They are doing the same thing, the exact same thing in fact. Many Creationists are shoe-horning the data to fit their religious texts. Talk origins is shoe- horning the data into their evolution philosophy. Those sites cherry pick data so badly you'd think it was harvest time at the orchard. you cannot seriously be this blind. Intellectual honesty? They virtually never admit weaknesses to thier claims. They are incapable of scientific honesty when they are drumming up support for an unfalsifiable paradigm. Want honesty? How about this: We don't know yet. Wow, is that so hard?
Look at talk orgin's downplay of the genetic code as an example.. it's not really a code, or language but a cypher instead.. Notice they don't mention the cypher problem of only coding for 20 amino acids? once again, how about "We don't currently know." Or how about their explanation of the evolution of sex organs from asexual species? At least wikipedia got it right and said it is a mystery, but not our honest friends over at talk origins..
Talk origins is a propoganda tool, so please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting any sort of honesty.
These people have a theistic viewpoint to uphold, naturalistic darwinism. There is no other valid reasoning behind it.
Well I have insulted your intelligence before and I will likely continue to do so in the future. If you want to compare the guys advancing your pet 'theory' and writing your bullshit textbooks to a freaking usenet group then by all means please do.
I thought you were making a fairly general point about responses to creationist claims. All I'm saying is that claims should get responded to in some context.
Where? How have they short circuited scientifc discussion? By single cases in Kansas?
So SOME short circuiting of the scientific method is ok then??
Have they ever advocated carrying a bible to school?
They aren't advocating anything overtly religious, but this whole movement is *clearly* designed to get a wedge in the door. Whether the idea is to later manifest this with more direct influence I don't know, but at the very least they are clouding the general public's understanding of science in the hopes of attracting people to 'the flock'. That much is obvious.
The ID founders want to teach evolution and teach MORE about it. Teach that it IS a theory and that it DOES have some legitimate scientific problems. Not teach it dogmatically straight towards a naturalistic theology as it is being taught now.
Ouch! Two doozies here:
1) There you go reciting the mantra of 'evolution is just a theory'. That relies on some bullshit colloquial definition of a theory that makes it sound iffy. That way fundy pinheads can casually discard it. It is actually very well established with a mountain of evidence from multiple disciplines.
2) Teaching it dogmatically? Give me a break. You are making this grand, sweeping statement already shot to shit by my own personal experience. You are sounding a bit over dramatic with all this 'dogmatic' nonsense. Look, it is like this: The whole point of a public education is to give a student a very broad understanding of the world. In a science class they need to have a basic understanding of what is going on in the world of science. Right now evolution is science. Creationism is not. I'm all for teaching criticism if it is the same level of criticism you would be directing at any other theories in any other lesson. Given that at a public school level that would only be at a very general level (we aren't training kids to be molecular biologists when they earn their high school diploma after all). I'm not ok with singling out evolution for additional criticism that wouldn't be afforded to other concepts; that would just be an indirect method of sabotaging science education.
It is man. That's exactly what it is.
No. It isn't. It is the scientific method versus a medieval mindfuck. You are basically saying that the entire scientific establishment is a cabal of atheists trying to proselytize the general public in the ways of their theistic non-belief.
What makes this even more absolutely fucking insane in my mind is the fact that you, as an agnostic, are siding with a bunch of fundamentalists who *are* trying to proselytize the general public. Moreover you've blatantly stereotyped your own ideological cousins earlier in this thread, and really do so again now with all these bullshit claims of an atheist conspiracy to 'raise Darwin to sainthood'. What is so damned insane about this is that the people you side with will ultimately reduce you to second class citizenship if they get their way. It is enough for me to question your authenticity when you claim to be an agnostic. I realize you are just looking for the truth or whatnot but really, and at some level I can respect that, but this conspiracy shit needs to fucking go.
Origin
In 1983, two friends involved in the southern California atheist and freethought movements, Al Seckel and John Edwards, co-created the Darwin fish design, which was first used on a freethought leaflet for Atheists United in 1984. It was then sold by Atheists United and other freethought groups, which got free permission from Seckel and Edwards throughout the 80s, to be used on bumper stickers and t-shirts.[1] Chris Gilman, a Hollywood prop maker, manufactured the first plastic car ornaments in 1990[
OH GOOD LAWD!!!!1 NEXT THEY WILL BE BUILDING A PLACE OF UNWORSHIP!!!!!111 SWEET WEEBUS SAVE US!!!!11
it is indeed a parody but atheisim IS a theistic viewpoint. Atheism has been around far longer than Darwin's time. Atheisim itself is not founded on science but popularizes anything that supports it's theistic view. Also Google any athiest website and you'll find them selling the Darwin Fish there. It is being popularized as the icon for atheism.
FFS it doesn't *mean* the same thing to atheists (or agnostics, for that matter, since they can use them as well....pretty fucking weird for you to typify the symbol in this way). Still don't see anything about deifying Darwin or some shit like that. Last I checked people don't wear crosses on their neck as a joke (hey! There's an idea!) so the point is different symbols *mean* different things--one is mockery and one is revery--two completely different sets of emotions. I've yet to see anyone deify the troops with a yellow ribbon.
Of course not, I'm pointing out that I have good scientifc reason to doubt the theory. Your reason for advocating it seems to be based on nothing but hate.
Mwahahahahhaa. Which one here was stereotyping a whole group of people as being untrustworthy and has been railing on and on about how they are under attack by the dogmatic followers of Darwin?