Thursday, August 28, 2008


Good News, Bad News

Hoo boy! We're in trouble now!

A grassroots effort is being started by two Locust Grove citizens to destroy Darwinian evolution and bring God back into public schools. The citizens have formed a new organization called the Creation and Evolution Studies Ministry which aims to challenge the dominance of Darwinian evolution which is taught in public school biology courses.

It seems us evil evilutionists have been defining God out of existence or somesuch:

The main argument of the program is that evolution needs to be further defined into microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is a minor change within a species such as hair or eye coloring while macroevolution, Darwinian evolution, is a change from one species to another requiring some from of mutation.

"Evolutionists refuse to use micro and macro," said [William Nowers, one of the ministry's founders]. "They will give an example of microevolution to encompass all evolution." ...

"The basic key is in the definitions," said Nowers. "Once you define the words, the evolutionists are going to lose."

Hey, if they can destroy Darwinian evolution by simply insisting on their own definition, you don't think a little thing like the Constitution of the United States is going to stand in their way, do you?

According to Nowers, in the past 10-15 years, many states have tried to bring creation teachings into classrooms in order to present both creation and evolution equally. However, these efforts are usually defeated due to the separation in church and state. The ministry's approach may be one that cannot be defeated so easily.

"Volunteer students will carry an insert in their biology book which challenges Darwinian evolution," said Nowers. "[The insert] will have a write up and then asks questions that can't be answered by teachers."

How ... um ... diabolical! No doubt sending children to confound grade and high school teachers will destroy the scientific legitimacy of evolution and cause scientists the world over to abandon it.

Oh, and if you want to see these devastating questions that will leave teachers gibbering in confusion, Creation and Evolution Studies Ministry has a sample insert. My favorite:

If we deny a universal flood, how did marine fossils get to the tops of all the mountains?

There is much more hilarity to be had in the insert, including the authors suffering near-terminal projection while accusing "evolutionists and anti-Christians" of quote mining.

The good news is that, if this is the quality of the opposition science faces, we shouldn't have much of a problem. The bad news is, if this is the quality of the opposition science faces, we must be having a helluva problem.

Q. If we deny a universal flood, how did marine fossils get to the tops of all the mountains?

A. Plate tectonics, you scientifically illiterate bastard.

Gah! When even I, master of the brain freeze, can answer a gotcha question without a second's pause, you know they're asking insanely stupid questions...

(And yes, it's sadly true. You now know my shameful secret. My brain likes to sit in smug silence when called upon to answer a question pronto. It demands an interval of at least five seconds or it ain't doing it. I just pretend the long pause is due to my astonishment at the idiocy of the question - which is also true, just not the primary reason.)
That's funny. My brain always claims it's on break when asked a question. It has a very strong union.
I'm pretty sure Dana's answer should be slightly modified to "Plate tectonics (sound of person getting slapped across the face), you scientifically illiterate bastard."
Dave S. said...

One line answers:

“1. What scientific evidence is there to show intelligent life started from dead matter?”

Intelligent life did not come from "dead matter".

“2. How can Darwinian evolution be considered a fact when not a single example of macroevolution exists?”

Because there are many examples.

“3. If we deny a universal flood, how did marine fossils get to the tops of all the mountains?”

Plate tectonics…doh!

“4. Since we all have the same scientific facts, shouldn’t Christian interpretations be discussed as well as atheist interpretations? Shouldn’t truth be our goal?”

Not if Points 1 through 3 are representative these "Christian interpretations”.
Dave S. said...


"Shouldn’t truth be our goal?”

No, science is our goal - if you want truth, take a philosophy or religion class.
Evolutionists refuse to use micro and macro...

I have before me a book titled "Macroevolutionary Dynamics" by Niles Eldredge. Last I checked, Dr. Eldredge is considered an "evolutionist."

Another Creationist is lying.
Actually, they should be commended for being completely straight-forward. From the linked news story:

“Many states have brought in Intelligent Design but they have called it science,” said Nowers. “A design needs a designer which is god. It’s religion, not science.”
Actually, they should be commended for being completely straight-forward.

True ... but it just makes their plan even screwier. Note that they were going to hand out their inserts to the teachers to give them a "head start," which would make the school district part of their plan to inject religious ideas into public schools.

They get an A for honesty, F- for planning.
Bill Nowers adds Most coments by evolutionists are merely child like or insulting. Nearly all recent biology books and the three publications from the National Academy of Sciences do not identify or even use the terms micro and macroevolution. If there are examples of true macroevolution, lets show them.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education