Creationists

[Hollie]

Council of Europe 2007 resolution on the teaching of creationism - RationalWiki


Dangers of creationism in education



Article One
The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.


Article Two
For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.


[edit] Article Three
Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.


[edit] Article Four
The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.


[edit] Article Five
Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.


[edit] Article Six
We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.


[edit] Article Seven
There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.
[edit] Article Eight
Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.


There's more but, you get the idea...

 

[AnonymousIV]

I don't want my decedents to live in a world that's cold and dark. I hope America never looks like the pix.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.

I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm good with that any depth of understanding that you need to seek in order to satisfy your mind is alright. But The Book says, God created Man from the Earth and then blew life into him. Could whatever reasoning you know allow for a self perfecting spirit? Do you have a cap on the universe?

The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.

more fact ,less sky god stories!

How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That makes no sense. You obviously despise science and have made every effort to denigrate science. I certainly wouldn't expect a fundie zealot to be able to form rational opinions on science matters.

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.

No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.

Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.

 

[Youwerecreated]

how can we do tests for god when there is no evidence at all?

No one can put God to the test and I would strongly recommend you don't.

ALL READY HAVE...BEEN THERE DONE THAT....One day maybe you'll grow out of your fear and ignorance...

Maybe he is saving you for something special. Why would you do that if he does not exist ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Or all your cut and pastes from the IHEU...

" About IHEU



Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.

Our vision is a Humanist world; a world in which human rights are respected and everyone is able to live a life of dignity. The mission of IHEU is to build and represent the global Humanist movement that defends human rights and promotes Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.

Based in London, IHEU is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris). IHEU has observer status at the African Commission on Human and People's Rights."

Oh my gawd, they aren't divisive and don't promote ignorance and superstition like the fundie creationists.

Allow me to introduce you to what you often refer to as ignorant person and promoting ignorance .I'll let you point out his ignorance. Oh no there goes the neighborhood he is a creationist.




Genetics: No Friend of Evolution


A Highly Qualified Biologist Tells It Like It Is.

by Dr. Lane Lester on

March 1, 1998


Layman



author-kenneth-patman
creation-magazine
dna
genetics




Featured In

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

Environment

This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck in part through 'the inherited effects of the increased use of parts'.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.

Recombination

This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galapagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.2

Mutation

Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.


In a fallen world, predators like this tiger, by culling the more defective animals, may serve to slow genetic deterioration by screening out the effects of mutation. Right: The 'naked rooster' mutation-no feathers are produced. Such mutational defects may rarely be 'beneficial' (e.g. if a breeder were to select this type to prevent having to pluck pre-roasting?) but never add anything new. There is no mutation which shows how feathers or anything similar arose.

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly-exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favourite example of natural section is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled

As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

Creation

The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Here you can learn more about the man and see if you are educated enough to slander the man.

Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[Hollie]

The spirit that created all was perfect so was the creation. Sin brought for death and entropy to all.

We age and die,we are not being prefected.

more fact ,less sky god stories!

How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?

Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?

 

[Hollie]

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.

No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.

You can say anything you want. What you can't do is provide even the weakest of evidence that one or more supernatural, supermagical gods have "designed" anything.

Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.

We call that "stating the obvious". Were you hopiing that your silly comment was somehow profound?

 

[Hollie]

Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.

 

[Hollie]

No, I despise pseudoscience which is what many theories you believe are based on.

And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.

I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.

I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.

 

[UltimateReality]

hummmm. then logic would dictate that you must hate your own "theories" for the very same reasons.

No, I only believe what I can safely infer from the evidence. I can safely say all that we can see,touch,and feel,was the result of design. Not by chance,not by evolution.

You can say anything you want. What you can't do is provide even the weakest of evidence that one or more supernatural, supermagical gods have "designed" anything.

Life produces life.nonliving matter cannot turn into living organisms.

We call that "stating the obvious". Were you hopiing that your silly comment was somehow profound?

Obvious??? This profound statement violates the whole basis of your religion and the teachings of your mentor, Huran Yawnin.

 

[UltimateReality]

And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.

I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.

I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.

I'm guessing he is not interested in playing "Silly Word Games with Host Holly".

 

[Youwerecreated]

more fact ,less sky god stories!

How is man being perfected with the genetic disorders due to mutations are rising in numbers ?

Why are your gawds such incompetent "designers" that they would build planned obsolescence into their "designs"?

I have already gave you my opinion on this issue.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.

Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.

He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And yet after repeated requests, you cannot identify what theories are based pseudoscience.

I'm sure you do not even know what that term means.

I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.

I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.

Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?

 

[Hollie]

Lane Lester - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.

Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.

He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.

Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.

Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.

Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?

Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID / creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.

 

[Hollie]

I gave you a list, give me your evidence that proves that I am wrong. I refuse to keep repeating myself.

I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.

Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?

Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ahh. Lane Lester. Another creationist crackpot.

Ahh,I knew you couldn't nor would you attempt to point out his ignorance. I knew you would turn to your usual dribble,insulting someone educated to the point you can't take on the issues he raises.

He is a man of science and yet you still have a problem with him,why Hollie ? It isn't about science is it Hollie,it's because he is a believer.

Oh you poor dear. You don't understand the concept of professional integrity. Here, let's see if we can help.

Let's suppose that you were a biologist and were offered a chance to work in behalf of Phillip Morris companies. Your Job was to defend their claim that cigarette smoking was not harmful to peoples health. Let's further propose that as part of your employment, you had to sign an agreement that any results of your work that were in conflict with the opinions of Phillip Morris could not be disclosed.

Would that make you a shill for Phillip Morris? Would that make you a hack?

Of course it would. That scenario precisely describes the ID / creationist hacks who sign such agreements as required by the ICR for example.

Listen troll,I am a biologist ,my degree confirms this not to mention the job I held for 11 years,and if you would have bothered to read up on Lane Lester you would have seen he was a biologist to. Hollie what is your education so we can see if you possess the credntials to cretique myself and Lane Lester.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I gave you the evidence proving you are wrong. Prove I haven't.

Do you understand what an opinion is ? and what conjecture is ?

Sure. How is it you cannot resolve the difference between reality and supernaturalism?

Hollie if you did you could see the conjecture and the vivid imaginations that holds your theories together that you attempt to defend