Atheist Evolutionist Fundamentalism in England
"Those behind the call for ‘evolution not creationism’ say teaching that God created the world is dangerous and must be prevented by law."
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done." — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done." — Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Buona sera. I'll keep on saying it: Since modern atheists do not bother with boring stuff like logic and critical thinking, and evolutionists cannot bear to have the flaws in their "theory" exposed, they seek to silence the opposition. Emotionalism, personal attacks and ridicule, provocation — and by legislation, when possible. Intellectual honesty, and scientific inquiry, will be willing to examine contrary evidence. Present only the strong points of evolution, hide the flaws and the frauds, suppress creationist/Intelligent Design evidence and explanations — you're doing brainwashing, not education. Capice?
In a serious effort at thought control, certain Brits are acting like the fascists that tried conquer them about seventy years ago. I have a couple of articles that are worth your time.
The teaching of creationism should be outlawed in school science lessons, a group of leading scientists have said.
And the curriculum should be changed to ensure evolution is taught from when children start school, according to academics including Sir David Attenborough and Professor Richard Dawkins.
Those behind the call for ‘evolution not creationism’ say teaching that God created the world is dangerous and must be prevented by law.
Whatsa matta, Daffy Dawkins? Afraid you'll lose more money from book sales and speaking engagements if people are allowed to think for themselves? Anyway, you can read the rest of the article about these bleating sheep at "Ban teaching creationism at school, say academics". Then, you can pop right back here and read the next article:
In May of this year [2011], CMI-UK’s Philip Bell addressed some pupils at a Religious Education study day at a Church of England school in Exeter. As a result, the self-styled ‘British Centre for Science Education’ (BCSE) launched its ‘Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science’ (CrISIS) campaign, supported by the National Secular Society. This took the form of a letter to the UK Secretary of State for Education, signed by a number of prominent scientists, demanding that action be taken to prevent creationism being taught in schools as having any kind of scientific validity.
This week, the British Humanist Association (BHA) joined the party, making their bid to silence all who would seek to inform children of the scientific short comings of evolutionary theory and to present them with an alternative view of origins. Supported by a much more impressive group of scientists than those co-opted by the BCSE, the BHA has launched their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism!’ campaign. Backed by over twenty Fellows of the Royal Society, including Sir David Attenborough and Prof Richard Dawkins, they are calling for “enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and intelligent design] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publically funded school.”
You really should read the rest of "Heavyweights Move to Ban Creation".
Comments
I'm sorry that there aren’t quick and simple answers to the great questions of “where do we come from?” or “why are we here?”
You like every other person that has ever lived or may ever live, does not have an answer. No-one does. Sorry but your claims of “because I've been bought up to” or “the cloud man did it” or “I just feel it” are simply not acceptable.
So we need to be honest that we don’t know lots of things, but we can put forward ideas, concepts, theories, but these are equally subject to the rigorous standard of evidence that we demand in so many areas of life.
So how do we decide what’s real, what’s possible, what’s wishful thinking and what’s delusional? I guess we need a process. One that will help make sense of what we find, or at least steer us towards the truth about reality.
As a species we document, honestly and without prejudice, what we observe. In our lives, our interaction with the world around us, what we see in the universe beyond our horizons. We discount what we cannot prove, we embrace that which we can. We prod, poke, explore, test and ask questions. Lots of questions. This process is called science.
What science does is point to where the consensus leads. There’s no grand conspiracy, no evil plot.
Back to your topic, the evidence for I.D. or creationism has already been examined and removed from the discussion. The ideas has been rejected, just as strongly as astrology, alchemy, homeopathy and others have before.
You are lucky to live in a country world where you are entitled to your own constitutionally protected beliefs. Just don’t try to assert as true what science rejects.
Anything more than this, as they say, is “for entertainment purposes only”.
I see the Fallacy of Assertion, Fallacy of Motive, Straw Man and simple uninformed opinions.
By the way, did you read the links or just my rant at the beginning? I'm curious what you thought of them. If you can give a response to the articles I linked, I'd be curious. But I am not curious about another of your philosophical meanderings, just stay with the topic, OK?
People would be surprised at the number of outright attacks (no, I am not saying "Don't Panic" was attacking, Norman and Alexandra) that I get from clowns who not only ignore the linked articles, but do not read ANY of the introduction. One loser railed at me and an article — and he was dead wrong about the topic! Boy, did he humiliate himself.
But never mind about that now.
No, evidence is suppressed, and bad information is still in the textbooks.