Page 1 of 1

The Evolutionist Establishment Turns to Blackmail

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:58 am
by Believer
Desperate Measures
The Evolutionist Establishment Turns to Blackmail

November 1, 2005

Image

Listen: Image Windows Media | Image Real Media | Image MP3

If there's one word that could be used to describe the evolutionist establishment right now, that word would be desperate.

To prove this, one only need look at the latest news coming out of Kansas. The Kansas State Board of Education has adopted new standards that will permit the teaching of intelligent design as part of science curricula. Let me repeat that: The standards don't mandate the teaching of intelligent design. They permit it. And they don't prohibit the teaching of evolution. They allow both sides of what has become a genuine scientific controversy to be taught.

Now, most of us would call that academic freedom. But the opponents of intelligent design see it as backwoods, Bible-pounding, flat-earth fundamentalism. They're accusing intelligent design advocates of introducing religion or philosophy into a scientific debate.

The latest developments in the battles show exactly who is close-minded and who isn't. This past week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) announced that they would no longer allow their copyrighted materials to be used in any curriculum that challenges Darwin's theories. This is serious business; the materials provided by these two organizations form the core of any biology curriculum in the United States.

The heads of the NAS and the NSTA released a statement that read in part: “Kansas students will not be well prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.”

So their solution to this alleged “disadvantage” is to put the students at a real disadvantage. This is nothing less than a case of blackmail: “You teach our philosophical beliefs, or else you can't use our accredited science course materials.”

The New York Times unwittingly gets to the heart of the controversy when it writes that the intelligent design theorists “would single out evolution as a controversial theory and change the definition of science itself so that it is not restricted to the study of natural phenomena.” Wait a minute: science “restricted to the study of natural phenomena”? That means all science is shaped by a naturalistic view of the world. But naturalism is not a scientific theory or fact. It's a philosophy.

So, you see, intelligent design theorists are the ones who are trying to free science to pursue truth wherever it leads, shaking it loose of philosophical restraints. This is exactly what Francis Bacon, the “father of modern science” and a Christian, did in the sixteenth century, when he abandoned Aristotle's philosophical presupposition that the universe is eternal and decided instead to follow science wherever it leads. That, according to Professor Harold Poe at Union University, allowed the modern scientific revolution to take place.

And that's exactly what is at stake here. If the intelligent design movement succeeds, we would have nothing short of a new scientific revolution—freeing science to pursue truth wherever it leads. No wonder the hidebound traditionalists—that is, the evolutionists—are desperate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further reading and information:

Spend a year studying with Chuck Colson: Learn how to identify, advocate, and apply biblical truth in every arena of life. Apply for the 2006 Centurions Program. The deadline is November 15.

Jodi Wilgoren, “2 Science Groups Say Kansas Can't Use Their Evolution Papers,” New York Times, 27 October 2005. (When archived, costs $2.95 to retrieve.)

Rick Weiss, “Evolution Debate in Kansas Spurs Battle over School Materials,” WashingtonPost, 28 October 2005, A02.

See the NAS/NSTA joint statement on Kansas science standards.

Claudio Sanchez, “A Teacher's View of the Kansas Evolution Debate,” All Things Considered, NPR, 4 May 2005.

Jimmy Davis and Harry Poe, Designer Universe (Broadman and Holman, 2002).

See BreakPoint's research page on evolution and intelligent design.

William Dembski, The Design Revolution (InterVarsity, 2004). Also available: an interview with Dr. Dembski about The Design Revolution.

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center helps students start chapters on college and high school campuses to foster communication about evolution and intelligent design.

SOURCE: CLICK HERE

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:33 am
by sandy_mcd
Who wrote this ?
thanks

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:10 am
by Believer
sandy_mcd wrote:Who wrote this ?
thanks
The SOURCE is at the very bottom of the post which will link you DIRECTLY to the website the article came from like I do with most of my posts. I try to make the posted article to be a true copy from the website article, but this forum HTML editor has limitations.

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:16 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
sandy_mcd wrote:Who wrote this ?
thanks
A possible bias doesn't mean they're wrong...

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:57 pm
by sandy_mcd
Yes, but I clicked on the link, going DIRECTLY (not passing GO, not collecting $200) to the SOURCE where I saw the same picture and a website name, but, at least at a quick glance, I did not see the name of the pictured individual, who presumably wrote the article. [Seeing it is Prison Ministries, I suspect Chuck Colson but do not know him by sight.]

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:38 pm
by Fisherman
sandy_mcd wrote:Yes, but I clicked on the link, going DIRECTLY (not passing GO, not collecting $200) to the SOURCE where I saw the same picture and a website name, but, at least at a quick glance, I did not see the name of the pictured individual, who presumably wrote the article. [Seeing it is Prison Ministries, I suspect Chuck Colson but do not know him by sight.]
That's not brother Colson. Ol' Chuck's a good guy but the guy in the pic's a lot purdier than him. LOL

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:49 pm
by Fisherman
Wait a minute. I think that might be him. Is that Chuck Colson? Doesn't look like the photos I've ever seen of him.

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:00 pm
by Believer
Yes, thine eyes do not deceive you, it is Chuck Colson.

Image Image

Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:54 pm
by Fisherman
Thinker wrote:Yes, thine eyes do not deceive you, it is Chuck Colson.

Image Image
Ahhhh... Well now, that's different. Nevermind. ;) E.L.

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:21 pm
by ncooty
blackmail: (v) extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information


If the NAS and NSTA don't wish to be affiliated with something they don't think meets the fundamental pre-requisites of a scientific theory, I fail to understand how that constitutes blackmail. The NAS and the NSTA aren't attempting to get anything of value (and, in fact, are likely losing money by refusing sales in those areas) and I'm sure you don't mean to insinuate that ID proponents have committed a criminal act.

So, how is this blackmail?

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:45 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
They are biased bigots, the most narrow-minded tards on earth...the only thing you're right about what you've said is that it's not blackmail.

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:29 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:They are biased bigots, the most narrow-minded tards on earth...the only thing you're right about what you've said is that it's not blackmail.
Ooh Great Kmart
Thank you for telling us what is wrong and what is right.

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:22 am
by Deborah
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:They are biased bigots, the most narrow-minded tards on earth...the only thing you're right about what you've said is that it's not blackmail.
You forgot Judgemental.
Remember Jesus said Let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
There is none who are innocent. but stones are being pelted in all directions.

Name calling and finger pointing in no way glorifies the Lord god that we are have been called to serve. All it does is add fuel to the fire, and strangers say look at the so called gods children, they behave like a pack of savages, we have no intention of leading lives like that.

We are all called to glorify the LORD, and this is NOT the way!

Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:15 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:They are biased bigots, the most narrow-minded tards on earth...the only thing you're right about what you've said is that it's not blackmail.
Ooh Great Kmart
Thank you for telling us what is wrong and what is right.
No problem. But it is obvious they are trying to force their views onto Kansas.