Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

Understood.


Understood again, and you really did not need to use the word "ignorant" there. Labeling Hovind and/or anyone who might believe or at least consider his allegations relevant and/or worthy of investigation "either a con man, ret*d or insane, possibly all three" offers nothing helpful to anyone wishing to possibly try to sort all of this out. We certainly agree that ignorance can be cured, but rhetoric, dogma and/or flaming or whatever do not get that job done.


This:

We agree!


Hovind never says evolution does not happen.


We agree, and just as creation is not a religion and evolutionism is not science!

That's not even a real word.

It is from the doctrine of Leevolution.

Incorrect on both counts.

There is no such creed as "evolutionism".

Belief in creation IS religion.
Accepting the evidence that evolution has occurred IS in fact science.

This is your assertion at the beginning of the thread: when scientists mention God they are NOT being religious. When they ignore God they ARE being religious ( or are showing religous bias).

After 20 pages you still havent explained how that counterintuitive statement could possibly be true. All that you do is talk about nonexistant boogeypeople who "deny" god instead of talking about the real scientific community that does not 'deny God', but just ignores him as irrelevent to the problems they research.

Can you finnally explain to us this: how does ignoring God show a "religious bias"?

If you want to argue against atheism or naturalism then use those terms. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with that. Even a previous Pope has admitted the evidence for evolution is strong. He still died a Catholic.

@leejosepho. As naturalplastic points out, your statements are illogical. And it was not disrespectful for me to use the word "ignorant" when applied to anyone who considers Kent Hovind a reliable resource. That is the kindest thing one could say about anyone who believes anything Kent Hovind says. And no, Hovind does NOT admit evolution happens. He denies the fact that different "kinds" can share a common ancestor. He does the micro-macro mambo where he draws an imaginary arbitrary line unsupported by any evidence or proposed mechanism and says that species can change only so much "within kinds" and no further, even though the evidence clearly shows that what he calls macro evolution does in fact happen.

He also is one of those creationists who conflate evolution with cosmology (origin of the universe) and abiogenesis (origin of life). Biological evolution does not explain those and it doesn't have to. Just because evolution does not explain everything does not mean it explains nothing.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 20 Mar 2014, 6:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

To the OP, you might consider watching the documentary Jesus Camp. It is particularly enlightening.

And just to be clear, it is the extremists that I have a problem with.

I have a problem when I see emotionally sick (in some cases psychopathic) adults brainwashing youth for their political agenda or to feed their narcissistic egos. Brainwashing generation after generation is very harmful to our country's future.

I don't have a problem with the OP's questions or arguments. I just think they are a little misguided..

I'm not going to give more arguments but thought I'd bring up that movie since I watched it recently.

This guy is a real dumbass.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/20/l ... o-america/

I would argue the opposite that NOT teaching evolution is disloyal to America. Even worse than that: dumbing down our children is not good for our country, our species or our planet. It also seems wrong to me to allow creationist politicians to hold office in any positions of authority on science matters since they are so ignorant, so gullible, and so out of touch with reality. I used to suggest that such politicians were guilty of treason, but after more research I learned what they are doing is not technically treason even though it is undoubtedly harmful to our country (and our species, and our planet).

If so, then belief in evolution is religion...and my emphasis there is upon "belief in" and not upon evolution. I believe we were created, and I also believe evolution happens. However, I have no need or reason to "believe in" either.


Yes, but accepting that creation is thereby not even plausible is *not* a fact of science.


I make no such generalizations or assertions, and I believe at least two people here have acknowledged what BG has stated so well about at least some scientists approaching all of this with a given religious or anti-religious bias.


That sounds fine to me as long as creation is not automatically ruled out as a matter of dogma whenever the matter of origin is being researched. Separation of church and state does not mean scientists should be denied funding simply because they consider creation or intelligent design plausible.

Science has not yet shown creation to be true. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific fact.

leejosepho, evolution is supported by evidence so one does NOT need to "believe" in it the way one does a religion. I do NOT "believe" in evolution; I accept it as an observed fact of nature just as I accept gravity as an observed fact of nature and for the same reasons: overwhelming evidence that this is so.

Accepting evolution as an observed fact of nature because of overwhelming evidence is NOT "belief."

You are STILL mixing up the different concepts of what is science and what is religion. It's not just you. A lot of people do not understand and it is partly because of the egregious LIES told to them by Kent Hovind and others like him. Have you checked any on Kent Hovind's veracity yet? It is amazing how wrong he is about so many things yet so many people still think he has anything credible to say. Did you know he went to prison for fraud?

It seems you are completely unwilling to accept there is a difference between science and religion. There is though whether or not you choose to accept it.

and you keep quoting me to support your side, when you don't understand what I said. So what if a few atheists make claims beyond what evolution can prove? That doesn't make what is said about evolution in textbooks false. Anyone who makes such claims is going beyond what any science textbook says. And such atheists if they are school teachers are greatly outnumbered in the USA by fundamentalist Christian teachers who unfortunately have positions teaching innocent children who are unable to tell that their teachers are LYING to them because their teachers are either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

I don't agree with everything the famous atheist Dawkins said, but when he used those four terms to describe people who deny the fact of evolution he nailed it. Such people are either ignorant of the actual evidence and how science works (the vast majority of evolution deniers fall into this category), or they are too stupid to understand it, or they are batshit crazy, or they are denying it for some nefarious purpose like making money selling anti-evolution seminars to gullible rubes. And of course they could be some combination of the above too. You should ask yourself which of these categories apply to you. I have never met any evolution denier who did not fit at least one of these.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 22 Mar 2014, 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That statement is patently false because the two 'beliefs' are not symmetrical that way.

Belief in creation requires belief in a creator. A creator is a god. Belief in God is religion.

Evolution is not a creed to 'believe in' in the first place.
Acceptence of the fact that the empiracle evidence shows that an evolutionary process must have occured IS scientific, and it is not religion because it neither requires belief in a diety, nor does it negate belief in a diety. The non-denial of evolution is no more a ' religious belief' than is the acceptance of Newtonian Gravitation a "religous belief".

You keep repeating the same thing -that "NOT mentioning God is religion"- and then you deny that you're saying it.

In the next statement you even admit that evolution doesnt negate God, creation, nor even ID. Which is the whole point. Evolution is science, and not theology ( nor atheology). So using evolution as a scientific model does not show "a religous bias" (nor an atheistic bias).

The reason scientist who believe in ID dont get grants is because of scientific bias, not religous bias.

ID, or creationism, does not work as a scienfitic model for the simple reason that ID is not an explanation for anything- its the ABSENCE of an explanation. ID is saying simply "God waved a magic wand one day...and such and such just magically appeared in its present form". How do you go about proving that?

The only way you prove it...is to try to repeatidly DISprove it and fail. The way to disprove is to find evidence of the opposite-evidence of naturalistic Darwinian evolution through natural selection. If you really believe in ID then try to knock it down by using evolution as a model.

Creation and evolution are not symmetrical since evolution does not address the matter of beginning. However, my point was that "belief in" is something that is essentially "religious" no matter the object of belief.


Not for everyone, but many people do believe one must choose between creation or evolution...and that can certainly be true in order to find acceptance among others on either side of the argument.


I would suspect the actual details can vary from one situation to the next, but I would also suspect the people denying the grants are typically atheists.

So my belief that the sun exists is a religion?



The people who release grants base priority on a fairly standard list. First and foremost is that the proposal will be conducted by means of the Scientific Method. In fact, if someone asked for federal grant money for a creationist or ID study, they would be disqualified on almost every critical component of the grant proposal review. It has nothing to do with atheists, and everything to do with science.