The Scientist reported yesterday that a “Paper Used in Creationist Teaching [was] Retracted After 30 Years”.
Many of us simply avoid getting involved except to try to blunt the persecution of unpopular views. For one thing, it isn’t self-evident that geologists are always right either. I regret the fact that scientists were once ridiculed for believing that the Earth has tectonic plates.
Tradejah! Let’s have a ban on teaching Darwinism too. Oh wait — is that what’s supposed to be introduced early and often, because the “Wales Humanists coordinator” and “Humanists UK” want it? Darwinism is an obvious intrusion of religion into the school system. A different religion from what many people follow, but still a religion. Otherwise, why would humanists care so much?
So if all this complexity got started in something like the twinkling of an eye, are we looking at an argument for creationism? Or what? What exactly is the source of all this very complex, very early information?
Make no mistake; the people who want their concepts taught also want to take over the positions of the teachers. Let’s just say, a whole new world awaits. And it will not be Darwin’s world. How odd an outcome of the Darwin wars.
Post-truth science will not be, in principle, either positive or negative about creationism; everything depends on the role it plays in power struggles.
Hmmm. To please Jerry, maybe the author will have to disappear too. 😉
The explosion lasted only about 20 million years, their research shows, and the subsequent 520 million years featured more even rates of change: At (or shortly before) the start of the Cambrian Period (541 million years ago), modern animals evolved. They rapidly diversified into all the major groups (phyla) of animals we see today, such […]
Actually, it’s not surprising at all. Pure naturalist atheists are not that common once you get off campus and a safe distance from the raging Woke. Most people would rather you think they were creationists (provided you don’t push it too far), which likely accounts for the drop in the second set, when a clear alternative for theists is provided. Some of us think this change in question is long overdue.
Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True, promises to “ rest assured—for the time being.”
He got a reply within 24 hours, onewhich he considers “lame and evasive.”
It’s a good question, though, if we end universalism in science (and that’s all the rage), why creationism in an anthropology and ethnology journal doesn’t follow.
Karsten Pultz reports from Denmark on efforts to suppress the idea of design in nature that are coming from the Danish church. Mr. Pultz is also the author of “Why I have a problem with theistic evolution,”: Intelligent design being suppressed in academia is old news. But in Denmark even a Christian newspaper participates in […]
J. R. Miller offers a reasonable discussion of varieties of Biblical creationism: Maybe you have heard the accusation that biblical creationists are blinded by their ancient theology which forces them to reject the modern “scientific fact” of evolution. But what do people mean by this accusation? What is evolution? Is biblical creation a de facto […]
From the Babylon Bee, threatened by Facebook. It’s not just that our would-be minders think we are evil. They also think we are stupid. Do whatever you can to make that their biggest mistake.