). When things get sucked into a black hole, they get crushed and whatever qualities they had no longer exist. However, the mass-energy of the thing does still exist, and it is represented as the gravitational space-time curvature around the black hole (that is, when things get sucked into the black hole, the black hole gets more powerful). The transmitting signal of Air America will eventually be turned into heat (this makes it different than sports-talk broadcasts, which started out as nothing but hot air).
You mean "devilution"? It's apparently been refuted, so why bother? http://www.pastornet.net.au/noahsark/bookpics/refuting.jpg
This has to be one of the most bullshit lists ever compiled and not worthy of serious rebuttal, but as an exploration geologist we use transitional fossils constantly to compare rock strata, age, correlation etc. If you are basing your argument about evolution on this stupid list then without a dout, GWB is your man.
Creationism rears its head in Georgia: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...53&e=6&u=/nm/20041108/sc_nm/life_evolution_dc
Why am I not surprised? Delta's link to the website that provides 'evidence' against Evolution had no source material to back up any of the concocted (some of it really "out there") evidence, and included the Bible as part of that evidence. Scary.
While we all appreciate your fine efforts spejic, but you do realize that the people that most need to read this can't see it...literally...as in it's invisible. See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.
I think Creationism in a Science class is stupid as much as the next guy (assuming he has two brain cells to rub together), but why don't we just leave this stuff to the people in Wisconsin or wherever it's happening. This is why red-states hate blue-states and vice versa.
I think you are right - more than that, I also think that Delta Blues never even read the article he linked to, otherwise he would not praise something that included the Loch Ness monster as evidence (or, I hope not). However, I think it is important to show that answers written for the common person to the creationist clap-trap are easily available. Because there are reasons why universal education was mandated in America - it is supposed to create a valuable workforce and a thoughtful voter. The federal government cannot let states create ignorant boobs just because that is what some people want.
As a political matter, that's exactly what we do. As for us flapping our gums...er, fingers...this is a discussion board.
From the article, quoting the sticker placed in a textbook: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." I agree. Studied carefully and critically considered with an open mind, various theories of evolution would kick the ass of "scientific creationism."
I actually agree with this. If you want to put that stick on a textbook, that's fine, it really isn't swaying people in any direction, or at least I hope it isn't. You'd be right. Science class is for science. If schools want to teach creationism, fine, but make it it's own class. Take it as an elective, just don't put it in the same classroom as factual observations.
Even then, the class better be about the bible's use of methaphors to explain the world, as in, "When the bible says ____, it actually means ____." Otherwise, that class will have about the same academic value as the one covering the historic race between the tortoise and the hare that changed the landscape of competitive inter-species racing.
For some of us, this is not happening in some far-off state - it's happening in my state. I chuckled at the idiots in Kansas that did this crap a few years back, but now that it's going down in my state, I'm finding it difficult to laugh about it. BTW, National Geographic's cover story this month is titled "Was Darwin Wrong?" The answer is an emphatic "No." A teaser is available online, but the article talks about the continually growing mountain of evidence supporting the theory. The fact that literal Biblical creationism is still believed by such an astounding number of supposedly educated Americans is... depressing. (Actually, I suppose the fact that people believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 despite the facts is not so hard to understand when you consider how much larger the body of evidence is for evolution, and how widely disbelieved it is.)
I disagree strongly. Putting that on a textbook is massively misleading. Evolution is a theory and a fact. Like gravity. Any creationist who wants to take a jog off the top of the Chrysler Building is welcome to ponder the concept on the way down. Remember, as Jello Biafra told us, if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.