The Lies and Arrogance of Evolutionists

[M.D. Rawlings]

This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
Dissident Voice

Excerpt:

In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

. . . Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

. . . It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.​

LINK

 

[Mad Scientist]

Evolutionist/Religiphobes can't prove how the Earth was created either.

 

[geauxtohell]

these fascists. . . .

Seriously?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

these fascists. . . .

Seriously?

Oh, yes indeed. Everything in the above is a lie, a distortion or constitutes a flat-out denial of the fundamentals of human liberty. As far as the public education system goes, the only ones doing any real imposing are leftists in general and evolutionists in particular. They are fascists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This article is a bit dated…

The article isn’t alone.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This article is a bit dated…

The article isn’t alone.

Uh-huh. Cute. But of course everything in it remains pertinent. Lefty's still spouting the same nonsense today as if he owned the schools and had the right to impose his religion and morality therein by way of "politics by scientist" against the constraints of inherent rights and certain constitutional imperatives. Even if I weren't a creationist, I'd still oppose him. That's the difference between me and the pretenders of modernity.

 

[rdean]

"Delusion" is an American "Right". Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!

 

[code1211]

This article is a bit dated, but it illustrates precisely why the fight for educational freedom/choice must be won against these fascists. . . .

The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications
by Lee Salisbury / January 29th, 2008
Dissident Voice

Excerpt:

In spite of the pro-evolution 2006 verdict in Dover, PA, creationists persist seeking to influence and intimidate uninformed school boards in Ohio, Florida, and Texas. This is clearly a culture war with creationist/biblical literalists leading the anti-science, pro-creationist charge.

. . . Creation “science” rejects every fundamental precept upon which actual science functions, from empiricism to falsification. Creationists reject empiricism, the very heart of science, and instead embrace fanciful biblical legends of a ‘talking snake’ and a 6,000-year-old solar system all in a vain attempt to justify their immutable doctrinal beliefs. They are no different than the Roman Catholic clergy of 500 years ago persecuting Galileo because he declared the sun did not revolve around the earth.

. . . It is bad enough that creationist churches are freeloaders, taking advantage of the public’s good will by skirting their fair share of real estate taxes. But, worse yet, they use creationism as a rhetorical facade, as a lever through which to influence public policy. Creationists exploit the faith of well-meaning Christians (and those of other religions) to further their own purely self-serving goals at the expense of reality. Creationism is nothing more than an ancient regurgitated ideology bereft of merit, and loathsome in its intentions.​

LINK

I've said this before on this board. Creationism is a subject that should be offered at the College level. It would be the favorite of the football varsity player as every answer, every single one, on every test, every single one, would be the same: "God did it."

What possible place could this ridiculous course have in any science ciriculum?

 

[bodecea]

I would like to ask the OP how old he thinks the Earth is?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I would like to ask the OP how old he thinks the Earth is?

4.5 to 4.6 billion years.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Delusion" is an American "Right". Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!

The delusion of the fascist left: the fundamentals of ideological liberty should be subject to the ever-changing pronouncements of the regnant scientific community.

 

[geauxtohell]

these fascists. . . .

Seriously?

Oh, yes indeed. Everything in the above is a lie, a distortion or constitutes a flat-out denial of the fundamentals of human liberty. As far as the public education system goes, the only ones doing any real imposing are leftists in general and evolutionists in particular. They are fascists.

Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge. Maybe you can succeed where the Intelligent Design proponents lost during the Dover Trial:

Show how creationism can fall into the scientific method. If you can adequately do that, I'll agree it should be taught in science class. If you can't do that, then it is not science and has no business in science class.

You can start with the rather simple task of proving God doesn't exist. If you don't have a null hypothesis, you can't have a valid hypothesis.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Then you can take the Pepsi Challenge. Maybe you can succeed where the Intelligent Design proponents lost during the Dover Trial:

Show how creationism can fall into the scientific method. If you can adequately do that, I'll agree it should be taught in science class. If you can't do that, then it is not science and has no business in science class.

You can start with the rather simple task of proving God doesn't exist. If you don't have a null hypothesis, you can't have a valid hypothesis.

The proponents of Intelligent Design did not fail. The court in the Dover Trail merely declared, in effect, that a certain metaphysical consensus was the only legitimate ground for scientific inquiry in the public schools of its jurisdiction. The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.

The wool has been pulled over your eyes.

How about this? You prove to me that a metaphysical or a Darwinian naturalism, which begs the question, is an unimpeachable ground for scientific inquiry. In the meantime, traditional methodological or mechanistic naturalism is a perfectly legitimate approach to science. Moreover, intelligent design theory is legitimately derived from the scientific method and is subject to falsification.

See link.

In other words, you don't grasp the actual nature of the dispute at all. You think it's evolutionary theory versus intelligent design within the parameters of your metaphysical presupposition for science. No. I'm not beholden to your metaphysics. The dispute is materialism/Darwinian naturalism versus traditional methodological naturalism . . . the fascistic imposition of the former on millions who are fed up with the tyrannical disregard for their ideological/religious rights.

You don't own the classroom. You don't own science. You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory. Who the hell do you think you are?

God, apparently.

You've aligned yourself with a regime of jurisprudence that has placed itself in a state of war against the natural rights of man.

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)

 

[geauxtohell]

"Delusion" is an American "Right". Don't let "scientists" take that "right" away!

The delusion of the fascist left: the fundamentals of ideological liberty should be subject to the ever-changing pronouncements of the regnant scientific community.

The fundamentals of science curriculum should be left to the scientific community.

 

[edthecynic]

You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

 

[edthecynic]

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)

So you are saying that Nature is the Intelligent Designer!

I believe in God, only I spell it Nature.
- Frank Lloyd Wright

 

[geauxtohell]

The proponents of Intelligent Design did not fail. The court in the Dover Trail merely declared, in effect, that a certain metaphysical consensus was the only legitimate ground for scientific inquiry in the public schools of jurisdiction. The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

You are delusional if you think that Intelligent Design didn't fail at Dover. Not only did they lose the case, their star witnesses like Behe were shredded on the stand. It was so bad that the Judge's decision was a complete smack down.

Funny that you simply dismiss jurisprudence as "arbitrary and tyrannical" when you disagree with it. Though, I suppose if you can create your own reality where Intelligent Design didn't lose badly at Dover, you can do most anything.

No institution, particularly one of education, exists in an ideological vacuum; either the education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or the manner in which it is administered—i.e., in the absence of universal school choice—is unconstitutional. A closed, collectivist education system is tyranny.

That's a separate issue. The system isn't closed. People are free to home school or send their children to private or parochial school if they want.

The wool has been pulled over your eyes.

How about this? You prove to me that a metaphysical or a Darwinian naturalism, which beg the question, is an unimpeachable ground for scientific inquiry.

We are talking about the natural sciences, not the metaphysical. Darwin's theory of evolution does not fall into the realm of the "metaphysical" as much as you would like to claim otherwise.

Metaphysics is philosophy. Science is rooted in observation and a strict methodology.

In the meantime, traditional methodological or mechanistic naturalism is a perfectly legitimate approach to science.

I agree. Too bad I.D. doesn't fall into the "methodological or mechanistic naturalism" of the natural sciences. Science is rooted in scientific methodology. The spirit of inquiry exists in science, but any theory has to adhere to the rules. There might be room for Intelligent Design (which is not creationism, BTW) in theology of philosophy. There is no room for it in the scientific classroom.

Moreover, intelligent design theory is legitimately derived from the scientific method and is subject to falsification.

You have yet to prove that. You don't get the power of fiat on this matter.

In other words, you don't grasp the actual nature of the dispute at all. You think it's evolutionary theory versus intelligent design within the parameters of your metaphysical presupposition for science. No. I'm not beholden to your metaphysics. The dispute is materialism/Darwinian naturalism versus traditional methodological naturalism . . . the fascistic imposition of the former on millions who are fed up with the tyrannical disregard for their ideological/religious rights.

No, I think it's "science" vs. philosophy. I.D. uses the mechanisms of evolution to explain speciation. It's just a "God in the gaps" mentality. People can believe that if they want, but it's not a legitimate scientific theory.

It's irrelevant what you feel about the matter. This issue will be settled by the profession. That is scientists. Even if I.D. proponents manage to pollute the public school's curriculum, at the university level I.D. will be considered laughable.

Underlying I.D. scientific lameness is the inability to adhere to the scientific method and therefore meet the rigors of peer review and research.

You don't own the classroom. You don't own science. You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory. Who the hell do you think you are?

Someone who understands what science is and is not. I never claimed to own the classroom. Nor do you. What I claim is that there are rules that govern what is science and what is not. If a theory can't meet the standards, it's not science.

Pretty simple, really.

The only people who can't grasp it are the people who are blinded by their own bias and agenda.

God, apparently.

Your hyperbole is absurd.

You've aligned yourself with a regime of jurisprudence that has placed itself in a state of war against the natural rights of man.

Oh, please. No one's "natural rights" have been infringed upon. Secondly, jurisprudence came after the scientific community rightfully pointed out that I.D. was hogwash.

(By the way, intelligent design theory proper does not address the existence or non-existence of God, and creationism is a theological construct.)

Are you talking about I.D. or creationism? Perhaps you should get your talking point's straight. Your OP references creationism, which has even less role in the classroom than I.D. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled this way.

As for I.D. "not addressing the existence of God"; that is simply not true. As the judge found in Dover (via the wedge document).

 

[geauxtohell]

You don't own the metaphysics of science. If your metaphysics are wrong, so is your theory.

Science is not metaphysical, it is empirical. It it religion that is metaphysical.

Speaking of arrogance. Ironic how the creationists like to act like they can create the rules.

As if scientific theory isn't governed by it's own set of rules and laws. They seem to claim that all of this is just made up as we go along.

More power to them, but they are just wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

 

[geauxtohell]

The finding was arbitrary and tyrannical, just like the findings of the Warren Court's "state-church" decisions of the '60s.

How exactly were the Warren Court’s rulings ‘arbitrary and tyrannical’?

Because he/she didn't agree with them.

Obvious judicial activism!