Moved back to top since there is a raging debate that needs to be resolved — J.C.D.
The Wedge Strategy – Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture — Nova just ran an excellent special on the attempt in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago to introduce Creationism as Science in the public schools. Of course they cloaked it under the moniker “Intelligent Design.”
What cropped up in the piece was the “Wedge Document” which was a blueprint to roll back scientific advances in the USA to the tenth century and essentially push for a USA theocracy. I tracked this thing down on the net. The link is above. Below is an excerpt.
This game plan was developed by the shadowy Discovery Institute up near Seattle. This is that group that George Gilder is associated with.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
GOALSGoverning Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
related links
Discovery Institute’s response to the appearance of the secret Wedge Document in 2006
“The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.”
OK I need go no further.
Representive Democracy (Greeks aka Heathens to Jews and Christians)
Human Rights (Again those nasty Greeks)
Free Enterprise (Sumaria, again Heathens)
Progress in Arts and Sciences (Sumaria…)
Seems right from the get go they wish to lay claim to things pagans started millenia before they existed as a religion.
Poppycock.
Cursor_
Weak and simple minds always needed guidance and easy explanations for things science cannot yet explain, thats why mankind needed god(s) since the beginings of any civilization.
Religions always kept better or worse *order* in any given population.
Obviously there is nothing wrong with faith and people being religious for as last as it doesn’t affect other people not neccessarily sharing same faith.
However this kind of action is a sheer religious terrorism, maybe not as bad as i.e. muslim terrorism, but not far from it… dangerous to any free country and society.
I realize how everyone here on this board loves scripture, so I thought I would appease you:
Something to think about:
Ps:14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
This discussion isn’t about creationism vs evolution. It is about truth vs fiction. People who believe in evolution such as Dawkins want to promote athiesm which is their goal.
We must agree that science will probably never prove that God exists which, I believe is the way he wants it. BUT it will also never prove that that we evolved from nothing (afterall 0x0 is=0). You see it all depends on what your assumptions are before you look at the science.
For many people it takes a lot more faith to believe that we came from nothing, have nothing to look forward to after death, and there is no purpose to life.
Why anyone would choose to believe that I don’t know. But please don’t say evolution is true because I find it impossible to believe that we evolved from monkeys or fish or whatever evolutionists are promoting this week . And why don’t we see evidence of half fish like people walking/swimming around?
Think about it. Don’t let others do the thinking for you.
Todays science is being perverted by pseudo science everywhere. Note the New York Times science article for today, Nov 18th; titled “The mind of a rock.” A not to well devised scheme to mix chemistry with greater thought processes from the cosmos. Aka God has thinking rocks because everything thinks.
Watch out. Just as McCarthy stuck god on everything from the dollar bill to his interpreted real meanings from the declaration of independence in his fight against the godless commies, his people with the backing of our simpleton leader are crawling out of their cracks and appearing everyplace again in force.
4
> People who believe in evolution such as Dawkins want to promote
> athiesm which is their goal.
I believe in the Darwin Evolutionary Theory but I also believe in God. I don’t preach atheism.
> And why don’t we see evidence of half fish like people
> walking/swimming around?
Just because you don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 100 years ago, they said you couldn’t fly faster than sound. My grandfather went to his grave believing that God would never allow a man to walk on the moon. 600 years ago they said the Earth was the center of the Universe. All their arguments are the same ones you are spouting here and they are all born of ignorance.
The lack of evidence is NOT evidence in and of itself.
TiC: Besides, anybody with half a brain knows that monkeys evolved from fish and we evolved from monkeys. That’s why there are no fishmen swimming around.
> Think about it. Don’t let others do the thinking for you.
You preach to us about not thinking for ourselves and you place all you belief in a man standing behind a podium reading from a book that he says was written by God? Who’s doing your thinking for you?
Prove to me the Earth is only 6k years old and I’ll renounce Darwinism.
Just so you know, because I doubt your bible-study class brought this up, Darwinism is not taught as the “way things are.” It is taught as a theory, which means it hasn’t been disproven yet. Anybody who could think for themself would realize this.
Food for Thought: What are we going to do if we find life on other planets? There is no record of God putting life on other planets that I am aware of so are we going to throw away the bible or are we going to change how we think of God?
We are at a point where even if science proved the origin of the multiverse. There would still be creationist fuck-asses out there whining and crying that they didnt come from monkeys or the stars.
It would not matter if we found life on other planets. I think even if we formally met some martians proper, God would still get credit. And then there would be numerous groups that wanted to commit Martianocide.
Religion will evolve out of existence, eventually, hopefully. hahaha.
The mere existence of religion has done more harm to humanity than science. see: current war in Iraq. Creationist go Ohhh no those crazy Muslims aren’t like Christians. Bullshit. They are just viewing the world from their porthole
I think it ironic that all the anti modernity crowd denounce science yet take full advantage of all its advances.
Historically, religion fought against education, democracy and freedom.
Get off your knees and get some dignity. You don’t need an invisible master’s permission to be a good person. There is no god. Wake up and join us in leading the human race to an enlightened future.
#8
[quote]Creationist go Ohhh no those crazy Muslims aren’t like Christians. Bullshit. They are just viewing the world from their porthole[/quote]
Sure there is a difference!
Its actually huge difference, as big as the difference between dudes just saying “we all should wear tin foil hats” and dudes that actually go on a killing spree and shooting everyone not wearing god-damn tin foil hat.
“This discussion isn’t about creationism vs evolution. It is about truth vs fiction. People who believe in evolution such as Dawkins want to promote atheism which is their goal”
Actually this is a discussion about plan to push religion on the secular masses. Its more accurately about critical thought vs. mythology.
It is not universally true that those who believe in evolution want to promote atheism, unless you are counting the Pope as an atheist.
It is universally true that those promoting intelligent design and creationism are promoting religion. That was proven in the Pennsylvania case. Asserting the contrapositive of a true statement does not make a true statement, ergo the assertion is a logical fallacy.
#3 – aw, you should be donating 25% of your income. Maybe build a water slide or condos for the believers and get together and praise and relieve the poor sheeple of their cash. Maybe even push people over to heal them. Then maybe you can have your leader go to jail. Whoops, this has been done already.
4 Creationist. “BUT it will also never prove that that we evolved from nothing (afterall 0×0 is=0)”
You can prove that something comes from nothing – in the same way you can prove something, I’ll represent as +1, can come from nothing. ie: 0 = +1 + (-1).
Let’s say hypothetically these were energies, then we know from E=MC^2 that energy is mass… Voila, something from nothing.
RBG
I saw this Nova program as well. And thought it quite the propaganda exercise. the opposite to good journalism and science. It was crafted as Li’l Abner Vs the Professor – with the professor’s lawyers getting to make the video. Li’l Abner’s lawyers would have made quite a different and equally convincing film. But that’s the nature of marketing and propaganda: the firstest with the mostest wins.
There’s no doubt that ID sprang from creationism, as presented in the video – but this film pretty much invalidates any consideration of ID in the future in any context, even if creationism is not involved. Further, and this is the frightening part, it automatically invalidates any challenges, or alternatives or counter-hypotheses to the subject in truly the worst kind of censorship.
So all together let’s give a big collective raspberry to Lisi’s E8 theory of everything as it does not follow the party line. And, above all, make sure it does not find its way into a classroom, even in mention.
RBG
#9 Julieb “There is no god.”
Please prove there is NO god.
No one can prove there IS a god, let alone disprove one.
We have compelling clues that MIGHT prove a god and MIGHT disprove one. But NO ONE has made it concrete yet.
Please stop being as blind in faith as they ones that say beyond doubt there IS a god.
Cursor_
I saw this Nova episode. I particularly liked the debunking of the ID concept of “irreducible complexity”. That has to do with a biological feature that the ID crowd says is impossible for it to “evolve” and, therefore, must have been created.
The focus was on rotating flagellum on bacterium that act like little propellers to give the bacterium mobility. The orientation and alignment of all the proteins make what is analogous to a organic turbine that spins a tail. ID proponents say this had to be “designed” by a creator. It would not function unless all the components came into existence all at once, hence, it is irreducibly complex.
Of course, the ID crowd has it wrong. Other bacterium use virtually identical arrangements of proteins, with a few less components, as a type of hypodermic needle to infect other cells. With a few evolutionary additions that can be attributed to genetic drift or mutation, the hypodermic needle evolves to a more complex form that becomes a rotating tail to mobility. Hence, evolution of pre-existing features created a new form of life that is better suited to survive and proliferate in greater numbers.
http://tinyurl.com/njdwh
Fascinating stuff!
>>But please don’t say evolution is true
Gosh, why not? All evidence to date shows that it is correct. Do you have any knowledge to the contrary?
The ID/creationist folks are confused about a lot of things:
1. Neo Darwinian evolution (NDE) says nothing about the origins of life, so those asserting it are either ignorant or misrepresent the truth, like Creationist.
2. The problem with ID itself is not the assertion that there is intelligence behind creation, Ken Miller asserts that it is possible. The fact is that ID has done a TERRIBLE job of making the case for Intelligence or design: Limits of mutations & IC being the most recent and wholly inept examples.
3. Following the wedge document, ID/creationists blatantly misrepresent NDE, which convinces a lot of people that ID proponents are simply fanatical liars. This damages any serious investigation into any speculative ideas concerning intelligence and origins of life or whatever.
4. But there is no doubt, that the evidence leaves no doubt that the genesis story of creation interpreted literally is refuted. Creationists typically confuse the evidence, which they ignore, with those who present the evidence, who they vilify. God doesn’t show up the way they expect, so they become start calling everyone an atheist.
15. Cursor_ comments remind me a bit of the philosophers Vroomfondel and Majikthise:
“We demand guaranteed rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.”
-Douglas Adams
Since it is impossible to prove a negative, you get your wish. No one can disprove the existence of God. Conversely, that doesn’t prove it exists, either.
If you are waiting for “concrete” evidence of the non-existence of God, it will never happen. You can continue to sleep well at night believing in whatever god you wish. May I suggest The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
#14 I think you are correct RBG, the program was a big propaganda exercise, and would have served the entire audience better if it had not attempted to paint the strength of Darwin so strongly. I didn’t feel the program was “fair and balanced”.
Darwin’s message appears to me to be: everything evolved from a common root ancestor. Therefore, everything must have a soul if we have a soul.
The entire living natural world having souls seems incompatible with current religious thought (out side of Star Wars).
#9 and 15: The existence (or not) of deities is impossible to prove or disprove without a priori assumptions (as in “It says in this here religious book that…”), so the question doesn’t matter.
In the book Puddinhead WIlson, which is not considered a religious document, Mark Twain wrote: “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Wise man.
Facts:
There are many things the religious zealots of any faith have been proved wrong or at least incorrect in the past and present already (and there sure will be more in the future).
There is not a single thing the religious zealots have ever been able to be correct about in their religions without one becoming “believer” and religious himself.
I rest my case.
16 Mark T. Almost makes you wonder if the ID crowd noticed structures like the eye and hair and about a billion other near identical structural similarities between species – not just rotating flagellum parts. Seems not to have slowed ID people down.
Now point out all the hypodermic-to-turbine in-betweens that natural selection must have favoured to survive for reasons of superiority in their niche.
RBG
4. I am glad that you don’t spout atheism.
>Just because you don’t see something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t >exist. 100 years ago, they said you couldn’t fly faster than sound. My >grandfather went to his grave believing that God would never allow a >man to walk on the moon. 600 years ago they said the Earth was >the center of the Universe. All their arguments are the same ones >you are spouting here and they are all born of ignorance.
>
>The lack of evidence is NOT evidence in and of itself.
All of those things you mention are observable and conceivable, by some at least.
If you have a lack of evidence then you have no scientific leg to stand on just guess work. Creationists have a viable theory because they have the Bible as a starting point. If no one saw man evolving from monkeys/fish then how do we know it happened? You would have to prove that there is new information added as we evolve and that has never been observed in living creatures.
>You preach to us about not thinking for ourselves and you place all >you belief in a man standing behind a podium reading from a book >that he says was written by God? Who’s doing your thinking for you?
>
>Prove to me the Earth is only 6k years old and I’ll renounce >Darwinism.
You clearly haven’t spent much time in church lately because if you had then you would realize Creationism isn’t even taught in most churches. I have done a fair amount of research on the subject and Creationism is the only theory that makes any sense to me. People on both sides of the fence don’t really do much thinking for themselves, they rely on others to do it for them.
Oh yeah the reason Creationists think the world is 6000 years old is because if you add up all of the dates of the genealogies listed in the first few books of the Bible you come to approximately 6000 years.
>Just so you know, because I doubt your bible-study class brought >this up, Darwinism is not taught as the “way things are.” It is taught >as a theory, which means it hasn’t been disproven yet. Anybody who >could think for them self would realize this.
Darwinism definitely isn’t taught as a theory. Have you read the “The God Delusion” (and yes I have) Dawkins says that people who don’t believe in evolution are stupid and ignorant. Dawkins spouts is a fact not theory because Dawkins is an atheist first and an evolutionist second. If evolution were refuted successfully to him then it only leads to belief in God who he hates and he wouldn’t be able to live with himself.
I have no problem believing in life on other planets, God doesn’t owe me an explanation.
13.
>You can prove that something comes from nothing – in the same >way you can prove something, I’ll represent as +1, can come from >nothing. ie: 0 = +1 + (-1).
Nice try, how can you have less than zero mass? When we are talking about material objects you cannot have less than zero as it is absolutely the lowest common denominator.
17. There is no proof of evolution. As I have stated above there has been no living creature that has evolved from new information been added. Animals have been observed to have adapted to their environment, but adaptation isn’t evolution.
Check out “Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation” by Dennis Peterson you might also discover some myths about global warming while you are at it.
13 Creationist. Maybe you haven’t heard of anti-matter?
“…antimatter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal matter is composed of particles. For example an antielectron (a positron, an electron with a positive charge) and an antiproton (a proton with a negative charge) could form an antihydrogen atom in the same way that an electron and a proton form a normal matter hydrogen atom. Furthermore, mixing of matter and antimatter would lead to the annihilation of both…” Wikipedia Antimatter.
RBG
Creationist, your ignorance of science is astounding. You support Creationism based on an absurd, ancient piece of literature that is full of mythology and superstitious nonsense.
Based on your lack of critical thinking skills, any attempt by you to discredit evolution is laughable. Evolution is fact. Accept it.
>>I have done a fair amount of research on the subject and
>>Creationism is the only theory that makes any sense to me.
Where did you do that reasearch? Strawberry Fields? Out on the ‘shroom farm?
You are one wacky dude, dude. I want some of what you’re smoking.
22 iDiot. Change “religious zealots of any faith” to “scientific zealots of any discipline” and tell me this isn’t also true.
Do you need to become a “believer” to hold these examples as correct?:
5th Commandment: “Honour thy father and thy mother”
The Hydrologic cycle:
Job 36:27-29
“For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.”
How old is the bible again?
Your case is sleeping.
RBG
#24, Creationist ,
4. I am glad that you don’t spout atheism.
But I do.
If you have a lack of evidence then you have no scientific leg to stand on just guess work.
True.
Creationists have a viable theory because they have the Bible as a starting point.
Wrong. That is no more viable than my starting my next novel with “It was a dark and stormy night” will win me a Pulitzer. To be a viable theory, it must be rational, testable, and withstand challenge. The “bible” meets none of those minimums.
If no one saw man evolving from monkeys/fish then how do we know it happened?
Archaeological evidence.
You would have to prove that there is new information added as we evolve and that has never been observed in living creatures.
Wrong. Evolution is all about change. Most change has been to adapt to new environments but some has been purely cosmetic (see the Peacock tail feathers).
You clearly haven’t spent much time in church lately…
Right.
… because if you had then you would realize Creationism isn’t even taught in most churches.
But it is taught, promoted, believed, and foisted onto the world as a science. It is not a science or have any validity.
I have done a fair amount of research on the subject and Creationism is the only theory that makes any sense to me.
That explains your lack of any convincing evidence. If you have actually done ANY research you would understand the lack of anything credible about the “bible” and creation and Intelligent Design.
Darwinism definitely isn’t taught as a theory.
I don’t know what Darwinism is. Is that anything like Noahism or Jesusism ?
Dawkins says that people who don’t believe in evolution are stupid and ignorant.
Well, is he wrong?
Dawkins spouts is a fact not theory because Dawkins is an atheist first and an evolutionist second.
It wouldn’t matter which is first or second. All of Dawkins arguments are based upon fact and can be backed up with evidence.
If evolution were refuted successfully to him then it only leads to belief in God who he hates and he wouldn’t be able to live with himself.
If you or anyone can successfully refute Evolution then more than Dawkins will be surprised. Not because anyone would then be required to believe in “god”, but because a proven scientific principle has been disproved.
Science is always ready to change when there is evidence. That is what makes the scientific community so much more intelligent than those who believe in the “guy in the sky” model. The “guy in the sky” crowd hold onto their myths with undying devotion, unwilling to view anything contrary to their point of view.
I don’t know why I even bother – it’s, as I’ve noted before, like unto shooting ghosts in a barrel; you can’t miss – but they don’t even notice they’ve been hit!
Here, Creationist. You fools don’t pay any attention to scientific progress, so you wouldn’t know that the example you think is so clever has been done down like the rest of your irrational nonsense.
“And why don’t we see evidence of half fish like people walking/swimming around?”
Go take a look at this creature which is partway between a fish and a four-legged land animal, then go sit in the corner with the other dunces.
People like you should be glad you’re permitted to walk the streets among sane people instead of being institutionalized, which would really be better for everyone.