Southern history professor pushing creationism

[JakeStarkey]

I really don't have the words to express how someone who is as educated as a history professor can just turn their brains off and accept Creationism as anywhere close to a valid account of anything, much less use it as part of a classroom discussion (beyond mentioning it in context with religious beliefs of historical groups). Sadly, it isn't just historians who do this as there are scientists who do the same thing, but at least they'll admit when pushed that they know what the evidence they are ignoring is and that they simply can't believe the evidence because it conflicts with their world view.

Creationism makes more sense than the theory of evolution.

Actually we have real concrete evidence for evolution, show us the concrete evidence for creationism !

Even Darwin said to prove evolution you need to find the missing link, that hasn't happened. Evolution within the species yes, but from an ape to man or single cell organism to a man is far fetched and unprovable.

I think it is more than obvious that man did not evolve from apes, otherwise there wouldn't be any apes.
We are just another species of primate that developed on it's own, just like all the other individual species of primates. No wizards, no mystics, no gods!

One God, creator of the universe, the earth and every living thing. Evolution is a concept by simpletons who can't understand the complexities of life.

Creationism and ID are concepts by simpletons who can't understand the complexities of life and trust in God.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bacon, Newton, Galilleo, Darwin even, all believed in God..

Like anyone in the public eye had a choice back then. The Church almost executed Galileo, he had to recant and say the Sun revolved around the Earth

Specious, as well as incomplete comparison. Show us the threats against the others. Hmmm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bacon, Newton, Galilleo, Darwin even, all believed in God.

Hollie, creationism of 6,000 years is flatly wrong, wildly so.

Christians who have comfort in their God have no trouble with faith and science.

Some do, some don't. I'm not aware that you have been tasked with speaking on behalf of christiandom.

You certainly are not so tasked.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days for predicting a solar eclipse.

Let's ask Dr. James Watson, Dr. Jason Richwine, Dr. Helmuth Nyborg, Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Dr. Larry Summers what happens when the "church" capos make you an offer you can't refuse.

Fortunately, the church has had to revise its position on science as it has had to revise its position on many things. The glaring light of open investigation has stripped the church of its once formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation, capice?

That formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation has now been taken over by liberals, capisce? So why are you tilting at windmills by focusing on religion instead of battling the close-minded enforcers of liberalism?

Because we have closed-minded christian fundamentalists trying to force their ID'iot agenda in the classroom.

So let me see if I understand your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You're fighting against the possibility that religious creationists MIGHT gain some influence in the classroom but you see no problem at all with the existing control that liberal creationists have in the classroom, in crafting legislation, in informing culture. Is that about right? One appeal to mysticism is a threat but a similar appeal to magic is hunky dory?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell me here, who really does believe that this issue is one of salvation importance? Really, who? Or are you quarreling just to quarrel?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And Rik's talk about magic and pixie dust and whatever belongs in a religious and secular values classroom, not in the science classroom.

 

[Hollie]

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days for predicting a solar eclipse.

Let's ask Dr. James Watson, Dr. Jason Richwine, Dr. Helmuth Nyborg, Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Dr. Larry Summers what happens when the "church" capos make you an offer you can't refuse.

Fortunately, the church has had to revise its position on science as it has had to revise its position on many things. The glaring light of open investigation has stripped the church of its once formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation, capice?

That formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation has now been taken over by liberals, capisce? So why are you tilting at windmills by focusing on religion instead of battling the close-minded enforcers of liberalism?

Because we have closed-minded christian fundamentalists trying to force their ID'iot agenda in the classroom.

So let me see if I understand your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You're fighting against the possibility that religious creationists MIGHT gain some influence in the classroom but you see no problem at all with the existing control that liberal creationists have in the classroom, in crafting legislation, in informing culture. Is that about right? One appeal to mysticism is a threat but a similar appeal to magic is hunky dory?

You've got your own personal jihad to wage.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Let's ask Dr. James Watson, Dr. Jason Richwine, Dr. Helmuth Nyborg, Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, Dr. Larry Summers what happens when the "church" capos make you an offer you can't refuse.

Fortunately, the church has had to revise its position on science as it has had to revise its position on many things. The glaring light of open investigation has stripped the church of its once formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation, capice?

That formidable arsenal of fear and intimidation has now been taken over by liberals, capisce? So why are you tilting at windmills by focusing on religion instead of battling the close-minded enforcers of liberalism?

Because we have closed-minded christian fundamentalists trying to force their ID'iot agenda in the classroom.

So let me see if I understand your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You're fighting against the possibility that religious creationists MIGHT gain some influence in the classroom but you see no problem at all with the existing control that liberal creationists have in the classroom, in crafting legislation, in informing culture. Is that about right? One appeal to mysticism is a threat but a similar appeal to magic is hunky dory?

You've got your own personal jihad to wage.

Shouldn't you also be fighting the faction which actually has control and imposes anti-evolution principles on many subjects taught to young minds? You think that even science classes teach evolution as it applies to racial groups?

 

[PostmodernProph]

from the OP

and McMullen’s suggested reply was, “Darwin had no proof of evolution, only of adaptation (basically, change within a being’s genetic code). There was (and is) no solid evidence for descent from a common ancestor, and for the multitude of predicted transitional forms from one species to another.”

and yet, its rather difficult to deny the truth of the above.....

 

[Hollie]

from the OP

and McMullen’s suggested reply was, “Darwin had no proof of evolution, only of adaptation (basically, change within a being’s genetic code). There was (and is) no solid evidence for descent from a common ancestor, and for the multitude of predicted transitional forms from one species to another.”

and yet, its rather difficult to deny the truth of the above.....

from the OP

and McMullen’s suggested reply was, “Darwin had no proof of evolution, only of adaptation (basically, change within a being’s genetic code). There was (and is) no solid evidence for descent from a common ancestor, and for the multitude of predicted transitional forms from one species to another.”

and yet, its rather difficult to deny the truth of the above.....

You YEC'ists exclusively concern yourselves with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”

But their refutations are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma.

The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationists spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Evolution and faith are co-existent.

The creationists and atheists can go pound sand.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I’ve always found it laughable that creationists spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.

and yet, if you had been paying attention, you would realize I've never attacked Darwin.....only the simple minded folks who pretend science has proven things about evolution that have never been proven......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, pmp. Be quiet if you don't understand.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution and faith are co-existent.

The creationists and atheists can go pound sand.

It's naïve and false to claim that "evolution and faith are co-existent". That simply is not true in connection with so much of the Christian creationist cabal who will insist on literal renderings of biblical tales and fables.

Why do't creationism offer evidence in support of their notions? Why should they? They don't need proof-- their idea of creation is already fully supported in the Book of Genesis. They don't offer creationism to convince bible-believing Christians... those are people who don't need convincing. Creationism is used for an entirely different purpose. I'll get to that in a minute.
Creationism should not be dignified with the label: “Creation Science”. How can I say such a thing? Because "creationists’ hypotheses" do not involve the advancement of "creationism". Shouldn't a branch of science have some theories? You'd think so. But creationism has no theories. A theory is a scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon or event-- an explanation that makes specific predictions, that is substantiated by a wealth of physical evidence and experiments, the results of which must be duplicable by a third party, and must be potentially falsifiable.

I’ve always found it laughable that creationists spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.

and yet, if you had been paying attention, you would realize I've never attacked Darwin.....only the simple minded folks who pretend science has proven things about evolution that have never been proven......

And yet, you views are so consistently aligned with those of the YEC'ists. My goodness, but the gaps that were once available for you to spackle your gawds into have become cracks.

What is the underlying fear to supernaturalists/creationists to the methods of science? If Creationism is so strong and the words of your polytheistic gods are so clear, how is it that a mere "theory" of mankind can so frightfully topple it. Obviously, The fact of evolution is devastating to what turns out to be the foundation of Christianity which is -- I suspect -- why you fundies rebel against it regardless of the mountain of evidence that can be presented in its favor: if evolution is true, you believe, and supernaturalism/creationism is false, there is no need for a heaven and hell, and there is no requirement for your gods.

A domino effect you cannot abide.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nonsense, pmp. Be quiet if you don't understand.

be quiet yourself.....do YOU believe science has proven humans evolved from single celled organisms?........science can't even prove multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

And yet, you views are so consistently aligned with those of the YEC'ists.

/shrugs....not as closely aligned as your views are with the folks at Westborow Church......

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense, pmp. Be quiet if you don't understand.

be quiet yourself.....do YOU believe science has proven humans evolved from single celled organisms?........science can't even prove multicelled organisms evolved from single celled organisms.....

Well, actually, the mechanisms for such have already been identified.

But yeah, talking snakes in magical gardens and humanity being condemned for eternity as a result of fruit theft - all in the past 6,000 years - is a viable option.

Yours is the classic, failed gawds of the cracks argument.

 

[Hollie]

And yet, you views are so consistently aligned with those of the YEC'ists.

/shrugs....not as closely aligned as your views are with the folks at Westborow Church......

As pointless as usual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great.

Caught between the mindless yammering of atheists and creationists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The professor, who is indeed a person of faith, was ambushed by a cravenly anonymous student.

However, if the charges are that the prof was giving "guidelines" for suggested answers, then there will be some decisions to be made by everyone at GS.