Comments on: Creationists Get Failing Grade http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:59:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Creationists Ready for Court Battle | Texas Observer Blog http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-77910 Creationists Ready for Court Battle | Texas Observer Blog Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:15:15 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-77910 [...] the vote in April, Dr. Henry Morris, president of the Institute, told the Observer that the Institute might take its case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. “We were [...] […] the vote in April, Dr. Henry Morris, president of the Institute, told the Observer that the Institute might take its case all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. “We were […]

]]> By: Gloria Endres http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-75755 Gloria Endres Fri, 09 May 2008 07:09:34 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-75755 Thank you, Dr. Hastings. The moment that Myles claimed this decision was a victory for "atheism" he revealed the true nature of the argument. Science is not an "ism" and has no comment whatsoever on religion. It does not attempt to prove or disprove anything in the realm of the metaphysical or supernatural. That is not its sphere, anymore than music is the sphere of cooking, although both may use mathematics as a tool in their pursuit. The goal of creationists is quite simple: the deconstruction of science education to the point where any study that does not conform with literal biblical interpretation (as they see it), must be eliminated from the school's curriculum. Thank you, Dr. Hastings. The moment that Myles claimed this decision was a victory for “atheism” he revealed the true nature of the argument. Science is not an “ism” and has no comment whatsoever on religion. It does not attempt to prove or disprove anything in the realm of the metaphysical or supernatural. That is not its sphere, anymore than music is the sphere of cooking, although both may use mathematics as a tool in their pursuit. The goal of creationists is quite simple: the deconstruction of science education to the point where any study that does not conform with literal biblical interpretation (as they see it), must be eliminated from the school’s curriculum.

]]> By: Dr. Ronnie J Hastings http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-75170 Dr. Ronnie J Hastings Thu, 01 May 2008 23:14:38 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-75170 Myles Fichter seems not to be paying attention. Steve Schafersman hit it on the head when he said no one has the right to teach non-science as science. Freedom of speech and right to opinion means you can teach anything you want, but not under false pretences. No more than you can teach physics and call it theology, you cannot teach creationism and call it science. Fichter, along with many creationists and IDers, reveal they are clueless about how science works and how scientific theory is tested and rejected or accepted when he calls for facts to prove creationism wrong over time. Using that criterion as the basis for science content, astrology, alchemy, phlogiston, and black magic would still be included in the science curriculum. Dr. Ronnie J Hastings Myles Fichter seems not to be paying attention. Steve Schafersman hit it on the head when he said no one has the right to teach non-science as science. Freedom of speech and right to opinion means you can teach anything you want, but not under false pretences. No more than you can teach physics and call it theology, you cannot teach creationism and call it science. Fichter, along with many creationists and IDers, reveal they are clueless about how science works and how scientific theory is tested and rejected or accepted when he calls for facts to prove creationism wrong over time. Using that criterion as the basis for science content, astrology, alchemy, phlogiston, and black magic would still be included in the science curriculum.
Dr. Ronnie J Hastings

]]> By: Myles Fichter http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74830 Myles Fichter Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:48:09 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74830 No Gloria, It's a victory for Atheism and nothing to do with science education. It's amusing how the atheist/naturalists continue to try to spin this controversy into a case of science vs. religion. It's hardly that. It's a case of religion vs. religion. The idea of origin of life and the earth via natural causes (Big Bang,Abiogenesis,Darwinism)has not been proven! It's an assumption, nothing more. In fact scientific data continues to mount in opposition to these theories. Darwinism is a philosophical viewpoint no more scientific than the idea of creation. It's also lame how atheism biased writers like Melissa try to spin the story about ICR trying to push creationism as science. ICR promotes true science. In a nuthshell, all that it's asking is that if colleges are going to allowed to teach "assumptions of origin" that they be allowed to start with the assumption life was created, not formed from nothing, for no reason, and for unknown reason seems to have quit doing it. Morris is the only one being truthful here. It's about freedom of speech and thought. If creationism is a false assumption let the facts prove it wrong over time. Why are people trying so aggressively to censor this line of thinking? Meanwhile in our society even the most radical viewpoints on issues are tolerated. Amazing. No Gloria,

It’s a victory for Atheism and nothing to do with science education.

It’s amusing how the atheist/naturalists continue to try to spin this controversy into a case of science vs. religion. It’s hardly that. It’s a case of religion vs. religion. The idea of origin of life and the earth via natural causes (Big Bang,Abiogenesis,Darwinism)has not been proven! It’s an assumption, nothing more. In fact scientific data continues to mount in opposition to these theories. Darwinism is a philosophical viewpoint no more scientific than the idea of creation.

It’s also lame how atheism biased writers like Melissa try to spin the story about ICR trying to push creationism as science. ICR promotes true science. In a nuthshell, all that it’s asking is that if colleges are going to allowed to teach “assumptions of origin” that they be allowed to start with the assumption life was created, not formed from nothing, for no reason, and for unknown reason seems to have quit doing it.

Morris is the only one being truthful here. It’s about freedom of speech and thought. If creationism is a false assumption let the facts prove it wrong over time. Why are people trying so aggressively to censor this line of thinking? Meanwhile in our society even the most radical viewpoints on issues are tolerated. Amazing.

]]> By: Cases in the News 4-24-2008 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74684 Cases in the News 4-24-2008 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:13:27 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74684 [...] An appeal is already being discussed. From the Texas Observer: [...] […] An appeal is already being discussed. From the Texas Observer: […]

]]> By: Gloria Endres http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74637 Gloria Endres Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:10:17 +0000 http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/?p=910#comment-74637 This decision is a victory for the integrity of science education. The ICR was offered a chance to teach a masters course in theology but insisted on calling a clearly religious study a "science." Their aim of diluting science education was justly thwarted. This decision is a victory for the integrity of science education. The ICR was offered a chance to teach a masters course in theology but insisted on calling a clearly religious study a “science.” Their aim of diluting science education was justly thwarted.

]]>