Home > FreeHovind > Content > Discussion: Typical evolutionist babble
Typical evolutionist babble
5 Comments - 14646 Views
Submitted By 9tails on 09/06/08
FreeHovind, 9tails 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

Ever wonder why evolutionists always transcend topical arguments to rationale points that are non-relational to the topic at hand and explain away
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explain+away
 
the perspected point at hand to somehow hide behind another point? Well, it's weird and this is a good example of what typically transpires as in the mind of an agressive evolutionist.
 
Dr. Hovind addresses the return letter from a evolutionist from "The Association of Science Teachers Incorporated" to a legislator, concerning the proposal to get legislation passed to simply require accuracy in his state’s textbooks. In The evolutionist's response he never once addressed the issue of "Not lying to the students"  that textbooks should be "Factually accurate". All while addressing his own distaste for Intelligent Design.
 
----
 

Below is a letter that a legislator from a Midwest state received from an evolutionist. This legislator has been trying to get legislation passed to simply require accuracy in his state’s textbooks. If passed and enforced, all the lies used as evidence for evolution would have to be removed. The legislation does not seek to remove evolution or introduce creation or intelligent design. The legislator called me to ask how I would answer this person. Embedded within the evolutionist’s letter are my responses. The identities are withheld at the request of the representative and to protect the evolutionist from the ridicule he would get from his peers for being so illogical.

Dear Legislator,

[Our state] wants to be a leader in providing jobs for its citizens.

-Great goal!

The Life Science Initiative proposes building a foundation for thousands of jobs with strong science and technology background. [One of our cities], is building an industrial park centered on life science and biology.

-This is wonderful but how does this apply to the bill that simply requires accuracy?

Future jobs require detailed, strong preparation in math, science, technology, and communication skills.

-I agree - this is a noble goal.

Parents concerned about their child’s education choose science over pseudoscience.

-I agree, which is why the teaching of the pseudoscience of evolution should be excluded. Lies certainly should be excluded from the curriculum.

Do you want you child to take Chemistry or Alchemy, Physics or Magic, Astronomy or Astrology?

-I would want my child to take Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy. Not the alternatives offered.

While these options seem obvious, there is a growing movement to require the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in our nation’s science classes.

-What on Earth does this have to do with the previous sentences or the bill requiring accuracy?

In their position statement,"The [Our state] Association of Science Teachers Incorporated (?ASTI), and organization of science teachers in [our state], endorses the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) position statement on ‘The Teaching of Evolution."

-The word "Evolution" needs to be more clearly defined in both ?ASTI and NSTA’s position. Are they referring to dogs and wolves having a common ancestor, often called microevolution? Or, are they referring to dogs and bananas having a common ancestor, called macroevolution? I would agree with the former, but disagree strongly with the latter.

ASTI supports teachers in their determination not to teach creation as science in science class."

-I don’t understand how they justify teaching the unseen, and unproved religion of evolution in science class. If we’re going to exclude one religion, then let’s be fair and exclude all religions but what does this have to do with the proposed bill requiring accuracy?

Science tests ideas with experiments and collects data which can be retested and verified. Religious beliefs cannot be tested with scientific experimentation and, therefore, do not belong in a science curriculum.

-By this definition, "Belief" that everything came from a big bang, "Belief" that matter somehow organized itself, "Belief" that matter somehow produced life on its own, "Belief" that this life form learned how to reproduce itself, "Belief" that this life form learned how to produce something other than its kind, also does not belong in the science curriculum since no experiments, data or verification exists for any of these.

-None of these have ever been observed, and there aren’t even any reasonable theories about how any of these things could happen. However, the bill being proposed is simply about lies in the textbooks, not about teaching creation or evolution. Why is this red herring being introduced in your letter?

"Students should be taught to understand the difference between science and other explanations about how the physical universe works based on religious beliefs or cultural explanations.

-I agree, which is precisely why the previously mentioned beliefs should not be included in science class.

In science class, the Theory of Evolution which includes evidence that life evolved,

-This word (‘evolved’) needs to be more clearly defined. Are you referring to micro, or macro evolution and if macro- what evidence?

that the earth is billions of years old,

-About 60% of the American population does not believe that the Earth is billions of years old nor could such an idea be proven scientifically. Why should only your minority view be taught? Also, what does it have to do with the bill being introduced which simply has to do with not allowing lies in the textbooks?

and that the Universe is much older is presently the general principle guiding the understanding of biology, earth science, and astronomy."

-All branches of science were started by creationists whose guiding principle was the idea that there was order in nature because there was an orderly designer. Regardless of any ‘guiding principles’ currently being taught, science has a long history of teaching things that are wrong, and students should always be encouraged to challenge the existing paradigm. Is the evolution theory somehow sacred and exempt from challenge? And once again, this has nothing to do with the bill requiring accuracy in textbooks.

In court case upon court case, the right to separate church and state continues to be upheld. It is illegal not to teach evolution in the science classroom.

-This is ridiculous; please send me a copy of this law that you invented here. Science should be taught in science class not disproved lies. The bill proposed will greatly improve science! And once again, your statement has nothing to do with the bill requiring accuracy in textbooks.

The law requires that science, not religion, be taught in a science class.

-I agree that science, and not religion, should be taught in science class. But again, I would like to see a copy of this law. Also, evolution is a religion and should be removed.

There is no experiment that can disprove an intelligent designer or the existence of an all-powerful God. Faith-based science has no validity.

-This is ridiculous; scores of things in our modern science are taken on faith. For example, the existence of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Also, evolution is certainly "faith based." And once again, this has nothing to do with the bill requiring accuracy in textbooks.

Evolution on the other hand, is a scientific theory supported by volumes of evidence.

-The word ‘evolution’, again, needs to be clearly defined before you can make such a statement. It would be obvious that there is evidence to indicate that dogs, wolves, and coyotes have a common ancestor. However, it would be lying to say there is enormous evidence that dogs and bananas have a common ancestor. Please define what you mean by evolution. Also, please explain why this is being brought up since the bill has nothing to do with evolution, or creation. It requires accuracy in textbooks. Any evidence for any theory that is accurate is in no danger of being removed.

Teaching of intelligent design belongs in churches, homes, and religion classes, not in the science classroom.

-Evolution teaching is what belongs in religion classes not science classes. Also, I don’t know if most parents would agree with your statement or not, but then again, this has nothing to do with teaching accuracy in textbooks. Why do you continually introduce a red herring trying to draw attention away from the bill which simply says no lies should be included in the curriculum? Are you afraid that removing lies will remove evidence used to support your pet theory?

Emotional discussions on ID detract from learning and teaching science.

-So do emotional discussions about evolution, which at least 60% of the students and parents do not believe or appreciate. However, this has nothing to do with the bill which requires accuracy in textbooks. Evolution teaching is a total waste of classroom time and textbook space.

If evolution is merely change over a period of time, then we all changed or evolved. Just look at the family photo album to see the changes from aging.

-Ah, finally. If this is what you mean by ‘evolution’, then certainly I would agree. Family changes are obviously limited. All are still human. However, if you mean to show examples of changes in a family photo album and then claim that this type of limited change proves that all life came from a rock, I think that would be a gross exaggeration.

The genetic materials in bacteria can mutate and some bacteria are no long killed or stopped by antibiotics.

-I agree, but this has nothing to do with evolution. This is an example of a bacteria losing information, not gaining information. It is still a bacterium. If this is the best evidence that somebody has for evolution, then they need to re-examine the logic behind holding to this illogical position. This is covered on my video #4. But once again, this has nothing to do with the bill that was introduced.

Insulin dependent diabetics are alive because scientists at Eli Lilly changed a bacterial cell to manufacture life saving insulin.

-This is wonderful, and Eli Lilly should be commended. However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, nor does it have anything to do with the bill that the representative was introducing.

Should people die rather than have medicines made to combat these changes in organisms or in viruses such as HIV?

-Is your name Chicken Little? Is the sky really falling? What would make you think that taking lies out of textbooks would cause people to die? I don’t understand your logic here. This type of hype shows desperation on your part to draw attention away from the real issues of lies in the textbooks.

Let science teachers do our jobs by providing the best education we can give your children for their next steps in college, workplace, or military.

-I would agree. That is what this representative is trying to do. By requiring accuracy in textbooks, teachers can be assured that nothing will be included in their curriculum that they, or their students, would have to be on guard for. When something, such as the teaching that the embryo has gill slits, (which has been proven wrong since 1875), is still in your textbooks, it is past time to remove that! The representatives are simply trying to do their job. Why would you seek to hinder someone from requiring accuracy in textbooks?

We strive to achieve state and national science standards for which evolution is fundamental.

-While there may be some people who think evolution is fundamental to science, I don’t think the majority of the population feels that way. Please show me one advancement in science due to the evolution theory. However, once again, your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill.

Someday your very life may depend on the solid scientific foundation we have provided to your doctor, to the engineers who build safe roads and bridges, To farmers who choose the safest chemicals, and to researchers who improve our energy alternatives.

-What a silly scare tactic! You must be related to Chicken Little! Evolution has nothing to do with any of the things you mention.

Proponents on ID attempt to discredit Darwinian evolutionary theory using the rhetoric of science while being very careful not to mention "God."

-Have you even read the bill? The bill is not attempting to push intelligent design, or creation, into schools, or to get evolution out of schools. The bill requires accuracy in textbooks. Read the bill.

The attack includes targeting local school boards, influencing change in statewide standards for science, and the use of disclaimer stickers placed in textbooks.

-Welcome to America, and the wonderful political process that allows people to express their views. However, this bill has nothing to do with any of the things you are suggesting here.

With growing concerns of the United States losing its leadership role in technology and science,

-Many would argue that this is because of the teaching of evolution, not because of the lack of teaching evolution. Thousands of valuable classroom hours are wasted every year teaching non-science like evolution and outright lies. This bill will help to remedy this situation by getting out-dated inaccuracies out of our textbooks.

it is crucial that we prepare students with the strongest possible science education by keeping pseudoscientific jargon and faith out of our science classrooms.

-Wonderful! Please help this representative as he attempts to get the textbooks in your state to be accurate. Why on earth would anyone want to allow lies in the textbooks that are used to support one particular theory? If the theory of evolution is true, then the evidence should show it. True science has nothing to fear from scrutiny.

-As the president of ASTI, certainly you of all people should understand the importance of accuracy in textbooks. I recommend you read the bill and support it. Feel free to call into my radio program any day if you would like any further clarification on any of these points. Kent Hovind

Sincerely,

[name withheld]

ASTI President


http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=115
 
On a final note, I would like to chuckle at the evolutionist mentality that the idea of evolution has anything to do with science, or that evolution somehow is the unifying concept to all science, because it is not.
 
I don't get how they find the rationale to equate dissent to evolution with somehow, magically being ungrateful to technology and science and the benefits thereof.
 
It's like saying, "You don't believe in evolution? Then you are ungrateful to science and don't deserve to enjoy the benefits of science and technology (like cars, computers)". This is garbage and everyone knows it.
 
Funny thing is, if it were up to evolutionists, they would probably strip away all technological luxuries from anyone that challenged their theory, or killed them. That seems to be the concenus of the evolutionist community.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Typical evolutionist babble
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/06/08 - 16:38 GMT
"Are they referring to dogs and wolves having a common ancestor, often called microevolution?"
 
the irony being that this is MACRO evolution..as it deals with speciation.
 
"Why is this red herring being introduced in your letter?"
 
because that is your ultimate goals hovind, don't play dumb
 
"About 60% of the American population does not believe that the Earth is billions of years old nor could such an idea be proven scientifically."
 
ad....populum.....with scientific illiterates...
 
"This is ridiculous; scores of things in our modern science are taken on faith. For example, the existence of electrons, protons, and neutrons."
 
riiiight, but the difference is..WE CAN TEST THOSE THINGS
 
"It would be obvious that there is evidence to indicate that dogs, wolves, and coyotes have a common ancestor."
 
uch * macroevolution, look it up if you do not believe me.
 
"Please define what you mean by evolution."
ToE....silly hovind.
 
i'm not even going to adress the rest...that would take to long and only provide laughs we've already had at hovind's expense.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Typical evolutionist babble
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/06/12 - 18:13 GMT
"About 60% of the American population does not believe that the Earth is billions of years old nor could such an idea be proven scientifically."

ad....populum.....with scientific illiterates...
 
A couple of statistics illustrating the typical level of scientific literacy in the US:
 
- Percentage of Americans who don't know that the Earth takes 1 year to orbit the sun: 46%
 
- Percentage of Americans who think that lasers work by focusing sound waves: 55%
 
I would expect that there's significant overlap between the those who make up the statistics above & the 60% who believe
» Reply to Comment
Re: Typical evolutionist babble
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/06/08 - 21:56 GMT
yeah i'm with 325, saw so many strawmen i stoped reading at about 1/4 of the way.

wolves --> dogs are a great evidence for evolution. It shows how little time larger morphological changes can take. The only difference between micro and macro is just TIME!

The reason why the whole letter is an argument for not teaching creation is because court after court has ruled that it is not science and they don't want to lie to the children. So simple.
Courtcase that ruled evolution as science and creation/ID as pseudoscience: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Roadblocks/IIICLegalities.shtml

"About 60% of the American population does not believe that the Earth is billions of years old nor could such an idea be proven scientifically. Why should only your minority view be taught? Also, what does it have to do with the bill being introduced which simply has to do with not allowing lies in the textbooks?"
- Yeah, science isn't a democracy doesn't work that way.

"I don't get how they find the rationale to equate dissent to evolution with somehow, magically being ungrateful to technology and science and the benefits thereof."
- You attack how a scientific theory and calls in religion and attack it so badly. If you claim it's not scientific, well then you ARE attacking the way science is done. You also do this by saying "creation scientists proved...", as they work they can never be scientists. You are thereby attacking science and cherry-pick those things about it that you like and discard those that you don't for reasons that it isn't scientific. When it is.

"It's like saying, "You don't believe in evolution? Then you are ungrateful to science and don't deserve to enjoy the benefits of science and technology (like cars, computers)". This is garbage and everyone knows it."
- No one who knows what evolution is asks if you believe in it. It's not like it's untestable and unfalsifiable. If it where, well then i guess you could say believe. Science works the same in every scientific field. If you attack one field you ARE attacking them all.

"Funny thing is, if it were up to evolutionists, they would probably strip away all technological luxuries from anyone that challenged their theory, or killed them. That seems to be the concenus of the evolutionist community."
- Nice conspiracy theory man.

Observations of evolution from Berkeley university:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=62
» Reply to Comment
Re: Typical evolutionist babble
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/06/08 - 21:58 GMT
about that strawman (and denial), here's a wonderfull bite size chuck of explination on that.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Typical evolutionist babble
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/06/13 - 16:18 GMT
why o why do any creationist stop answering when the evidence is to great against their cause?

to fuel it a bit. Typical creationist babble: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmIHldgEz8w


GenTime: 0.0198 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2021 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff