Friday, June 13, 2008

Creationism 3.0

For awhile, it looked like Florida would be the likely contender. Missouri, Michigan and Alabama all vied for the honor. But now, it looks like the title of Most-Likely-To-Violate-The-First-Amendment-In-The-Interest-Of-Forcing-Creationism-
Into-Science-Class will go to ...

May I see the envelope, please...


Barbara Forrest, the expert witness in the 2005 trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board whose testimony exposed intelligent design's creationist roots, is now battling the anti-evolutionists again. This time on her own turf.

Proving that evolution does occur, the creationists, in the face of each defeat, have once again changed their tactics. The latest ruse goes by the name of "academic freedom," which Forrest says is a code for allowing educators to teach kids that evolution is a lie.

The state House just passed a bill this week that purports to "promote[] critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The National Center for Science Education has the details.

The Discovery Institute, which has been pushing the legislation and has long been trying to push creationism into science class under the guise of intelligent design, is shocked (Shocked, I tell you!) that anyone would accuse them of pushing a religious agenda. But state Rep. Ben Nevers, told the Hammond Daily Star that the Louisiana Family Forum, which is also lobbying behind the scenes, "believes the scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory."

The Louisiana Science Coalition has put out a news release urging state senators to vote against a version of the House Bill that was passed 94-3. The plea will likely fall on deaf ears. The state Senate unanimously passed a similar bill. The site provides plenty of background on exactly what is going on in Louisiana and what we might expect in other states if this bill becomes law.

But as has been said about Forrest, she is Kryptonite to creationists. And even as she has been fighting the bill, she has also no doubt been documenting the evidence should this become a lawsuit.

Already the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State have warned that, as the AU's Barry Lynn said, there will be legal action if the measure is used "to promote religion in Louisiana public schools."

Stay tuned...

Lauri in York

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger C. David Parsons said...


The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right.

A sample of text from the book:

The investigation’s assessment of protracted gradation is far from being new. Darwin was fully cognizant that he could not prove the “theory of evolution” and could not explain its mechanism, especially in so-called well-defined species: the connotation erroneously suggests that there are less-defined or more primitive species when all evidence is to the contrary. The scientific council uses language as a ruse in lieu of documented facts in order to promote protracted gradation; hence, the phraseology is offensive. Again, stability, not variance, is the third law of procreation.

Darwin’s studies revealed a wide variety of life forms, but what caused these varieties? Again, natural selection was thought to be the answer. In theory, those species best adapted to the environment tend to reproduce more offspring and transmit hereditary improvements (in slight variations); those less able to adapt to the environment leave fewer offspring and eventually die out. After a succession of generations, there is a tendency for the species to adapt to a greater degree, thus, improving the lineage.

Regrettably, Darwin was unable to grasp the reality of certain rudimental processes which he had observed; for instance, the runt of a litter being abandoned by its parent or a sickly creature preyed upon by a fox or wolf. Although these familiar aspects of procreation are vital to the continuance of the species, the phenomena must not be confused as protracted gradation in the process. Darwin, misguided by his obsession, incorrectly deemed the ritual to be natural selection, when, in truth, he was observing an inherent process of procreation which may be correctly called the guardian of the wild. The familiar process is responsible for weeding out weak and sickly members of the species (i.e., those less likely to survive), not to improve the species but rather as a measure to insure the health and strength of the species as a whole. Make no mistake; new species are not derived by the guardian of the wild.

Darwin, incognizant of the manifest workings of procreation, attacked the “benevolence” of God, disdaining the guardian of the wild as the “clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of (Mother) nature.” It revolted his understanding to suppose that God’s “benevolence was unbounded” in such instances (benevolence—”an inclination to perform kindhearted, charitable acts”). Although it may seem a curiosity, those men and women who hate God will always attack His benevolence by asking the questions: If God is so benevolent, why are there wars? Why is slavery so cruel? Why is there so much injustice in the world? And so on. Be it known that one or more transgressions of the holy commandments are the culprits in such instances, not God. A more definitive answer will be forthcoming in Volume 7 of The Quest for Right.

The remarkable, yet troublesome, aspect of the foregoing is that Darwin spent a lifetime observing procreation but failed to realize the truth except in the simplest of matters. Then again, the failure is not too disconcerting in light of the fact that he was working in the scientific void of the 1800’s. As is the case, errors abound; hence, any work by Darwin is unacceptable reading. Let the reader beware. — Volume 4 , The Quest for Right

11:46 AM  
Blogger James said...

And folks wonder why we lag behind the world.

I wonder if things like the above are around in Norway, Iceland, etc.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, people are confusing FACTS with BELIEFS. These anti-evolution folk just don't seem to get that evolution has been proven over and over again around the world.

AND they confuse evolution with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is recognized as not being the only method by which evolution occurs.

But, the facts are always just a minor inconvenience to people like this.

The most amusing/scariest part of this article is that you can just substitute any of the other states that have pulled this, and it reads exactly the same.

8:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home