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
59. BobC. No, I think we’re just not understanding each other here. When I say “how insane an idea must it be for nothing to have created people out of nothing. (The unsupernatural alternative.),” – of course this is the position of you and science.
Translation: There is no supernatural being… that is “nothing”… that is responsible for the people we see today, even though they essentially, originally and ultimately came from nothing… or whatever was before the big bang. And I simply asked you to consider, “how insane is that? never mind a supernatural being.”
RBG
Dorkster – the “dogmas” of science are subject to change? Uh-uh. If something is subject to change, then it’s NOT dogma. Conversely, if it’s dogma, it does not and cannot change. It’s the corpus of scientific theory that is subject to constant revision, and theories and dogma are two very different entities.
No quibble with your argument, just pointing out the error in using the inappropriate term ‘dogma’…
My karma just ran over your dogma. And with that, goodnight.
RBG
31. First of all the earth orbits the sun not the other way around. I don’t know what science you are using but I question it. Second, if the Bible says something and science backs it up then why wouldn’t you believe in the Bible? It only seems logical.
It really bugs me when people use the Bible in ways it was never intended. Your lack of understanding of the Bible is apparent. Please don’t use a tool you don’t understand you might get hurt.
No I don’t believe the earth is the centre of the universe, why would oyu think that?
26, 29 Thanks for putting me on to the antimatter wiki, it just proves my point. Antimatter is NOT a lack of existence of physical matter it is just matter charged in a different way 0 is still 0.
32. Your dogs have not gone through evolution. Evolution is the adding of information when nothing existed to cause that new information to exist such as people evolving from fish. Sound highly unlikely well it is. Breeding two different animals to come up with another different breed is NOT evolution.
Thanks everyone for this debate but you must do some real objective research for yourself. You can start here:
http://creationontheweb.org/
Oh Creationist, you crack me up. Pray tell me exactly how the Bible should be used. Please enlighten us how your interpretation (of which there are an infinite number) is so right and everyone else’s is wrong. And how did you come to that conclusion? Did god send you an email?
And if you believe the link you supplied is “objective”, then I want some of whatever you’re smoking. Either that or you have no idea what the term means.
Please continue to entertain us with your ignorance of science. Please.
I was wondering who’d be the first to give up. Looks like BobC wins the beat down.
64 Creationist. And you believe that both -1 and +1 together can be produced from zero…
RBG
#15 – We have compelling clues that MIGHT prove a god
No we don’t. Not a single one.
#20 – I didn’t feel the program was “fair and balanced”.
Why should it be? Evolution is a fact. ID is bunk created by Thumpers to shove a theological agenda into public schools. These are the facts.
Who was the genius who convinced the average person that if there are multiple points of view that each point of view carried equal weight? That simply isn’t true.
#24 – Darwinism definately 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.
Evolution, which you call Darwinism, is a fact. That’s why it isn’t taught as a theory. What is taught as a theory is The Theory of Evolution which is out attempt to to understand the mechanisms that make evolution work.
And Dawkins says what he says because its true.
66 JCD Is that a good thing or bad thing to win at being beat down?
RBG
#64 Creationist – My research indicates that the Bible in fact says (consistently): the Earth does not move, and the Sun moves about the Earth. Sun motion is probably better described by 1 Enoch 72:2-5. So my position is, if you believe the Bible is the source of the truth, then you must accept the Geocentric Universe as described by the Bible.
In any event, I take your response to indicate that you both: do not believe in the inerrantness (literal meaning) of the Bible, and are able to interpret God’s words to fill in His intended meanings that were not clearly expressed by his own words.
You point us to a creation web site so that we may obtain objective research. Why not point us to the real source of the truth, the Bible passages that describe how life originated?
But, if you do not believe in the literal words of the BIble, and those words provide the foundation of creation science, then you have built your belief on a unsteady foundation. Therefore, you must either accept the literal Bible as the basis of your scientific understandings or must accept that the foundation of your understanding is not firm and subject to collapse through reinterpretation.
By indicating the Earth is not the center of the Universe, an obviously heretical notion, then you also indicate the stories of the Bible are not the literal truth. Therefore, the Creation story must also not be the literal truth. Therefore, the Creation story lends no evidence regarding the origin of life because it is not the literal truth – but merely a story.
Here I am taking Lauren’s advice and am not being ‘cute’ with my language. I am writing as plainly as I can.
I have no proof of anything. However, I am aware there are good arguments that the evidence shows creatures evolved from common ancestors. The arguments that God created everything is supported only by faith and Bible stories. We would need to witness God’s hand change something in order have proof of his creation powers. God could cause abundant life to begin spontaneously on Mars for example.
NOTE: Several cultures have Creation stories similar to the Bible’s version. Other cultures have dissimilar stories that describe the process of creation. The impulse to describe creation seems global.
#33, Lauren, If you want a real hoot, take a look at the “scientific proof” that the Sun does indeed orbit the Earth.
OMFSM! I really needed that laugh today after reading yet another loony creationist thread on DU. Every day is April Fool’s Day on the web. As to the Heliocentric theory, I am reminded of:
Barnhardt: Have you tested this theory?
Klaatu: I find it works well enough to get me from one planet to another.
Isn’t it amazing that the Geocentric theory has no means to accurately predict even large details, like the positions of the planets? 😆
I for one welcome the teaching of creationism in school and encourage fundies and Jesus heads to open there own fundie schools.
Thats because then when I send my kid to a better school, he’ll get a great job and use the kids from the fundie schools as the menials they are destine to become. I need cheep lawn care! Plus a supply of stupid ignorant fundies will make the need for illegals a thing of the past!
So to all you fundie freaks out there – fight the good fight! after all electricity comes from Jesus peeing on the grid! Angels make our cell phones work!
BTW did Oral Roberts ever get whacked by god?
i say the same thing on every one of these threads
neither cancer, viruses nor germs are mentioned in the bible and neither are germs — so you know what to do, empty all your medicine jars now!!!!
Tthat Creationist ID supporters reject that evolution could have been God’s own tool in bringing about intelligence on the planet demonstrates that they are pushing dogma, not alternate science.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this wasn’t the anti-christian equivalent of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
http://tinyurl.com/9bjed
You’re thinking that this document is a fake? It’s not, the Institute says it is real but “no big deal.”
NOTE: It took The Church about 360 years to forgive Galileo for his heritical heliocentric model of the solar system. This fight will take at least as long.
In fairness it took the Roman Catholic Church 360 to forgive Galileo and that have already categorily stated that they have no problem Darwinism. Its mostly the loony fringe of American protestant Christianity that think there is some sort of scientific proof for creationism. Unfortunately (mostly for the USA but its slowly spreading) these loonies seem to have a lot of money behind them!
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for teaching creationism. Indeed, a comparative religion class just wouldn’t be a comparative religion class without understanding creationism. What is scary is when people try to subvert the objective search for truth by influencing it with abstract or metaphisical truths.
Science will never prove or disprove the existance of God because God, but its very nature, undefinable. How can you prove or disprove something you cannot define? And if you can’t prove or disprove something, it has no place in science.
Most churches undestand this, so they don’t try.
Jumping in late here…
#24
> Creationists have a viable theory because they
Stop right there. Creationism is not a scientific theory in any way shape or form. It is not falsifiable nor quantifiable and provides no insight into understanding natural phenomena.
Frankly, you are talking from a position of extraordinary ignorance as are all creationists. Dawkins was right in his assertion. They are ignorance about the methodologies used by scientists to understand the natural world. Fundamental concepts such as the scientific meaning of the word “theory” clearly escape you.
#44
Yes, people should be amenable to new ideas. However, are all ideas equal? Should we allow teachers to teach children that “the theory that Santa Claus does not exist is just a theory?” Should we give equal credence to the notion that little Irishmen with magical powers horde pots of gold at the end of the rainbow?
#55
One postulate going around is that there are multiple universes which have always existed (i.e., there was never “nothing”) and our “Big Bang” was merely a collision between two of those universes.
#60
What are the odds that at this precise moment dozens of people would be absorbing information using this special technology we call the Internet, electronics, eye balls etc? Why, they are astronomical! Yet, here we are. Astronomical or not, clearly the possibility was greater than zero.
#61
Who created your supernatural being? Wouldn’t that also be something from nothing?
#64
Define “information” You keep saying that “information” was added. While you flounder with that answer, let me say that “information” is purely based on our understanding of the phenomena. What we think is “information” today may be irrelevant in a few years and what we thought irrelevant may become very information.
Well, I hate to be the one to break your bubble… or make it, as I will explain… but most reputable scientists, including Stephen Hawking know that our planet is at the center of the universe.
As is every point in the universe. This is based upon Stephen Hawkings analogy of a space-time continuum with no boundary. It’s like being on the surface of an expanding balloon where everything is equidistant away.
RBG
“Christians” who are pushing for this have entirely missed the point of Christianity. Jesus spent a life leading by example, never once tried to force his views on anyone. Any “Christian” who tries to use legal means to push his or her views on anyone else has forgotten what Jesus said about not judging and that he said “My kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world, then would my servants fight”
60 Thomas. Your’re right, it would be astronomical for pure chance. Almost makes you think something or someone had a hand in shaping that outcome. Don’t you think?
61. What started the big bang? You know, until we can figure these things out, why don’t we just present both options. Then we’ll know we’re covered.
RBG
#79
Don’t buy it. Proof that Hawking and other “reputable scientists” said what you claim? At best, I might buy that he said something to the effect that *every* point in the universe is the center of the universe. However, at no time would he have ever claimed that the Earth was the one and only center to the universe.
#81
On the contrary, it makes me think that any reality can be rephrased to sound astronomically improbable regardless of the evidence that the event has occurred.
> What started the big bang
Scientists are still working on that. Right now, the simple answer is that we don’t know for sure yet.
What created your god-thing or whatever it is you claim “designed” the universe?
> You know, until we can figure these things
> out, why don’t we just present both options.
> Then we’ll know we’re covered.
Why stop at two? Why not include the “theory” that the FSM created the universe as well as purple leprechauns, lint from tokhes, magic pixie dust and at host of other non-scientific explanations?
I’m with Arthur C. Clarke on this one. Close to four billion years ago, an advanced race of star travelers stopped on the lifeless, barren early Earth, and decided it was really boring. So they dumped the contents of their ship’s septic tank, figuring that in three or four billion years, it might result in something interesting. We eventually evolved from the microbes that survived and adapted. Evolution AND Intelligent Design combined to explain life on Earth!! I am founding my own religion around this theory. I realize most people will say it’s a load of crap, but I must spread the turd, er-word. You can probably guess what the throne of Sludgement in my theology looks like. Become a True Reliever and flush away your sins.
I have to laugh at people who swallow accounts of creation ex nihilo, but whine about “coming from nothing.”
Thomas, you forgot to mention that each of those alternative theories of the origin of the Universe is every bit as valid as the Invisible Daddy In The Sky – and some of them are considerably more believable.
• • • • • • • • •
#74 – Alix
“that Creationist ID supporters reject that evolution could have been God’s own tool in bringing about intelligence on the planet demonstrates that they are pushing dogma, not alternate science.”
Oh, “God” couldn’t’ve created the machinery of evolution and then set in into motion with the Big Bang – it’s too complicated for an all-powerful, all-knowing being to figure out how to do.
Wonderful how all of “God”‘s limitations and powers are always simple enough for His followers to comprehend.
If there is any entity that created this Universe, which certainly is a possibility, the one thing we humans can be absolutely certain of is that that entity and how it does what it does – and WHY – are as comprehensible to us as the Space Shuttle is to an amoeba.
That’s what makes the mademade Xian “God” such a ludicrous joke. He is just another egotistical, vain, megalomaniacal, testy, demanding, irrational tyrant – exactly like human kings of the time, but blown up to 100X life-size. What a laugh. A being that could create the Universe – and ‘he’ insists that his pathetic little creations love him and tell him all the time how wonderful he is. Yeah. Riiiight. Entities that can create universes have no need to be loved by the likes of us, or told how wonderful they are.
If you can believe they do, then, however nice and well-intentioned a person you may be, however virtuous you are – you are still a credulous fool, a.k.a. a sheeple.
mademade = MANmade – but you knew that already…
82 Thomas. If you re-read, your second part is exactly what I said. But, please, don’t make me go looking for the Hawking, etc. reference.
83. But not also regardless of the evidence of how the event occurred.
Re Leprachauns: Could we put it to a test to to see which theory results in the most predictable, repeatable real-life benefit, such as the building of hospitals? No? How about then we deal with all these deep unknowns with an hypothesis and, in the interest of time & space, list the most popular ones?
RBG
I am consistently amazed by how much people squawk about how there is no God on this blog and how even the concept of a greater being grates against their arrogant souls. I think that even if God were to reveal Himself to them, they would continue to founder about in ignorance and claim that it was only a “statistical anomaly” (and an exceedingly rare one at that!) akin to the one that supposedly brought about the order and complexity of the world around us.
RBG – got some pics of God building hospitals, do you?
or is it believing in God results in people doing good things? Nonbelievers don’t build hospitals? What is it? I fail to make whatever connection you’re implying here…