Creationists New Tactics to promote Anti-Evolutionary Teachings

The Scopes Strategy: Creationists Try New Tactics to Promote Anti-Evolutionary Teaching in Public Schools Under the guise of "academic freedom" creationists are co-opting some old heroes of the fight to teach evolution in the classroom for their anti-science campaign

Creationists New Tactics

your thoughts?

If this is old news, please delete. My apologies. I am cooking dinner and have to head out for the night.

Darwinian evolution should be questioned, primarily because darwinian evolution is entirely incorrect on how the process of evolution occurs. I love science being taught in classrooms, but having seen it first hand, I find it utterly insane how Darwin's Theories, yes theories are being taught as fact. Evolution is a fact of our existence, but Darwin's angle on it, should not be taught as fact.

Just thought I'd throw in that I'm definitely not a creationist.

reply to post by exdog5


For anyone that actually weighs the global movements to a One World Government and One World Money unity and weighs what the Bible prophesied 2,000 years ago , creationism is the only way . It is a labor of love and sometimes a burden to present the Word of God and the creation of life by the living God . The theory of evolution has many holes in it . It is a theory not a scientific fact .Still the real question is how did life begin with DNA or RNA not being a natural or random occurring thing much less a living cell to host it . All cells have DNA and this situation does not occur on it's own . Evolution only occurs where there is first life . As the earth formed from superheated rock would have no living life forms on it , and the extremes of deep space would exclude life as we know it how did life begin ? The Bible is the oldest information that tells us that there is a God and he created life here . Of course man as an adolesent that we are , know it all , then tries to make assumptions and back engineer life creation to suit our own vanity . Some scientist have been caught making claims that are false
such as the Nanobot scheme and the two that claimed to have found the missing link . Then there are those that makes bold statements and when challenged throws a couple of hundred million years in for good luck . Yes someone needs to present the other side .

Tepha:

Darwinian evolution should be questioned, primarily because darwinian evolution is entirely incorrect on how the process of evolution occurs. I love science being taught in classrooms, but having seen it first hand, I find it utterly insane how Darwin's Theories, yes theories are being taught as fact. Evolution is a fact of our existence, but Darwin's angle on it, should not be taught as fact.

So what do you have to back up this mess besides incredulity and supposition? Can you cite me any studies, in the last 150 years, that points to evolutionary theory being incorrect? Unfortunately, every new field of biological study since Darwin's work has backed up and strengthened his ideas (genetics, virology, paleontology). You also show a gross misunderstanding of what a "theory" constitutes in science.

Your view has been brought before a court of law many times in America . . . It always falls flat, in court, where evidence is needed.

Here is just one recent case where ID/Creationism had weeks to present their case and could only produce one witness willing to argue . . . and he fell flat on his face.
Kitzmiller v. Dover School District

Simon Peter:

It is a theory not a scientific fact .Still the real question is how did life begin with DNA or RNA not being a natural or random occurring thing much less a living cell to host it . All cells have DNA and this situation does not occur on it's own .

A scientific theory is a large collection of facts pertaining to an overlying principle. It is not a guess. How can you argue against science if you don't know one of the most basic concepts of the method? Cells formed before DNA and the evolution of both is well documented . . . Instead of arguing from incredulity, due to its conflict with your world view, maybe you should read up on it? It also seems like you want to combine abiogenesis and evolution together, as most creationists do.

The Bible is the oldest information that tells us that there is a God and he created life here .

Except for all Sumarian, Hindu, Chinese, Egyptian creation myths . . . Norse and Celtic myths could be older, as well. If you are a student of comparative mythology you'd also see that the judeo-christian myths are basically bastardized versions of these earlier texts anyway.

such as the Nanobot scheme and the two that claimed to have found the missing link .

Are you talking about Piltdown Man, Peking Man, or "Lucy"? It's hard to tell with creationists because only one is a fraud, but creationists claim all three are. If you could be more specific, I'll be glad to debate you on what constitutes it being a "fraud".

Yes someone needs to present the other side

There already are . . . they are called "Sunday school teachers". Science gets taught in science class . . . Religion in church. In case you missed it earlier . . . here is what happens when school districts believe religion to be equal to science (in matters of science, of course).
Kitzmiller v. Dover School District

To actually reply to the OP:

I read this article previously and am not suprised at the tatics. The convservative christian movement to dumb down America through forcibly accepting their mythology is long on polictical clout and funding. It seems every time an attempt fails to sway the law their way, they take a year off and come back with a new strategy. Creationism to ID; being a "Christian Nation" to being persecuted by a secular one; self-evident truth/"in the bible" to equal time/"evolution is just a theory" . . . the agenda to have judeo-christian mythology taught by the state has been relentless since America's inception.

I have no problem with anyone having personal beliefs, but religion doesn't become science without evidence. Evidence to support their claim . . . that is what a fact is. That is something modern evolutionary theory has a mountain of. When this movement can produce evidence that stands to peer review, they can petition for "equal time".

reply to post by exdog5


Good find! I started a related thread in late January regarding Oklahoma legislators trying the same tactic of forcing creationist/ID theology into science classrooms under the guise of "academic freedom".

Originally posted by Tephra
Darwinian evolution should be questioned ...

Agreed. Every scientific theory should be regularly questioned and reevaluated as new evidence comes to light.

... primarily because darwinian evolution is entirely incorrect on how the process of evolution occurs.

You do understand that we're now a century and a half or so removed from Darwin's writings and that we've expanded and built on them and added to them to the extent that no one actually calls it "Darwin's theory of evolution", right? It's just the theory of evolution these days. If I may quote from Wikipedia:

In the early 20th century, Darwinian theories of evolution were combined with genetics, palaeontology, and systematics, which culminated into a union of ideas known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Darwin's portion of it, often summarized as "descent with modification", is still a valid part of the larger theory of evolution. It's just not the only mechanism at play.

I love science being taught in classrooms, but having seen it first hand, I find it utterly insane how Darwin's Theories, yes theories are being taught as fact. Evolution is a fact of our existence, but Darwin's angle on it, should not be taught as fact.

See above.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
For anyone that actually weighs the global movements to a One World Government and One World Money unity and weighs what the Bible prophesied 2,000 years ago , creationism is the only way .

Can you explain what the concepts of a global hegemony, a global currency, and something the Bible "prophesied" have to do with a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next? Further, creationism and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

It is a labor of love and sometimes a burden to present the Word of God and the creation of life by the living God .

It is equally laborious to present scientific facts backed up by an enormous weight of evidence regarding biodiversity in a country that has the second lowest acceptance of the theory of evolution among developed countries.

The theory of evolution has many holes in it .

Such as?

It is a theory not a scientific fact .

This just shows your lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. For the fourth time this week, I'll post this for the edification of someone who had an inadequate science education growing up:

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Got it now? Great.

Still the real question is how did life begin with DNA or RNA not being a natural or random occurring thing much less a living cell to host it . All cells have DNA and this situation does not occur on it's own . Evolution only occurs where there is first life . As the earth formed from superheated rock would have no living life forms on it , and the extremes of deep space would exclude life as we know it how did life begin ?

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only explains biodiversity.

The Bible is the oldest information that tells us that there is a God and he created life here .

The story of creation in the Bible isn't the oldest creation epic by a long shot. It's not even a particularly original one, as it plagiarizes several preceding ones.

Of course man as an adolesent that we are , know it all , then tries to make assumptions and back engineer life creation to suit our own vanity .

We wouldn't be nearly as "adolescent" as we are if it weren't for allegorical fairy tales in the Bible being pawned off as scientific fact for centuries.

Some scientist have been caught making claims that are false such as the Nanobot scheme and the two that claimed to have found the missing link . Then there are those that makes bold statements and when challenged throws a couple of hundred million years in for good luck .

Citation needed.

Yes someone needs to present the other side .

There is no "other side" when it comes to presenting inherently non-scientific theological stories in a science class. Want to do it in a world religions or comparative theology class? Great. Just keep it out of science classes.

Is it any wonder that the United States is steadily slipping farther and farther behind in scientific research when that used to be our bread and butter?

reply to post by Tephra

This is Darwin's theory of evolution:

In optimal conditions, populations will grow exponentially, growing beyond that of which is necessary to sustain their numbers. Therefore, lest they exhaust their resources, there will be competition for those resources. Those that survive will spread their genes, thus spreading their traits that are proven to have selective advantages. The progeny of those that survive will be modified thus ensuring variation within a given population.

Incidentally, Darwin rarely emphasized survival of the fittest, and was only expressed (by Herbert Spencer) alongside his thesis to appease the teleological proponents of evolutionary theory (in other words, to pacify human arrogance), for it is a great tautology and obviously fitness implies survival. Therefore survival of those that survive through historical contingency is the modern understanding of the pathways of evolution. There are disagreements and questions as to the mechanisms that drive variation within a population and the changing of organisms (parasites vs environments, punctuated vs gradual), and Darwin's views on those mechanisms have been questioned thoroughly and some displaced by more refined versions (scientists give him the benefit of the doubt because he didn't understand the nature of genetics, mutations, allele frequencies, etc...). But his thesis remains as much as an assertion of fact as gravity.

If people seriously believe making stuff up is enough to satisfy the scientific curriculum of secondary or tertiary institutions, as opposed to teaching evolution which entails gathering evidence and assessing probability and 150 years of analyzing data, then I implore you to re-examine your belief system.

reply to post by exdog5


Great find. And to jump on the bandwagon, nothing has proven evolution wrong in the last 150+ years. Hell, I even started a thread (link in my sig) calling for creationists to prove the idea wrong and they've yet to answer the call.

I'm puzzled.

Bible literalists want to get their scriptures respected as the ultimate truth. However they are doing this by repeatedly trying to get students to dismiss the theory of evolution.

Why don't they start with something simpler, such as getting schools to teach the Earth is flat? This must be fact, if the bible is the inerrant word of god, and would be much easier to prove than creation.



Is this urge to squeeze Christianity back into schools a legacy of America's Puritanical heritage?
Is it possible the prophesies we hear of "The Rapture" are actually a retelling of a historical event?
Perhaps the story is based on the joy of the English on seeing the Puritans set sail for a distant land.
Thank god they sent my country their criminals instead.

reply to post by exdog5


Somehow I'm not surprised. Creationists have been begging to "teach the controversy" about Evolution. I find it funny that their strategy for getting people to believe in Creation always involves tearing down Evolution rather than presenting any evidence of their own. Could it be because they have no evidence of their own

It's as if they think the supernatural becomes a viable option as soon as they poke enough holes in Evolution, or, more accurately, their strawmen of Evolution.

Nice find

It's bad enough religion being taught at school, never mind in a science lesson. At what point did logic, evidence and science get replaced by lies, fiction and idiocy?

reply to post by exdog5


is not gravity just a theory? i dont agree with the darwinism but just because its a theory doenst mean its not right

reply to post by SimonPeter


read up on the work of Stanley Miller. He combined INORGANIC elements, electricity (lightning), and water, and made amino acids, which make up you, me, and everything else organic. Just because you don't know something don't assume it was just magic!

The first cells were little oily bubbles known as coacervates, if memory serves. Its not perfect, but the line of pure creationism is totally bunk

The truth lies somewhere in the middle IMO....neither is infallible.

I also like the panspermia idea, but again, boiled down, we will have the same argument


And while Darwin was not 100% correct, the "theory" is still true, some of the specifics are incorrect, but hell, even Einstein was wrong about a few things.

The "academic freedom" to.... not teach science?

The heliocentric earth theory and germ theory also refute biblical claims. Should we allow academic freedom to teach that the earth is flat & the sun revolves around it and that demons cause disease?

Perhaps we should also have the "academic freedom" to teach alchemy rather than chemistry and astrology instead of astronomy.

Creationist must stay away from schools as they already have the church as a platform to make their claims, and teachers subscribing to this viewpoint should be rendered ineligible for their positions.

reply to post by SimonPeter


["It is a labor of love and sometimes a burden to present the Word of God"]

then I hope you are only reading the original bible in Hebrew. that is as close to "the word of god" as you are going to get, (unless he's talking right too you)

otherwise you are spreading "the word" of many Anglo editors

good luck

Originally posted by SimonPeter
It is a theory not a scientific fact .

A scientific theory is a scientific fact.

Read a book besides the bible some time. It'll do you good.

The one question I have is, why are we still calling Evolution a theory and not a fact?

Human DNA and Chimp DNA are 95% the same, that alone should cement Evolution as a FACT.

Originally posted by muse7
The one question I have is, why are we still calling Evolution a theory and not a fact?

Human DNA and Chimp DNA are 95% the same, that alone should cement Evolution as a FACT.

Scientific theory is fact. Scientific theory provides an explanation for the observable world using facts and also predicts new discoveries. Scientific theory is much different than the layman's term of "theory", as being a notion or idea.