Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

December 29, 2005

Science censored by religious zealots, again

From the Bismark Tribune...

High school students won't be debating the issue of intelligent design at state tournaments, the North Dakota High School Activities Association says.

Association spokesman Bob Hetler said parents and school administrators find the topic too controversial. Instead, he said, the state debaters will use a different topic selected by the National Forensic League for February. It will be announced next week.

The league had suggested intelligent design as a January topic, and other states followed the national organization's recommendation.

The state debate tournament is Feb. 3-4 at Fargo South, with a National Forensic League qualifier the day before. A number of individual invitational tournaments are scheduled next month.

“We were going to exclude kids from the state and public forum debate if we stayed with intelligent design,” Hetler said. “Some schools were afraid parents wouldn't allow their kids to do this one.”

In other words, rather than have their religion questions, the followers of the religion of Evolution have thrown a fit until any opposition is silenced.

Posted by Danny Carlton at December 29, 2005 08:45 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/2351

Comments

Again, Danny - by any reasonable non homeschooled standard, its not science. In related disciplines (biology, biochemistry etc) in the scientific community it is a massive minority position - There is much more chance of a scientist being called Steve. (see 'project steve'). It is also non supported by peer reviewed articles - you know, that thing that scientists do. And you're still calling scientists 'religious zealots' although another poster offered a complete definition of science and debunked that claim.

thanks

Posted by: Rich at December 29, 2005 08:46 PM

Gee, what a surprise! The zealots of the religion of Evolution won't endorse any scientific theory that disagrees with their religion, therefore they claim there's no "peer" review. (Peer being defined as someone from the religion of Evolution)

And regardless how many times you try to deny it, Evolution remains a religion.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 29, 2005 10:06 PM

Oh dear Danny.

I know this is hard for you, what with facts intruding on your faith based world and all, but you are in a very small minority if you mistakenly think evolution (or science) is religion. Science is fact based and supported by physical evidence. Religion is faith based and 'supported' by an unsubstantiated book.

Just to help you:

EVOLUTION.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.


The process of developing.
Gradual development.

Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

Clearly you like to make your own meanings up.

Posted by: Rich at December 30, 2005 12:14 AM

Maybe if I appeal to your sense of humour?

http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif


Fond regards,
Rich

Posted by: Rich at December 30, 2005 12:20 AM

Sure, that's the front you guys put up. But the truth is you firmly believe that all life evolved from simpler life, which emerged from inorganic material. Something never proven yet you pronounce it as truth and censor any other scientific theories which disagree with it. It's your religion and you fight hard to proselytize for it.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 30, 2005 05:20 AM

Actually, Danny, I'm undecided on abiogenisis. Evoution is too wel documented and well understood to not be a fact, though. Science is what scientists do, Danny. ID isn't science, its plain for all who don't work in apologetics that its creatisionism, pure and simple.

Do you accept you are in an icrebily small minority position vs. Mainstream science?

Posted by: Rich at December 30, 2005 11:47 AM

Does "well documented" mean lots and lots of wild, hair-brained guesses by blind devotees of the religion?

Evolutionists practice religion, not science.

Reality is never determined by a popular vote. But it's understandable that you'd think so, given your religious devotion to Evolution.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 30, 2005 10:47 PM

Its not a vote, Danny, otherwise it would be creationism in America, which is the popular uniformed theory. The fact is that the vast majority of scientists in related sciences (you know, those that study and use it) subscribe to it. Could you point to the scientific support for your position? Oh course not, you'll just continue to conflate. See below for some help.

Someone has offered the correct definition of religion and exposed you. You didn't reply, you just restate you disproven sound bites.


http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm

http://www.ncseweb.org/selman/scientists_list.html

(That's 57 science organizations, Danny)

Posted by: Rich at December 31, 2005 11:24 AM

Its not a vote, Danny, otherwise it would be creationism in America, which is the popular uniformed theory.

So first I'm in the minority, now I'm in the majority. You are the quintessential Evolutionists—make up things as they are convenient.

The fact is that the vast majority of scientists in related sciences (you know, those that study and use it) subscribe to it. Could you point to the scientific support for your position? Oh course not, you'll just continue to conflate. See below for some help.

"Scientist" and "scientific" being defined as to exclude all those who do not embrace the religion of Evolution. Very convenient. Also very illogical.

Someone has offered the correct definition of religion and exposed you.

Someone has offered a hand-picked definition that favors your claim that your religion isn't a religion, not a correct one. But then to an Evolutionist, correct means whatever supports their religion.

(That's 57 science organizations, Danny)

I'm sure someone wanting to claim horse hairs actually turn into horse hair worms could also hand pick 57 "science" organizations that agree with their claim. Like I said reality is not determined by a popular vote.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at December 31, 2005 04:38 PM

You are in the majority of popular creation beliefs of the general population, but within related science fields you would be within the minority, if you were a member. Two discrete and different populations, does that help, or are you being obtuse? I thought my prose explained that, apologies if it didn’t.

Scientists are best defined as

“A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.”

How would you like to define scientist? How do you define religion? You seem to have a concept of what you’d like it to be to forward your cause, but have yet to offer a credible definition. Is the bible science, Danny?

Again, Danny – the 57 organizations are not a “popular vote” but “expert opinion” – learned practitioners in these sciences. What do you know that they don’t?

I patiently await your supported definitions or a retraction of your claims.

Posted by: Rich at December 31, 2005 05:18 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.