Most Americans Suport Academic Freedom

http://www.evolutionnews.org/ZogbyPoll-2006.jpg

Read More

Biologist says: "Teach Creationism in Science Classes"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism

Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Teachers need to accommodate the differing world views of students from Jewish, Christian or Muslim backgrounds – which means openly discussing creationism and intelligent design as alternatives to evolutionary theory

Photograph: Frank Baron

Link to this audio

What should science teachers do when faced with students who are creationists? Definitions of creationism vary, but about 10% of people in the UK believe that the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, that it came into existence as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Qur'an and that the most evolution has done is to split species into closely related species.

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be the central concept in biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every aspect of the life sciences into a single coherent discipline. Equally, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the universe is of the order of about 13 to 14 billion years old.

Evolution and cosmology are understood by many to be a religious issue because they can be seen to contradict the accounts of origins of life and the universe described in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures. The issue seems like an ongoing dispute that has science and religion battling to support the credibility of their explanations.

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it – and to learn more science.

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and director of education at the Royal Society

Read More

LGF: "Hamas' Leader Doesn't Believe in Evolution"

Is LGF's lastest post a "guilty by association" post by Charles Johnson?

If I keep citing assassins as people who don't believe in evolution, what kind of message am I trying to pass? "If you doubt evoution, you must be a islamic terrorrist!"

Two can play this game. What if I cite Hitler, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and other mass murderers as people who believed in evolution? What would that say about the theory? Would it say anything?

Come to think of it, what if I cite Isaac Newton, Carl Lineus, Mendel, Maxwell, Faraday, Galileo, and other scientists who believed in creation?

Once again, that is bad logic.

Read More

What does Charles Johnson know about Christianity?

In his latest jibe against Creationism, Charles makes a few coments that are worth comenting.

Since I’ve posted two articles about Sarah Palin’s statements on creationism, let’s go across the aisle and see what the fanatical Darwin-hating creationists at “Answers In Genesis” think.

Notice the emotional words "fanatical" and "hating" that Charles uses in these short lines. I believe he uses those words with the clear purpose of arboring negative feelings towards those who believe that God spoke the Truth about Creation in Genesis 1.

Do creationists hate Darwin? I have been reading a lot of creationist material for some years, and I have never seen "hatred" for Darwin anywhere. Now, do we hate darwinism? Sure we do, since it's a lie. The Bible says:

Prov 8:13 To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech

Continuing....

They’re also examining Palin’s statements, and of course they’re eagerly hoping she’ll be an advocate for their weird pseudo-science: Is She Really a Creationist?

Coming from a man who believes that land mammals became whales, and dinossaurs became birds, it's trully amazing him considering the belief that there is empirical evidence for design in the universe as "weird pseudo-science".

(Notice how they add footnotes everywhere to make it seem like a scholarly work.)

Oh, those evil creationists! How dare they to put the references for the things they are claiming?! Pure evil! EVIL, I say!

(...) The Answers in Genesis crowd is quick to reassure the world that they don’t want to force creationism on students—not because it’s wrong or anything, but because science teachers trained in “Darwinism” wouldn’t be able to teach their pseudo-science well enough.

Which is, by the way, true. We only need to observe the ways the mainstream media portrays Christian beliefs in general, creationism in particular, to see that darwinian teachers would do their best to put creationism in the worse light possible.

Instead, they’re in favor of “teaching the controversy,” the current strategy of creationists and proponents of “intelligent design.” Rather than force their hooey into schools, they want to sneak it in.

LOL!
That's right! There is no controverys around the theory of evolution. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Every single thing about the theory is 100% right, and 100% observable. If you say that it isn't so, then you must be a young earth creationist.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that it is not only the evil creationists who are pointing out the problems with the theory of evolution. Here is a short collection of citations by scientists concerning areas where the theory is lacking: (All emphasys mine)

"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351.

............

"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform.
There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Pierre-Paul Grasse,
French zoologist in 'Evolution of Living Organisms' (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104

...........

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology.
But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity--omnipotent chance."

T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

.............

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?
There is another theory, now quite out of favor, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny.
I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.
I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

Dr. H. S. Lipson,
F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, 'A physicist looks at evolution', Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138

.................

"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arthur Eddington,
(Astrophysicist): Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.

Bottom line is that there is no shortage of scientists who say out that the evidence points away from the theory of evolution, and closer to the design hypothesis. What Charles and his darwinian brothers sugest, contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of conservatives, and contrary to the wishes of most americans, is that we don't tell the students about the problems of the theory because, says Charles, that is "sneaking creationism". In other words, we should throw away the evidence lest people become creationists. Never mind the truth.

Charles then cites Answers in Genesis and comments on their words:

Incidentally, it should be noted that there is no such position as a “neutral” or “non-religious” stance in this debate. Public school biology textbooks and many teachers explain the origin of the universe and life through “natural” processes, defining science as explaining things by “natural” processes. They are indoctrinating students in an atheistic religious belief—that no god is or has been involved; thus, naturalism—in essence, atheism—is now the religion taught in public schools. Parents need to wake up to the fact that public education is not non-religious. Even the Bible affirms that one is either for Christ or against—clearly teaching that there is no such “neutral” position.

If you don’t want to turn the clock back to medieval times and deny most of modern science, then according to Answers in Genesis you’re a damned atheist.

Huh, that is not what they said, Charlie. They said that by defining science as the enterprise which seeks only "natural causes", public schools are in fact indoctrinating people in naturalism. That is hardly a neutral position.

Why should we accept their assumptions and their definitions when debating untestable events?

And you can’t be neutral, or believe in God and evolution; it’s creationism or hell.

They didn't say that either. But it's a common trend among darwinists to misquote creatonists. They can't handle the true position, so they make up caricatures, and "attack" them.

One can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The problem is that he is not consistent. If God is the Creator, surely He left evidence. Is that evidence seen? If yes, then creationists are right. If not, then atheistic evolutionists are right.

If God, as the Master Designer, was Unable to leave evidence for Himself in the things He created, He is the Only Designer who was Unable to leave evidence. Even humans are able to leave evidence of their work (paintigs, etc). Strangely, God, the Supreme Designer, was not Able to leave evidence.

Weird.

But what does Charles make of the evolutionists who say that evolution and God are mutually exclusive? How come he puts the canard "Belief in evolution does not exclude belief in God", and points it at creationists? He should be using that line against people like Dawkins who say that evolution made it possible to be an intelectually fullfilled atheist.

What is it about evolution that makes atheists be intellectually fullfilled? Perhaps Charles should write them, and tell them that they have to get back being intelectually unfullfilled, since evolution does not remove God from the place of Creator.

Or does it?

Read More

Most Americans Suport Academic Freedom

(From Evolution News)

(...) In fact, polls have shown that large percentages of Independent voters — and even strong majorities of Democrats — support both teaching ID alongside evolution as well as the far more modest proposition to simply teach both the scientific evidence for and against evolution, without teaching ID.


A 2006 Zogby Poll found that 74% of Independent voters and 60% of Democrats support the view that biology teachers should teach Darwinian evolution, but also the evidence against it.


The poll also found that 65% of Democrats and 79% of Independents support the view that "When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life."


This bears repeating: 79% of Independent voters supported teaching ID when evolution is taught. 86% and 85% of Republicans in the poll supported these positions, respectively.


In these politically polarized times, on how many issues do over 60% of Democrats and over 70% of Independents agree with a viewpoint held by over 80% of Republicans?


It seems that Brokaw and Murphy may need to re-analyze the poll data about where the majority of Americans truly stand on the reasonable proposition that evolution should be taught in a non-dogmatic and critical fashion. (...)

Imagine that! Most Americans want science to be taught as science and not as religious dogma.

Surelly those 60% of Democrats, who support the view that biology teachers should teach Darwinian evolution, but also the evidence against it, must be "Christian fundamentalists".

Read More

Darwinist Admits: Tree of life Was Useful Lie To Win Over Creationists

http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21/comments#284660


Darwin Was Indeed Wrong but Koonin's Revolution May Not Be Novel

Shi Liu (22 October 2007) Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine

In 1991 I already pointed out the major mistakes made by Darwin which included his assertion that all extent lives were descended from a common ancestor cell and his simple and exclusive treatment of similarity with genealogically inherited identity (1). My alternative view on the origin and evolution is that life might have independently originated from multiple acellular ancestors and that similarity among different organisms may be a reflection of non-phylogenetic formations by a common mechanism (1).


My theory treats biotic evolution as a companion process to the abiotic evolution and thus the events and history of biotic evolution should naturally reflect the abiotic course of evolution. Like the Big Bang events happened in the formation and evolution of the abiotic world, similar Big Bang events should also happen in the origin and evolution of the biotic world.


Thus, it is unfair to say if one introduced the contribution of any Big Bang event (2) to the history reconstruction of biotic evolution then he did not "exercise just a little caution" and created some "hangovers" (3). In reality, both Big Bang events and gradual events have contributed to the real history of life.


Thus, while we may still appreciate the role of Darwin in helping scientists wining a upper hand in fighting against the creationists for filling our intellectual void of understanding life's origin and evolution, we must realize that Darwin's fetal mistakes have also misled science into a dead end of fruitless search for the non-existent last common ancestor (LCA) and some useless constructions of some untruthful universal tree of life (TOL) (4-5).


Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine
Apex, NC 27502, USA
SVL@logibio.com
References
1. Liu, S.V. 2006. Evolution: an integrated theory – Criticisms on Darwinism – Fifteen years ago. Pioneer 1: 10-28 (PDF ).
2. Koonin, E.V. 2007. The biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biology Direct 2: 21.
3. Matzke, N. 2007. Examine macroevolutionary concepts carefully. Biology Direct 2: 21. Comment 1.
4. Liu, S.V. 2007. Old answers to deep questions in the tree of life. Top Watch 2: 65-66 (PDF ).
5. Liu, S.V. 2007. Neglected modern theories on inheritance and evolution. Pioneer 2: 32-35 (PDF ).

Read More

Palin Has Not "Pushed" Creationism as Governor.

In this last swing against the belief held by the majority of conservatives, Charles Johnson says a few things that should make conservatives move away from his evolutionary position.

He says:

Apparently, she has a rather confused attitude toward evolution (an attitude she shares with about 50% of the US population), but when asked explicitly whether she would support teaching the pseudo-science of “intelligent design,” her answer was “No.”

So in Charles worldview, believing that there is empirical evidence for creation is "confusion", and that "confusion" is shared by 50% of american simpletons.

What an elistist, prejudiced, condescending statement. Charles like to attack Obama (rightfully) about his elistist views (like the "bitter people who cling to guns and religions"), but it seems that, when it comes to evolution, Charles is just as elistist and unrepresentive of the american worldview as Obama is of the political, social and even religious worldview.

If I had been an american conservative, I would be very offended by Charles statement that 50% of americans are "confused" only because they believe that there is empirical evidence that the living world was designed.

How elistist. How condescending. How patronizing.

To use some of liberal style, shame on you, Charles.

Read More

Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution

(From the blog "Darwinian Fundamentalism)

Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution

Yes, a biology professor really said that. Here is the whole quote. Note that he acknowledges that using the inaccuracies temporarily (whatever he means by that) will not necessarily be so temporary, and he is just fine with that too.

Mr. Campbell knows how tricky this process is. You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust.

You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.

If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives.

It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?

It is refreshing to see such honesty in a person willing to use false propaganda to persuade students to accept evolutionary theory.Others obviously share his views, which is why false information about the evolution of horses is still promoted, and Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still in textbooks.

Read More

Breaking: Religion and "Science" Not in Conflict

This is another plot atheistic evolutionists use try to put Christians to sleep. They proclaim in the media that "science" and "religion" are not in conflict. What they don't tell the media is that "religion" and "science" (by which they mean evolutionism) are not in conflict because they see religion as an evolutionary by product. In other words, religion is just something that happens in your head.

Adding to that, they adhere to the NOMA, which was promoted by the late evolutionist and marxist Steven Jay Gould. (NOMA stands for "Non Overlaping Magisteria")

Basically it says that "religion" (by which they mean Christianity) and "science" are in diferent domains and diferent spheres. Religion deals with morality and how to behave. "Science" tell us how the world works. Therefore, there shouldn't be any conflict since they are in diferent realms of existence.

Sounds nice, but there are many problems.

First of all, true science and Christianity are not at war. In fact, looking down in History, we'll see that the founding fathers of many of the fields of science evolutionists use against Christianity were started or received a great impulse thanks to the work of Christians

Secondly, Christianity makes Historical claims that contradict atheistic evolutionism. For example, God says in John 1 that before the material world existed, the Word of God (The Lord Jesus) already was. He is the Un-evolved Creative Inteligence behind the living world. This contradicts the theory of evolution which says that inteligence is an evolutionary by product.

Both can't be right. Either the Bible is right, or evolution is right.

So the Bible makes claims that go into the scientific domain. Which one should we trust? The testemony of men, who were not there when the world begun, or the Bible?

Thirdly, what do we make of evolutionists who say the evolution goes against the Bible? Are they "misrepresenting" evolution too?

"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian. When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion, I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory." (E.O. Wilson, "Toward a Humanistic Biology"; The Humanist, September/October, 1982; p. 40).

In his article, "The Meaning of Evolution," atheist G. Richard Bozarth claims that

"Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing" (American Atheist, September 20, 1979, p. 30).

Funny how these atheists know full well what evolution really means. Perhaps those who say that evolution and Christianity are in contradiction should contact them and tell them that they are wrong?....

Read More

On the Front Lines of the *Religious* Wars in Florida

I had this post ready two years ago, but for some weird reason, it never came up. Here it is.

---

I was beggining to wonder when would the first anti-Christian and anti-Creation post apear on LGF. It has been almost 2 days, and no evolutionary propaganda in Charles' blog.

But wait! Here it is finally.

Even though Charles doesn't say much, he does call evolution "science":

"New York Times writer Amy Harmon follows high school science teacher David Campbell’s efforts to reach students who’ve been raised as strict creationists, fighting a Florida political establishment that’s hostile to the science of evolution"

First of all, notice the highly reliable source of this article New York Times. We all know how the NYT is a honest, unbiased news agency, right? Right?

Leaving that aside, is evolution science? Does it meet the criteria of a scientific discipline? If it is science, it is open to criticism, or all criticism is ruled out as "religious", and therefore, "outside of science"?

Those are big questions, and we will have the time to comment on that.

People might wonder why do I consider evolutionism anti-Christian. Well, from the Biblical point of view, the world exists because God wanted it to exist. Life forms exist for the same reason.

The theory of evolution however (let's grant it the title "theory") says that the living world exists NOT bcause Someone wanted it to exist, but solely due to the result of unguided, impersonal forces of nature.

The article makes the common darwinian mistake of conflating natural selection with particles-to-people evolution. They use the inteligently guided change in Mickey Mouse as some form of evidence of what "nature" did without inteligent design.

Then they say that what happened to Mickey Mouse was "evolution". It never dawned the NYT writter that 1) the process was the result of inteligent design, NOT randomess as pescribed by darwinism, and 2) It was Mickey Mouse in the beggining as it it Mickey Moue today. Where's the evolution?!!

This type of bait and switch is very common among darwinists. They use the empirical fact that animals undergo changes as evidence that the living world came into existence without any Personal Design.

A word to the writter of this article and to the evolutionary teacher cited in the article:

If you are really trying to shove your religious theory down the american people's throat, try to find real evidences of what you believe. Natural selection is not evolution, and a cat that turns into a cat is not evidence for evolution, (specialy if you oppose evolution against creationism).

Secondly, don't forget what your theory says. It says that ALL the living forms in existence today are the result of NOTHING BUT the unguided, uncaused, unplanned, undirected, un-inteligent forces of nature.

THEREFORE you must find that magical force of nature that is able to do just that.

Read More

Purpose of the Blog

(Changed at 18:40 - 25/08/08 - Western European Time)

This Blog in no way reflects the views on origins by the owner of Little Green Footballs.

Little Green Footballs is a blog which has very good and reliable information about politics, Israel and the conservative party, among many other issues. Charles has been in the forefront in exposing many of the things in which MSM (Mainstream Media) is being dishonest, unreliable and plainly biased towards the liberal cause.

However, when it comes to the debate between atheistic evolutionism and Inteligent Design, Charles Johnson does not reflect the views the majority of conservatives have.

As much as I like his blog (and I like it a lot), when it comes to unguided evolution, he is totally wrong on that, and I hope to show it in here.

Read More