Feed on Posts or Comments 20 April 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 26 Sep 2011 05:08 pm

Teaching Creationism: Tantamount to abuse of young people

David Jennings, theologian at the Leicester Cathedral, describes the act of teaching Creationism as, “Tantamount to abuse of young people”:

His analogy: The fact that some people believe that Creationism might be true does not mean that we have to teach it in schools in the same way that the fact that some people believe that the earth might be flat does not warrant serious consideration of their opinion. We know, categorically, that the earth is not flat in the same way that we know, categorically, that a magic being in the sky did not poof the earth into existence and populate it as described in the Bible. There are a thousand ways to prove that the Bible’s creation story is not true.

See also:

Why the Anti-Science Creationist Movement Is So Dangerous

A few weeks ago, Jon Huntsman torpedoed his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination by making the following announcement: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

It’s a pathetic commentary on the anti-intellectualism rampant in American politics that this is newsworthy. A major-party candidate announces that he doesn’t deny a foundational theory of modern science! In fact, given the political atmosphere in the Republican party, it’s not just newsworthy but a daring act: polls have shown that almost 70 percent of Republicans deny evolution.

And this classic video:

If you believe in creationism and would like to learn about the alternative, this video can help:

40 Responses to “Teaching Creationism: Tantamount to abuse of young people”

  1. on 26 Sep 2011 at 9:09 pm 1.Horatiio said …

    LOL!!!

    Wait, those who believe in God are delusional, right?

    Therefore this delusional priest (Probably a pedaphile, yes?) has determined Creationism is abusing young people? That’s delusional.

    I’m only using atheist logic.

    The only reason Americans deny macroevolution is because there is no foundational evidence for the theory. When there is evidence for it I
    will be glad to adopt it since is does not impact my belief in God in any way.

    I will pass on to my kids my apologies for the abuse. LOL!!

  2. on 27 Sep 2011 at 3:28 am 2.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    OK. Please explain how ID works.
    Did ALL species of animals exist at the same time on planet Earth and then 99% of the species became extinct over time?

  3. on 27 Sep 2011 at 9:13 am 3.Anonymous said …

    > The only reason Americans deny macroevolution
    > is because there is no foundational evidence
    > for the theory.

    Did you watch the second video? That is foundational evidence. The only way to say that there is “no foundational evidence” is for you to ignore all of it.

  4. on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:02 pm 4.Horatiio said …

    A,

    OK, provide the bullet points.

    MR Q.

    No fallacies, stick with the thread.

  5. on 27 Sep 2011 at 1:26 pm 5.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    You’re the one suggesting that “macro-”evolution does not exist. So, if the animals were created during a divine creation event, wouldn’t that mean ALL animals shared the planet at the same time?
    Please, as I stated in my initial post,

    explain how ID works

    I assume that you are an ID advocate.

  6. on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:48 pm 6.Lou (DFW) said …

    5.MrQ said …

    “Hor,

    I assume that you are an ID advocate.”

    But obviously not one for intelligence.

  7. on 27 Sep 2011 at 5:37 pm 7.DPK said …

    Let’s see if we can follow Hor’s “logic”
    A priest says creationism is bullshit, and teaching it to young people is tantamount to child abuse.

    All priests are pedophiles.

    Pedophiles have a distorted view of what constitutes child abuse.

    Therefore: Evolution is wrong.

    Yeah… that makes sense.

    And Hor.. let me correct you… Americans don’t deny evolution… idiots deny evolution. Some Americans are idiots… some Americans are not.
    You really have no clue, do you?
    I’d pray for you, but I don’t think it would help you.

  8. on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:16 pm 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Horatiio said …

    “Therefore this delusional priest (Probably a pedaphile, yes?)”

    If so, he would probably enjoy “Broadway in the basement” with you.

  9. on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:18 pm 9.Horatiio said …

    DPK

    Idiots DPK? tsk tsk tsk. Just more name calling.

    Do you have the bullet points that support macroevolution? Lay them out there and if they fit and work I am all in.

    There must be something lacking since there are thousands of scientist who do not buy in and no not all creationist.

    None of you seem to be able to back something you are so enthusiastic about?

    Now on to the priest. First I should not listen to delusional theists BUT I should listen to THIS delusional theist? You are so illogical.

  10. on 27 Sep 2011 at 7:39 pm 10.DPK said …

    So, let’s understand… you agree then that theists are delusional? Or are you saying he is delusional about evolution, but not about belief in supernatural beings? You need to make up your mind. Or could it be that people can be deluded about somethings, and not about others?? Hope that thought didn’t fry your brain.(probably too late anyway… no loss)
    The fact is, someone who actually believes in gods and such can still be bright enough and educated enough to know that it didn’t happen the way the bible says.
    Even the biologist in the 2nd video says he is a catholic and a theist and he believes in god, but not a deceptive one. Care to refute his evidence about the “missing chromosome”? Yeah… you talk a lot of trash, but your words are empty, like your intellect. You demand “bullet points” but you never answer any direct questions yourself… you just disappear when your position becomes laughable and then reappear in a few days with another cartload of the same old B.S.
    There is a wealth of information available about the facts of evolution. It’s not my job to spoon feed it to you. Educate yourself.
    “Thousands” of scientists that “don not buy in”… really? Thousands??? hahaha

    Claim CA111:
    Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163
    Response:

    Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

    Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

    One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

    Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

  11. on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:45 pm 11.Hell Yeah said …

    “There must be something lacking since there are thousands of scientist who do not buy in and no not all creationist.”

    Where do you get the idea that there are thousands of scientists out there that do no buy in? First of all, how many scientists are there out there overall? And out of these scientists, which ones are actually specializing in the topics that relate? You just pull the number thousand out of your ass, or someone pulled it out of their ass and handed it to you. Where is your source of these thousands?

  12. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:45 am 12.Anonymous said …

    As I pointed out above, the true number of scientist working in life sciences or biology who profess a belief in creationism or that creationism is a valid theory amounts to less than 1/10th of 1% worldwide, and 1/15th of 1% in the US.

    So Hor’s claim, as is many of his claim, is an outright lie. No surprise there.
    Brothers and Sisters… can we get an “LOL”?!

  13. on 28 Sep 2011 at 3:25 am 13.Horatiio said …

    Hor said:

    “There must be something lacking since there are thousands of scientist who do not buy in and no not all creationist.

    LOL!!! I actually stated not all creationist but Duffy Louie still goes creationist on us. LOL!!!

    There are close to a 1000 (maybe more) registered with the DE so there you go.

    Now are any of you diehard Darwinist able to provide some simple bullet points to prove this theory as fact? We can then put it all to rest.

  14. on 28 Sep 2011 at 4:19 am 14.DPK said …

    So, close to 1000 now counts as “thousands”… another lie. What is “the DE”and what qualifications are necessary to “register”? For all we know idiots like you could register. In fact, that’s quite likely.. LOL!!!

    Since you are too lazy to do the research yourself to find the “bullet points” you desire.. try to see if you can get though this… it’s not too many big words… and then go away.
    http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

  15. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:21 pm 15.Anonymous said …

    How many Steve’s you got on your list Horatiio? (Google Project Steve)

    Now, can we get back to the subject of getting Horatiio, A, Q, Xenon, Clauswitz and whatever else he calls himself to either prove the existence of his imaginary god or to STFU?

  16. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:29 pm 16.MrQ said …

    Hor #13

    Now are any of you diehard Darwinist able to provide some simple bullet points to prove this theory as fact?

    It has been attempted numerous times. You and your fellow hillbillies always seem to flee when FACTS are to be discussed.

    I have noted that you’ve subtly shifted the goalposts and realized that your religious faith does not rely on facts. Evolution, does not impact your belief and the same goes for abiogenesis. You must be nearing the 12th and final step of your re-hab / re-programming.

  17. on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:47 pm 17.Horatiio said …

    “It has been attempted numerous times. You and your fellow hillbillies always seem to flee when FACTS are to be discussed.”

    Really? Can you link us to these bullet points Mr Q?

    Again very simple. A short list of bullet points, smoking guns if you will, that proves macroevolution. Of course, they need to hold up under the modern scientific method since all truth falls under this for the atheists.

    I am willing to accept it if the science truly does support it. I fear all you have is more ad homenim. (sigh)

  18. on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:25 pm 18.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    Have you been following along these threads?
    Let’s agree on these points to get the ball rolling, let me know where I have erred so we may correct the information:

    Point #1- Homo sapiens have existed for less than 1 million years on our 4+ billion year old Earth.

    Point #2- 99% of all species that have ever existed on our planet Earth have become extinct.

    Someone cue the crickets…LOL!!!!

  19. on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:40 pm 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    17.Horatiio said …

    “Really? Can you link us to these bullet points Mr Q?”

    Oh good god, Hor has yet another obsession – BULLET POINTS.

    Hor, chemistry, gravity, evolution, both micro and macro, are FACTS. They don’t require any BULLET POINTS. This BULLET POINT nonsense is yet another one of your tactics to deflect attention from the FACT that you don’t have any BULLET POINTS for the existence of your imaginary god. Until you have then, why don’t you go back to your “Broadway in the basement” fantasy?

    If not, then shut-up and start reading:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  20. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:25 pm 20.Horatiio said …

    Mr Q

    Was that it? Was this your proof?
    Do we need to define proof?

    PZ once claimed we are here as proof.
    Maybe we should star there. Please tell us you have more.
    LOL!! Wow!

  21. on 28 Sep 2011 at 6:41 pm 21.MrQ said …

    Hor

    Please tell us you have more.

    Maybe you don’t fully understand what “Let’s agree on these points to get the ball rolling” actually means from my post #18.
    Poor Hor. Muddled, confused, and addled as always. HUYA syndrome, I suppose.
    Re-read post #18 and let’s proceed. I knew this would happen again. Another failed attempt to OPEN a discussion. *sigh*

  22. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:35 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.MrQ said …

    “Maybe you don’t fully understand what “Let’s agree on these points to get the ball rolling” actually means from my post #18.”

    He understands, nobody can be that stupid. But what he really understands is that he can’t open that discussion with you because it will lead to the inevitable conclusion that he is wrong about evolution.

    He demands proof for anything that he perceives as an attack on his belief in his imaginary god, but he NEVER provides evidence for said belief. He’s nothing but a fraud. And he does what frauds and cockroaches do – run and hide when exposed to the light.

  23. on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:45 pm 23.Severin said …

    Horatio = 25% Forrest Gump (intelligence) + 25% Mr. Bean (charcter) + 25% Baron Munchausen (honesty).

    Not 100%
    Well, the poor guy is incomplete anyway.

    It’s nature! No hope anyone can help him.

  24. on 28 Sep 2011 at 10:45 pm 24.Anonymous said …

    > OK, provide the bullet points.

    Type “bullet points evolution” into Google.

    First result is this:

    “* Definition of ‘evolution’: Change in the heritable traits of a population (such as a species) over time.

    * Definition of ‘fact’: A repeatable observation. Note: ‘facts’ are not “proven” to be true .. they are *observed* to be true.

    * Definition of ‘theory’: An explanation for facts. It is not the question of whether X occurs, but WHY X occurs.

    * Is evolution a FACT? Yes. Whenever you use the word ‘evolution’ to refer to the process by which populations (such as a specie) *change over time*, then yes, that it is *observed* to be true that populations (such as species) *change over time. A virus becoming immune to last year’s flu shot is an observed instance of evolution. A wolf changing over time to become chihuahuas and great danes is an observed instance of evolution. A mouse species introduced to an island by European ships 250 years ago, that has split into two or more species of mouse, is an observed instance of evolution.

    * Is evolution a theory? Yes. Whenever you use the word ‘evolution’ as a term for any proposed explanation for WHY evolution occurs, that is called a ‘theory of evolution.’ The main theory of evolution accepted by scientists today is Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

    * What is natural selection? It is Charles Darwin’s theory for WHY evolution occurs in nature. It is considered *by scientists* to be one of the most powerful and elegant theories in the history of science. It can be expressed in a single sentence: “In any population, those individuals born with traits that give them some advantage in survival and reproduction, will tend, on average, to leave more offspring that have those same traits.” That’s it. That’s WHY evolution occurs.

    * What is speciation, or “branching”? This is one of the consequences of evolution by natural selection. If two populations of the same species are somehow reproductively isolated from each other, they will evolve, but in *different* ways. With enough time, the two populations will slowly lose the ability to interbreed, even in they come into contact with each other. If the memebers of two populations have lost the ability to interbreed and produce *fertile* offspring, then they are defined as different *species*. Since the reproductive isolation is now *permanent*, they continue to get more and more different. They have established two permanently separate branches of evolution.

    * Natural selection + speciation (branching) explains why there are so many species on the planet, and the patterns of relationships we find between them. Once we understand how and why any two species can share a common ancestor, then we understand WHY all the species on the planet can be organized into a huge *tree-like* hierarchy. We understand WHY there are commonalities in DNA. We understand WHY one species can share a specific *structure* or a *protein* or *DNA sequence* with another species, even when it serves very different functions in both (or sometimes serves no function at all in one or both species) … namely this structure or protein or DNA sequence was simply inherited from a common ancestor.

    This is the hallmark of a good theory. It starts out explaining a limited set of facts (the way that natural selection explains why insects can get immune to pesticides) but is found to explain a HUGE number of other facts.

    And that is why the ‘theory of evolution’ by natural selection, is considered one of core, unifying principles of modern biology.”

  25. on 29 Sep 2011 at 1:43 am 25.MrQ said …

    Lou #22,
    re Hor

    He understands, nobody can be that stupid.

    I sure hope not!! (LOL!!!)
    Sometimes it seems that Hor is an atheist trying very hard to make christians and other theists look really bad.

  26. on 29 Sep 2011 at 6:49 pm 26.Horatiio said …

    Nony mouse,

    I do thank you for responding although you had to go to Google. This tells me you really don’t know why you believe.

    After some deliberation what you have outlined as proven using the scientific method is microevolution. No argument there. It is backed solidly by science.

    However, you provide nothing for macroevolution. A great deal of could’ve, might’ve and maybe but nothing that can be supported using the scientific method.

    I understand the hate. Those who question the dogma of Darwinism are heretics. I’m a freethinker. LOL!

  27. on 29 Sep 2011 at 6:58 pm 27.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    See post #18. Let’s start the discussion. You asked for bullet points, I provided some.

    Let’s see if, as you claim:

    nothing that can be supported using the scientific method.

    I’m a freethinker. LOL!

    LOL!!!, indeed.

  28. on 30 Sep 2011 at 5:50 pm 28.Anonymous said …

    >However, you provide nothing for macroevolution.

    How do you propose to explain all the millions of species of mammals in the fossil record over tens of millions of years that came into existence, lived and then went extinct?

    How do you propose to explain all the millions of species of dinosaurs in the fossil record over tens of millions of years that came into existence, lived and then went extinct?

    If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?

  29. on 04 Oct 2011 at 12:19 pm 29.Horatiio said …

    “If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?”

    This is what passes for science. LOL!!!!!!@!!!!!!

    The same way you explain where matter came from. .

  30. on 04 Oct 2011 at 2:15 pm 30.Anonymous said …

    Please answer the question:

    If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?

    Give us your explanation, whatever it is.

  31. on 04 Oct 2011 at 4:01 pm 31.MrQ said …

    Nony mouse asks

    “If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?”

    Hor suggests

    This is what passes for science. LOL!!!!!!@!!!!!!

    Stop being such a dumbass, Hor. You asked for bullet points. I provided some to get the discussion STARTED. Personally, I am not surprised that you FAILED to get the ball rolling. When all you got is goddidit, you ain’t got much. As a matter of fact, all you’ve got are invisible arguments.

    Please show me the path to the Jewish Zombie leader. Do I need to start chugging fire water first?

  32. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:19 pm 32.Horatiio said …

    “Please answer the question:
    If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?”

    I’m sorry Mr Mouse. I just have a lack of belief in macroevolution . It is’s up to you to prove it to me.

    Understand we don’t know, but we will one day.

  33. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:22 pm 33.MrQ said …

    Hor

    It is’s up to you to prove it to me.

    With bullet points?

  34. on 04 Oct 2011 at 8:25 pm 34.Horatiio said …

    Mr Q,

    Sure, you got some?

    I just lack belief. All I need it the same proof you need for God.

    OK

    Go!

  35. on 04 Oct 2011 at 9:17 pm 35.MrQ said …

    Hor see above, way above. Start with post #18.
    Your turn. OK
    Go!
    Let’s go through the evidence…together.

  36. on 04 Oct 2011 at 10:20 pm 36.Horatiio said …

    I’ll do you one better. Start with post #4.

    For something you believe to be fact, you sure are secretive!

    Go! Lets go through your bullet points together (if you have any)

    If need be I can post the scientific method for you. Let me know how i can help you through this process.

    I’m here as you advocate.

  37. on 04 Oct 2011 at 11:39 pm 37.MrQ said …

    Hor,
    So you agree then with post #18. no corrections required?

    You, after all, asked for bullets. I provided some to get things STARTED.

    Can we keep moving along and build the case using ONLY the empirical data and evidence at hand? – The so called scientific method you want. Let’s agree on post #18 and see where we end up. OK? Then we’ll move to more bullet points, just as you have requested.

  38. on 05 Oct 2011 at 10:55 am 38.Anonymous said …

    You seem strangely unable to answer a simple question. Please answer this question:

    If not evolution, how do YOU explain it?

    Give us your explanation, whatever it is.

  39. on 21 May 2012 at 8:16 pm 39.Late2t3hParty said …

    Loooooool

    You guys got trolled by an ignorant hillbilly xD

    learn2internet lol

  40. on 21 May 2012 at 8:29 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    And, Late2t3hParty, your thread necromancy is a sign of your supreme internet skilz?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply