ID creationism is dead...long live creationism!

[Jose Fly]

As I pointed out the during my last visit here, ID creationism was stillborn as a science, and has since died a very quick political and legal death. The creationist/evolution-denialist movement however has quickly moved on to their next strategy, i.e. "teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution".

The main vehicle currently employed for implementing this new approach is the passage of "Academic Freedom Bills", which specifically target evolution education and allow science teachers to "teach the weaknesses of evolution" without fear of reprisal. Of course what isn't mentioned is that these "weaknesses" are nothing more than the same re-hashed, discredited arguments creationists have been making for decades.

For example, since at least the 1960's, young-earth creationists have been making the argument that there are no "transitional fossils", despite their abundance. Once "scientific creationism" and "creation science" were struck down in the courts, creationists quickly changed the label on their arguments to "intelligent design", yet maintained the same "no transitional fossils" argument, as seen in the ID creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.

But now that ID creationism has been struck down in court, the creationists are pushing to have the "weaknesses" taught, and guess what one of the primary "weaknesses" is? That's right, "no transitional fossils"!

IOW, we have a fairly steady change in the label creationists employ, with very little change in content.

[Jose Fly]

As a quick bit of evidence to back up my arguments in the opening post, I offer the following from the ongoing Texas Science Education hearings...

The Austringer » Texas: Your “Weaknesses” Are Weak — And Old, Too

[angellous_evangellous]

Why anyone would care about this is beyond me.

That fools want idiot stuff being taught in schools is symptomatic of democracy, and the failures of Texas education specifically are a whole other ball of wax. The hearings of ID or creationism are the least of their worries.

[Jose Fly]

angellous,

Those of us who feel science education is important care, especially when those who seek to undermine it start affecting policy.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

As I pointed out the during my last visit here, ID creationism was stillborn as a science, and has since died a very quick political and legal death. The creationist/evolution-denialist movement however has quickly moved on to their next strategy, i.e. "teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution".

The main vehicle currently employed for implementing this new approach is the passage of "Academic Freedom Bills", which specifically target evolution education and allow science teachers to "teach the weaknesses of evolution" without fear of reprisal. Of course what isn't mentioned is that these "weaknesses" are nothing more than the same re-hashed, discredited arguments creationists have been making for decades.

For example, since at least the 1960's, young-earth creationists have been making the argument that there are no "transitional fossils", despite their abundance. Once "scientific creationism" and "creation science" were struck down in the courts, creationists quickly changed the label on their arguments to "intelligent design", yet maintained the same "no transitional fossils" argument, as seen in the ID creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People.

But now that ID creationism has been struck down in court, the creationists are pushing to have the "weaknesses" taught, and guess what one of the primary "weaknesses" is? That's right, "no transitional fossils"!

IOW, we have a fairly steady change in the label creationists employ, with very little change in content.

I don't think they should change the cirriculum to allow "the possibility of God" in every equation. Teach God in a church, pure science in the classroom. Creationism should be completely banished from education, children should be taught better from the start.

[horizon_mj1]

I do not mean to offend anyone, but do you think God is so simple that there has to be a choice between creation and evolution? I see God as being complex enough to do both and incorporate them enough to keep people arguing continually over which is right and which is wrong.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by horizon_mj1

I do not mean to offend anyone, but do you think God is so simple that there has to be a choice between creation and evolution? I see God as being complex enough to do both and incorporate them enough to keep people arguing continually over which is right and which is wrong.

True, evolution and god are not mutually exclusive, but those who promote ID believe otherwise. ID is the embarrassing attempt to disguise biblical literalism as a science.

[horizon_mj1]

My concept is if God is The Great Creator, then could he not be the creator of evolution?

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by horizon_mj1

I do not mean to offend anyone, but do you think God is so simple that there has to be a choice between creation and evolution? I see God as being complex enough to do both and incorporate them enough to keep people arguing continually over which is right and which is wrong.

I didn't think there was much competition about whats right and wrong, for one side there is evidence, the other, there is not. Ill leave it up to you to decide which ones which.