Darwinism

[_Gunnar]

Perhaps a little comedy is in order:

If you are not familiar with the 'Banana man'
The atheists nightmare!

He has been one-upped
The Broccoli man

I had not seen either of those, and they were hilarious.

The dude describing the "design" of the banana... it seemed like a comic's routine. Talk about Poe's Law.

If you think that was hilarious, what about Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck argument?
Cameron claims that if evolution were true, we should see numerous "transitional" forms like crocoducks in the fossil record, which we don't. What he actually showed would be a chimera, not a transitional form. In actuality, if we actually saw things like that in the fossil record, that would disprove, rather than prove evolution.

[_RockSlider]

Ceeboo,

Think back with me on a few events that happened in our lifetime (I think you are not all that much younger than I am). Remember all the battles in America over prayers in school? I believe teaching evolution in public schools was illegal in some states up until 1960. The Christian majorities of America all through the 1900's slowly lost their foothold in maintaining a level of control over keeping god in the public schools. The legalization and standardization of teaching evolution in public school science curriculums, along with the removal of 10 commandments and prayer, left a very persistent and dedicated set of Christians seeking a way to regain some ground in this area.

With the explosion of all things DNA along with the completion of mapping the human genome (along with 1000's of other species) opened up a new opportunity for creationist to try and get back in the game by putting some fresh lipstick on an old and debunked pig (the teleological argument and the Watchmaker analogy). The wonder and complexity of this brave new world opened up some new 'god of the gaps' potential holes. However, the god of the gaps arguments also have a long history of failure and being able to replace it (hide it) with intelligent design was a winning proposition.

Now if only the public can be convinced of neo-id being of equal validity to that of evolution and thereby demanding that it be taught side by side with evolution, they are back in the game, they keep a hidden god in public schools and hence in the forefront of our children's minds.

The Discovery Institute's main purpose is to influence legislation dealing with public education of children, plain and simple. They want ID taught in the science classes along with evolution. That's it, that is what they are all about.

The skeptics thus label creationist as anti-science as they intend to weaken the teaching of evolution and at the same time put a pseudoscience on the same level. Note that most skeptics would have no problem with ID being taught in religion classes, or perhaps philosophy classes, just not in hard science classes.

I remember my own worldview and feelings when they were chasing prayer out of the schools. It was the Satanic enemy reflecting a falling/failing society.

Perhaps your current political stance is to support legislation that would require ID to be taught alongside of evolution to the children of America. If this is the case, then be truthful about it, own it, and along with sharing information sourced from the Discovery Institute be up front and declare your real underlying intent ... that it should be taught in science classes of public schools.

If this is not your current political stance, realize when you push Discovery Institute material you are pushing a hidden agenda that it seems you have not been aware of.

[_RockSlider]

If you think that was hilarious, what about Kirk Cameron's Crocoduck argument?

That led to all kinds of fun and educational things to follow:

like ...
Golden Crocoduck awards

And a young man well worth listening to anything he has posted.

King Crocoduck

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, Rock

My worldview proposes that no religious beliefs should be taught in public schools.

As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is. I understand what that means (an intelligent designer) so I completely get why it is so vigorously rejected but that rejection has no impact on reality.

[_Lemmie]

Now if only the public can be convinced of neo-id being of equal validity to that of evolution and thereby demanding that it be taught side by side with evolution, they are back in the game, they keep a hidden god in public schools and hence in the forefront of our children's minds.

The Discovery Institute's main purpose is to influence legislation dealing with public education of children, plain and simple. They want ID taught in the science classes along with evolution. That's it, that is what they are all about.

....realize when you push Discovery Institute material you are pushing a hidden agenda that it seems you have not been aware of.

Scary thought. Well stated, Rockslider.

[_canpakes]

As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is. I understand what that means (an intelligent designer) so I completely get why it is so vigorously rejected but that rejection has no impact on reality.

Ceeboo,

Regardless of the question of the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’, can you explain what, in your mind, constitutes ‘intelligent’ design within the human body?

[_Chap]

As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is.

Good for you.

Now you only need to spend a few years qualifying in a biological specialty relevant to the question of the origin of different species of animals and plants, establish a reputation as a person whose opinion at the cutting edge of your subject is worthy of attention, and then start trying to convince the overwhelming majority of your fellow professionals that their dismissal of this 'obvious' concept as devoid of scientific content needs to be rethought.

Of course, that may take you some time. So instead you could just continue to pop up here every few months to post lists of names of Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism, or whatever.

Just do whatever you think will be the most effective use of your available resources.

[_RockSlider]

Hey again, Rock

My worldview proposes that no religious beliefs should be taught in public schools.

As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is. I understand what that means (an intelligent designer) so I completely get why it is so vigorously rejected but that rejection has no impact on reality.

Hehe, you could be a good Mormon (my background) ... when the questions get hard, bear your testimony!

You did not address my summary of the Discovery Institutes hidden agenda.
Do you consider ID to be a hard science and that it is not a pseudoscience?

pseu·do·sci·ence
/ˌso͞odōˈsīəns/
noun
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
"the new pseudoscience of “counseling”"

Part of the genius of the Discovery Institute's ID campaign is that hiding religion under the pseudoscience of ID allows Ceeboo's worldview of keeping religion out of public schools intack.

Do you support the teaching of pseudoscience with science to children as if they are equal in teaching the truths of reality?

Does Ceeboo's worldview propose that no pseudoscience should be taught as science in public schools?

[Guest]

Hey again, Rock.

Hey again, Rock

My worldview proposes that no religious beliefs should be taught in public schools.

As far as intelligent design goes - I can't imagine how it could be more obvious than it already is. I understand what that means (an intelligent designer) so I completely get why it is so vigorously rejected but that rejection has no impact on reality.

Hehe, you could be a good Mormon (my background) ... when the questions get hard, bear your testimony!

You think that was bearing a testimony? There wasn't even a hint of testimony there. Odd.

You did not address my summary of the Discovery Institutes hidden agenda.
Do you consider ID to be a hard science and that it is not a pseudoscience?

(You didn't answer my question about your position of humanity promoting a moral society)
I consider ID to be an extremely worthy theory that warrants consideration and space at the collective table of seeking/studying/finding what best explains what we see when we look under the microscope (as well as the telescope).

Having said that, I do not think ID is a hard science - I don't think neo-Darwinian evolution is a hard science either,

Part of the genius of the Discovery Institute's ID campaign is that hiding religion under the pseudoscience of ID allows Ceeboo's worldview of keeping religion out of public schools intack.

I'm not sure if you meant that the way it came across to me so I won't comment other than to say again: I don't think the mere proposal of ID should be taught as science in our public schools. Our public schools should be teaching our kids a whole host of things - when it comes to science, our kids should be taught things that are cemented in the enormous amount of scientific knowledge that is available - and continues to grow as scientists do their work. Unfortunately, neo-Darwinian evolution is not among this enormous body of scientific facts (I realize that you do not agree) - thus we should not be teaching it as such to our children.

Do you support the teaching of pseudoscience with science to children as if they are equal in teaching the truths of reality?

I know you don't see it but your current position is nothing more than an expression of your personal beliefs/worldview. I don't think we should be teaching our kids ANYTHING that enters a faith realm within a public education setting.

Does Ceeboo's worldview propose that no psudoscience should be taught as science in public schools?

Ceeboo's worldview proposes that science should be taught as science in public schools. Anything that brings elements of faith to the table (no matter what it is) should not be taught as science to our kids in public schools.

[_Maksutov]

ID is religion. See the Dover case.