Evolutionists at it again ...

[sfs1]

Odd; this fight can't be because Nancey is a less strict YEC than Phillip. According to her brother, who I've met, Nancey is YEC. Phillip Johnson is OEC.

From her public statements, Nancey Murphy seems pretty clearly to accept evolution.

[rogue06]

Odd; this fight can't be because Nancey is a less strict YEC than Phillip. According to her brother, who I've met, Nancey is YEC. Phillip Johnson is OEC.

Are you sure? The same Nancey Murphy who said the following?:

Source: Nature’s God: An Interview with Nancey Murphy

When I first discovered that there are still Christians who reject evolutionary theory (having grown up in the Catholic school system, I did not encounter this as a child), I thought of it as a harmless expression of ignorance. More recently, though, I've come to see it as tragic. Vast numbers of young people are taught that evolution and Christianity can’t both be true. They get a good science education in college, recognize the truth of the evolutionary picture, and then believe that they have to reject their faith.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And this from Wikipedia

Source: Phillip E. Johnson

In 2006, Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired and stated "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas." Johnson admits calling the trustee, but denies any responsibility for action taken against her.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

She was also a contributor to the 2007 book "Science, Divine Action, and the Intelligent Design Movement: A Defense of Theistic Evolution"

Note that Dembski is still OEC, not YEC. He has NOT said that he believes in a global flood. He believes in a "universal" flood, which is different. A universal flood affects all of humanity, but not necessarily the entire globe.

I know that he is OEC. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said that "he wrote that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve."

And I was sure that I said that he didn't believe in a global flood when I wrote that he believed that "Noah's Flood was likely a local event rather than global in nature."

I once met Dan; he was a very nice, humble man. He was hurt by what had happened, but not bitter about it. His books are excellent, especially God's Time Records in Ancient Sediments, and are now available for free.

Interestingly, for the most part, it seems that those who were Expelled by YECs have not been bitter about it. There may be a few exceptions but generally they just moved on. This is in contrast to those ID proponents and YECs who claim that they were Expelled. Most of them seem to be very embittered.

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it

[rogue06]

Lessee ... believe DeHart OR believe Evolutionists like you.

How about believing the principal of his school who was obviously sympathetic to DeHart? So much so she put her own reputation on the line in that she supported him and was able to convince the school board to allow him to continue presenting the case for ID/creationism as long as he agreed to teach standard science curriculum as well. This is what you guys pretend to want -- a chance to teach both sides. That's what these supposed "academic freedom" bills are all about.

So how to he respond to her trust. How did he repay her sticking her own neck out for him? He stabbed her in the back (pardon the mixed metaphors) the very first chance he got.

So you have someone who was almost certainly a friend of DeHart and who at some level agreed with him (why else would she have fought the school board in his behalf and worked out the deal that she did) who has first hand knowledge at what a duplicitous, deceitful snake he is. Who knows from bitter experience what happens when you believe what he says.

And then you have the meticulous documentation of everything by the school board itself. Apparently someone gave them very good advice and told them to be sure to keep excruciatingly detailed records to corroborate everything to be used as evidence in case of a lawsuit.

Or, you could just believe the prevaricator, er, DeHart.

[rogue06]

I won't waste my time rebutting the falsehood that you post above, R06. No, I am not calling you a liar. I believe that you are merely regurgitating the "official Evolutionist version" of what actually happened. I recall reading the version from the college itself and it sounded nothing like your version. Of course, you're going to accept and parrot the REV - Revised Evolutionist Version - without question. Nuff' said.

Jorge

Last time I brought most of this up you fairly much admitted that it was indeed what happened (or at the least didn't challenge it) and instead defended their right to expel those who disagreed with the YEC party line. I guess it dawned on you what a hypocritical position that put you in and have decided to alter your tactics.

[rogue06]

Glad to hear, you could have tried alchemy vs chemistry too or geocentrism vs heliocentrism. If one was consistent, you'd have to teach both and 'let them decide'.

TeachControversy.jpg

[Carrikature]

Yes. I agree, but it is not 'another' method. Allowing for the voicing of varying opinions and ideas is HOW we learn to accept and seek out new ideas. A culture that punishes those that think differently tends to encourage conformity. if I have an idea that might be right, but I don't have a combative personality or are not strongly driven to exceed the masses, why would I risk banishment in order to get my idea out there?


Jim

And why must this happen in high school? Again, the existing teaching constraints and the maturity of the participants is not conducive to this sort of discussion at that time. They'll come across the varying opinions and ideas on their own. What they need is a method for evaluating them.

[Kbertsche]

Are you sure? The same Nancey Murphy who said the following?:

Source: Nature’s God: An Interview with Nancey Murphy

When I first discovered that there are still Christians who reject evolutionary theory (having grown up in the Catholic school system, I did not encounter this as a child), I thought of it as a harmless expression of ignorance. More recently, though, I've come to see it as tragic. Vast numbers of young people are taught that evolution and Christianity can’t both be true. They get a good science education in college, recognize the truth of the evolutionary picture, and then believe that they have to reject their faith.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And this from Wikipedia

Source: Phillip E. Johnson

In 2006, Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired and stated "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas." Johnson admits calling the trustee, but denies any responsibility for action taken against her.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

She was also a contributor to the 2007 book "Science, Divine Action, and the Intelligent Design Movement: A Defense of Theistic Evolution"

Oops, my mistake! I was speaking of Nancy Pearcey, not Nancey Murphy. I don't know why I confused the two names!

[Kbertsche]

Are you sure? The same Nancey Murphy who said the following?:

Source: Nature’s God: An Interview with Nancey Murphy

When I first discovered that there are still Christians who reject evolutionary theory (having grown up in the Catholic school system, I did not encounter this as a child), I thought of it as a harmless expression of ignorance. More recently, though, I've come to see it as tragic. Vast numbers of young people are taught that evolution and Christianity can’t both be true. They get a good science education in college, recognize the truth of the evolutionary picture, and then believe that they have to reject their faith.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And this from Wikipedia

Source: Phillip E. Johnson

In 2006, Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired and stated "His tactic has always been to fight dirty when anyone attacks his ideas." Johnson admits calling the trustee, but denies any responsibility for action taken against her.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

She was also a contributor to the 2007 book "Science, Divine Action, and the Intelligent Design Movement: A Defense of Theistic Evolution"

Oops, my mistake! I was speaking of Nancy Pearcey, not Nancey Murphy! I don't know why I confused the two names.

[Roy]

We agree. But it goes very similarly here to the kinds of battles we get in over 'freedom of speech'. Sometimes to protect the overall Freedom, you must allow the potential for things none of us really want. Laws are limited in their capacity to hinder evil or promote good. They can't differentiate 'bad grey' from 'good grey' so to speak. If the law tries to address the abuse of academic freedom by killing academic freedom then it has gone too far, EVEN IF by allowing academic freedom we allow for those that would abuse it to promote falsehood. To stop the latter, we must use less powerful approaches that are harder and take longer, but that do not kill overall creativity, that do not kill the capacity to think outside the box in all but the most combative 'always go against the grain' sorts of personalities.

Jim,

I have nothing against academic freedom, and agree it should not be restricted. Except...
1) We aren't talking about college students here, we're talking about preteens. In order to have academic freedom you need to instil students with (i) awareness of the evidence that is available, and (ii) the ability to evaluate it. If pupils haven't reached that stage it isn't academic freedom, it's indoctrination.
2) The OP isn't about academic freedom, it's about "academic freedom". The people organising these bills aren't interested in academic freedom, or any other euphemism, they're interested in teaching creationism - and they are prepared to lie about their motives, their views and their acts in order to do so. Read the transcripts of Bonsell and Buckingham's testimony in the Kitzmiller trial.

Roy

[Roy]

Note that Dembski is still OEC, not YEC. He has NOT said that he believes in a global flood. He believes in a "universal" flood, which is different. A universal flood affects all of humanity, but not necessarily the entire globe.

Surely a universal flood affects the entire universe?

Roy

[phank]

But in fact you are imposing your own teleological view here. Pure science often can't address the issue of purpose, especially on this level, which is different from 'science shows there is no purpose', which is your specific opinion and ABUSE of science. And in that you are no better than the creationists you here criticize.

You are a hard man to communicate with. I don't think that purpose, in the sense of some universal master plan, can be addressed by science at all. Perhaps I should have phrased the epiphany as "purpose is not NEEDED." Not that it doesn't exist.

For example. NS + RM work together to produce that which can appear designed. But how do you know that was not God's purpose in making the universe the way it is, so that RM + NS could produce life as we see it, and ultimately us?

How do you know it wasn't the FSM? Again, neither one of these gods is required. They contribute nothing to any explanation or understanding.

You don't know is the correct answer. You have an opinion. To truly teach science, one allows the individual his opinion on purpose and you work on how RM + NS produced what we have. When the issue comes up, as it always will, you allow for a discussion of the various ideas held by the class. And THAT discussion, if led by a competent teacher, can be very fruitful in the long run. But many would fire the teacher that allows that discussion to go forth, especially if some student doesn't like some comment made and tells mommy and mommy sues the school board.

I agree with you, for the most part. You are recommending discussions that fall outside the purview of science, to consume science classtime. And in practice, in the real world, high school science is regarded as a missionary calling by YECs, who "allow the discussion to go foward" within a very clearly presented context. I read an estimate that as many as 20% of high school science teachers are creationists. So your abstract free-range discussioin is great in principle, and undermined in practice.

Jim

PS: For most, and it appears for you phank and Jorge, tolerance applies only to the other guy as regards you. Tolerance is not something you do, it is something other people do.

Golly, I wrote a post suggesting using the design process to illustrate and lead to a discussion of RM+NS, and to try to get past the teleology that is the enemy of science. And YOU see only intolerance, which you use to immediately smear me with Jorge-ism. How very TOLERANT of you!

As for religion, it seems you are as tolerant of the FSM as I am of YOUR imaginary god. So why don't you just tuck that double standard back where it belongs and stick with the natural science?

[Jorge]

... and yet MORE ... (like "As the World Turns", this is a daily soap opera)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/educati...ered-1-3714209

Creationism teaching ban to be considered

Like I said, they CANNOT and WILL NOT allow for any competition to their Faith. Why? Because they know that with the kind of competition that ID and/or Creationism represents, they wouldn't stand a snowball's-chance-in-hell. The "science" schtick is just a deceptive ruse.

Ergo, they simply MUST maintain an absolute monopoly in the classroom - ONLY their religion is allowed to be taught and they will fight tooth-n-nail to the bitter end to insure that that is the case. Most disgusting of all is that they invoke "education" and "science" to justify their ideological/religious agenda.

Jorge

Yet MORE embarrassment for the Evolutionists ... (folks, it's a never-ending saga)

This time from Nature .....................

"A slower molecular clock worked well to harmonize genetic and archaeological estimates for dates of key events in human evolution, such as migrations out of Africa and around the rest of the world. But calculations using the slow clock gave nonsensical results when extended further back in time — positing, for example, that the most recent common ancestor of apes and monkeys could have encountered dinosaurs."
"nonsensical results ..." ... "co-existing with dinosaurs" Bwahahahaha
Imagine that! I'll bet they had to change their underwear on those two.


"Reluctant to abandon the older numbers completely, ..."
"Reluctant to abandon ..." Please, say it isn't so!


"Last year, population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and his colleagues compared the genome of a 45,000-year-old human from Siberia with genomes of modern humans and came up with the lower mutation rate. Yet just before the Leipzig meeting, which Reich co-organized with Kay Prüfer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, his team published a preprint article that calculated an intermediate mutation rate by looking at differences between paired stretches of chromosomes in modern individuals (which, like two separate individuals’ DNA, must ultimately trace back to a common ancestor). Reich is at a loss to explain the discrepancy. “The fact that the clock is so uncertain is very problematic for us,” he says. “It means that the dates we get out of genetics are really quite embarrassingly bad and uncertain.”"

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-mutat...to-set-1.17079

"... embarrassingly bad and uncertain" -- yeah, and then there are 'geniuses' that want
to stake their eternal destiny on promoting this "embarrassingly bad and uncertain" myth.

No wonder some people believe that they came from monkeys.

Jorge

[JonF]

Surely a universal flood affects the entire univer

I see his point. Entire universe as conceived by the tellers.

[Kbertsche]

Surely a universal flood affects the entire universe?

Roy

You might think so. But in this context "universal" = "all of humanity". Someone should have picked a different word for this; maybe "anthropic". But at this point we're stuck with "universal".

[Roy]

I see his point. Entire universe as conceived by the tellers.

The teller in this case being William Dembski, since it was his choice of word.