A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[sayak83]

A big note of thanks for all the Creationists and Science Deniers out there. Science is vast and multifaceted and I would never had the motivation to research up many many aspects of this scientific knowledge from obscure fields and subfields if not for the constant and ever futile attempts by them to find "gaps" and inconsistencies in the scientific account of the world. Please continue to make outlandish claims that raise my scientific heckles and motivate me to rebut by doing a few minutes of solid research in new new vistas of science!

 

[shunyadragon]

I have difficulty thanking the fundis and science deniers in Christianity and Islam, because they want to turn the science clock back to Bronze Age mythology.

I believe the main inspiration for the advancements in science is the human drive to know the unknowns. Actually 95%++ of scientists reject and for the most part ignore the literal Creationists., and just do their science. It is the front line journalists and writers in science that challenge the ancient mythical view of science.

Unfortunately it is the belief in the ancient myth found in the Pentateuch that is responsible for the long historical trail of Christianity and Islam believing in a complete or to some degree of a literal interpretation of the Creation myth and the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch. It is a discouraging paradox that an ancient text without provenance or authorship would still inspire a rejection of the objective science.The problem is rooted in the text of the NT and the Quran can be used to justify a literal Creationist Genesis and a historical accurate Pentateuch. In fact this literalist view dominated Christianity until the mid-nineteenth century,

It is interesting that beginning in the 18th and 19th century Judaism has been turning away from the importance of a literal Pentateuch, and accept an allegorical and symbolic interpretation of the text of the Pentateuch. This change came with the Jewish Enlightenment movement,and has consistently embraced an enlightened view since. The plain reading of the text is read and taught, but the inspiration of the text has been dominately allegorical. The most interesting fact is that the Hebrew Pentateuch id their Book and in Hebrew, Their understanding should taken as the rule.

In the USA as much as 40%+ Christians reject and in some way question the knowledge of the sciences of evolution and the physical history of the universe. In the Islamic World likely over 80-90% believers reject the sciences of evolution and the scientific history of our universe, Unfortunately 'Intelligent Design; is gaining traction world wide with the evangelical efforts of Creationist advocates.

 

[gnostic]

About 3 years before I joined RF, I was at another forum, where they had religion section.

At that time, I didn't know anything about Evolution. The arguments over Evolution vs Creation had made looked into the theory of Evolution. i didn’t study much biology, as i was more interested in civil engineering at the time, which required applied physics and maths. Over the years, I learned more about evolutionary biology, but clearly it doesn’t make me expert, but at the very least I know the basic.

 

[shunyadragon]

About 3 years before I joined RF, I was at another forum, where they had religion section.

At that time, I didn't know anything about Evolution. The arguments over Evolution vs Creation had made looked into the theory of Evolution. i didn’t study much biology, as i was more interested in civil engineering at the time, which required applied physics and maths. Over the years, I learned more about evolutionary biology, but clearly it doesn’t make me expert, but at the very least I know the basic.

As a licenced geologist I consider my knowledge advanced concerning the sciences related to evolution and the history of our universe including the physics underlying the sciences.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

'Intelligent Design; is gaining traction world wide with the evangelical efforts of Creationist advocates.

ID doesn't necessarily align with YEC. Stephen Myer for example appears to align with old age rather than YEC. His is an argument in support of a God, not young earth.

Its Creation Science that is gaining traction I think, and that is because it is necessary given the push by atheistic naturalism to try to convince Christians there is no God. The first way to do this is to ignore sound bible theology and try to punch holes in the book (such as bible says earth is flat), then make the claim it's interpretation cannot be known unless one knows the true language and people, leading to the claim historical parts of it a not literal...

The dismantling of internal consistency in the bible essentially destroys all notion of Christianity...without the chrietisn even knowing it.

For example, ive talked regularly with forums individuals claiming to be Christian who:

1. Do not believe Christ came to save us from the wages of sin (ie literal eternal death)
2. Do not believe that the Old Testament sanctuary service is both historical and prophetic in terms of outlining exactly how restoration and redemption work...they have absolutely no idea of the crucial importance of the old testament sanctuary in Christian belief of salvation
3. They do not believe God is going to restore the earth back to its former glory...essentially these people do not believe the world we see around us is corrupted and defaced by sin. They ignore prophecies of Daniel - stone cut without hands destroying the earthly kingdoms, instead citing the book shouldn't have been included in te bible canon and that is wasnt written by the prophet Daniel...completely ignoring its ties to the book of Revelation btw
4. Do not believe we should live by the 10 commandments, instead they are an old outdated covenant only for israelites
5. Don't appear to believe Christ was really resurrected
6. Don't believe that creation was a miracle because it's not scientific...

The list could go on, however, its like they just follow a better version of Socrates! (who was probably a playright character invented by Plato)

One cannot dismantle the bible to suit the interpretations of a majority of naturalistic scientists, students of uniformatarianism (which is directly contrary to biblical theology), who do not follow internally consistent and self revealing bible theology.

One only needs to read the fourth commandment Exodus 20:8-11 to recognise the problem and falsehood of any belief where darwinian evolution+secular cosmology are mixed with Christianity.

"For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth..."

The bible interprets itself...all one has to do is read it and follow the cross references to ensure correct doctrine. If one does that, its impossible to arrive at any conclusion in support of evolutionism. That is why Creation Science has grown exponentially in recent years.

 

[Secret Chief]

A big note of thanks for all the Creationists and Science Deniers out there. Science is vast and multifaceted and I would never had the motivation to research up many many aspects of this scientific knowledge from obscure fields and subfields if not for the constant and ever futile attempts by them to find "gaps" and inconsistencies in the scientific account of the world. Please continue to make outlandish claims that raise my scientific heckles and motivate me to rebut by doing a few minutes of solid research in new new vistas of science!

Hey don't leave out the flat earthers!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Hey don't leave out the flat earthers!

They are an elite branch of republican voters in the US who are rooting for Donald Trump to win the next election! They sit alongside the Elvis is alive, jfk was killed by the CIA, and the Neil Armstrong walking on the moon is fake conspiracy theorists.

 

[sun rise]

ID doesn't necessarily align with YEC. Stephen Myer for example appears to align with old age rather than YEC. His is an argument in support of a God, not young earth.

Its Creation Science that is gaining traction I think, and that is because it is necessary given the push by atheistic naturalism to try to convince Christians there is no God. The first way to do this is to ignore sound bible theology and try to punch holes in the book (such as bible says earth is flat), then make the claim it's interpretation cannot be known unless one knows the true language and people, leading to the claim historical parts of it a not literal...

The dismantling of internal consistency in the bible essentially destroys all notion of Christianity...without the chrietisn even knowing it.

For example, ive talked regularly with forums individuals claiming to be Christian who:

1. Do not believe Christ came to save us from the wages of sin (ie literal eternal death)
2. Do not believe that the Old Testament sanctuary service is both historical and prophetic in terms of outlining exactly how restoration and redemption work...they have absolutely no idea of the crucial importance of the old testament sanctuary in Christian belief of salvation
3. They do not believe God is going to restore the earth back to its former glory...essentially these people do not believe the world we see around us is corrupted and defaced by sin. They ignore prophecies of Daniel - stone cut without hands destroying the earthly kingdoms, instead citing the book shouldn't have been included in te bible canon and that is wasnt written by the prophet Daniel...completely ignoring its ties to the book of Revelation btw
4. Do not believe we should live by the 10 commandments, instead they are an old outdated covenant only for israelites
5. Don't appear to believe Christ was really resurrected
6. Don't believe that creation was a miracle because it's not scientific...

The list could go on, however, its like they just follow a better version of Socrates! (who was probably a playright character invented by Plato)

One cannot dismantle the bible to suit the interpretations of a majority of naturalistic scientists, students of uniformatarianism (which is directly contrary to biblical theology), who do not follow internally consistent and self revealing bible theology.

One only needs to read the fourth commandment Exodus 20:8-11 to recognise the problem and falsehood of any belief where darwinian evolution+secular cosmology are mixed with Christianity.

"For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth..."

The bible interprets itself...all one has to do is read it and follow the cross references to ensure correct doctrine. If one does that, its impossible to arrive at any conclusion in support of evolutionism. That is why Creation Science has grown exponentially in recent years.

Read books by Christian scientists who accept science such as Dr. Sy Garte. Or for a more famous evangelical Christian scientist: The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins

But we’re still a long way from understanding the details of much of the universe around us. To focus on a particular area of nature where our understanding remains incomplete and say, well, God must have done something miraculous in that spot, is actually, I think, to make God much too small. If God had a plan for creating a universe that was capable of resulting in creatures with intelligence, free will, the knowledge of right and wrong and the hunger to find God Almighty, I think it would be unfortunate for us to imagine that we can precisely figure out, with our tiny amount of information right now, exactly how God did it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are an elite branch of republican voters in the US who are rooting for Donald Trump to win the next election! They sit alongside the Elvis is alive, jfk was killed by the CIA, and the Neil Armstrong walking on the moon is fake conspiracy theorists.

 

[sun rise]

jfk was killed by the CIA,

Having lived through his assassination and events that followed (grassy knoll, for example), that to me is of a different character than the others. Title from caption on object: In Partial Support of His Contention That Another Assassin was Firing at Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll... for one example. I'm not asserting the CIA did it but that some things about that raise unanswered questions.

 

[exchemist]

I have difficulty thanking the fundis and science deniers in Christianity and Islam, because they want to turn the science clock back to Bronze Age mythology.

I believe the main inspiration for the advancements in science is the human drive to know the unknowns. Actually 95%++ of scientists reject and for the most part ignore the literal Creationists., and just do their science. It is the front line journalists and writers in science that challenge the ancient mythical view of science.

Unfortunately it is the belief in the ancient myth found in the Pentateuch that is responsible for the long historical trail of Christianity and Islam believing in a complete or to some degree of a literal interpretation of the Creation myth and the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch. It is a discouraging paradox that an ancient text without provenance or authorship would still inspire a rejection of the objective science.The problem is rooted in the text of the NT and the Quran can be used to justify a literal Creationist Genesis and a historical accurate Pentateuch. In fact this literalist view dominated Christianity until the mid-nineteenth century,

It is interesting that beginning in the 18th and 19th century Judaism has been turning away from the importance of a literal Pentateuch, and accept an allegorical and symbolic interpretation of the text of the Pentateuch. This change came with the Jewish Enlightenment movement,and has consistently embraced an enlightened view since. The plain reading of the text is read and taught, but the inspiration of the text has been dominately allegorical. The most interesting fact is that the Hebrew Pentateuch id their Book and in Hebrew, Their understanding should taken as the rule.

In the USA as much as 40%+ Christians reject and in some way question the knowledge of the sciences of evolution and the physical history of the universe. In the Islamic World likely over 80-90% believers reject the sciences of evolution and the scientific history of our universe, Unfortunately 'Intelligent Design; is gaining traction world wide with the evangelical efforts of Creationist advocates.

What evidence do you have that ID is gaining traction? It seems to me it is fading, following the catastrophe (from its proponents' point of view) in the Dover School trial in 2005. The attempt to get it going in the UK has been a miserable failure and I don't hear about it from other countries.

 

[shunyadragon]

What evidence do you have that ID is gaining traction? It seems to me it is fading, following the catastrophe (from its proponents' point of view) in the Dover School trial in 2005. The attempt to get it going in the UK has been a miserable failure and I don't hear about it from other countries.

Overseas is gaining traction third world countries due to Creationist evangelism It South Korea a course of ID is being taught; In Islamic countries it is the dominant belief.

It initially lost ground when it failed the science test and the Dover trial, it still holds strong support in Fundamentalist churches. and still polls at 40-45%.

 

[exchemist]

Overseas id gaining traction third world countries due to Creationist evangelism It South Korea a course of ID is being taught; In Islamic countries it is the dominant belief.

It initially lost ground when it failed the science test and the Dover trial, it still holds strong support in Fundamentalist churches. and still polls at 40-45%.

OK but these are assertions, not evidence. Where do you get your information about 3rd world and muslim countries from?

 

[sayak83]

ID doesn't necessarily align with YEC. Stephen Myer for example appears to align with old age rather than YEC. His is an argument in support of a God, not young earth.

Its Creation Science that is gaining traction I think, and that is because it is necessary given the push by atheistic naturalism to try to convince Christians there is no God. The first way to do this is to ignore sound bible theology and try to punch holes in the book (such as bible says earth is flat), then make the claim it's interpretation cannot be known unless one knows the true language and people, leading to the claim historical parts of it a not literal...

The dismantling of internal consistency in the bible essentially destroys all notion of Christianity...without the chrietisn even knowing it.

For example, ive talked regularly with forums individuals claiming to be Christian who:

1. Do not believe Christ came to save us from the wages of sin (ie literal eternal death)
2. Do not believe that the Old Testament sanctuary service is both historical and prophetic in terms of outlining exactly how restoration and redemption work...they have absolutely no idea of the crucial importance of the old testament sanctuary in Christian belief of salvation
3. They do not believe God is going to restore the earth back to its former glory...essentially these people do not believe the world we see around us is corrupted and defaced by sin. They ignore prophecies of Daniel - stone cut without hands destroying the earthly kingdoms, instead citing the book shouldn't have been included in te bible canon and that is wasnt written by the prophet Daniel...completely ignoring its ties to the book of Revelation btw
4. Do not believe we should live by the 10 commandments, instead they are an old outdated covenant only for israelites
5. Don't appear to believe Christ was really resurrected
6. Don't believe that creation was a miracle because it's not scientific...

The list could go on, however, its like they just follow a better version of Socrates! (who was probably a playright character invented by Plato)

One cannot dismantle the bible to suit the interpretations of a majority of naturalistic scientists, students of uniformatarianism (which is directly contrary to biblical theology), who do not follow internally consistent and self revealing bible theology.

One only needs to read the fourth commandment Exodus 20:8-11 to recognise the problem and falsehood of any belief where darwinian evolution+secular cosmology are mixed with Christianity.

"For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth..."

The bible interprets itself...all one has to do is read it and follow the cross references to ensure correct doctrine. If one does that, its impossible to arrive at any conclusion in support of evolutionism. That is why Creation Science has grown exponentially in recent years.

The word creation science is nonsense and is just ideological rhetoric, not science. Similar parasitic ideologies are rife everywhere...from Quranic science to Vedic Science to Marxist science. All of them are pernicious nonsense...fake science and fake theology to boot.
The body of scientific knowledge stems from ideology free systematic investigation into the patterns of nature...and does not care if it conforms with some predetermined belief about how the world should be...coming from some religious or secular ideology.

If evolution is incompatible with your understanding of Christianity...then too bad for your understanding...as evolution, like heliocentrism and old earth or conservation laws...are here to stay as fixed (and massively validated) ideas in science that may be extended but never overthrown.

 

[exchemist]

Read books by Christian scientists who accept science such as Dr. Sy Garte. Or for a more famous evangelical Christian scientist: The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins

But we’re still a long way from understanding the details of much of the universe around us. To focus on a particular area of nature where our understanding remains incomplete and say, well, God must have done something miraculous in that spot, is actually, I think, to make God much too small. If God had a plan for creating a universe that was capable of resulting in creatures with intelligence, free will, the knowledge of right and wrong and the hunger to find God Almighty, I think it would be unfortunate for us to imagine that we can precisely figure out, with our tiny amount of information right now, exactly how God did it.

Not Sy Garte, please! We recently discussed a video in which he appears and it turns he is just another "God of the Gaps" creationist. I quote below what I had to say about this at the time:

OK, thanks, I've now watched that bit and..... @Valjean is right. I was giving this guy too much credit. He is a cdesign proponentsist* [sic].

So that explains why the Biologos article, written for a more sophisticated audience, tiptoes round the issue of abiogenesis. He doesn't want to run up the Jolly Roger in front of that audience. But here, at a religious conference, it is different, and he wants to pander to the beliefs of his audience.

What he tries to do in the videoed talk is to dismiss what is sometimes called "chemical evolution". But all he can say about it is that it is

- a recent term, not well defined and that
- people have not got very far with it.

Well sure, but that hardly proves it is a wrong idea. All it means is it is a hard problem. It's obvious why that should be, seeing as there is so little physical evidence from 3.5bn years ago.

He also (and this made him go right down in my estimation) attempts a false equivalence by speaking dismissively of a "future science of the gaps", as if this is somehow equivalent to the "God of the Gaps** " - which in fact is what he himself is arguing for, though he attempts to dress it up with fancy biochemistry. But all science is "science of the gaps"! We do science to fill in gaps in our understanding of nature, by constructing theoretical models to fit our the observations. Whereas the God of the Gaps tries to shut down science by saying "God did it, case closed, no need to look for a natural explanation".

What is depressing is that he admits to having discussed the "chemical evolution" issue with James Tour, who apparently was attending the same meeting. Now James Tour I know. He is a synthetic chemist and Messianic Jew who argues abiogenesis can't be natural because, basically, he can't see how it can be done by human synthetic chemistry in a few human lifespans.

Garte also makes more false analogies, by talking about the "code" of DNA and then claiming that codes are symbolic and abstract, and that nature does not make codes. Yet DNA makes RNA by a well understood physical (biochemical) process and RNA makes proteins via another physical (biochemical) process. So there is nothing "abstract" about the code in DNA. It is a mechanical template for generating molecules with a biological function.

So I'm afraid that, at the end of the day, Garte is flaky on this. He has let his religion cloud his science and his position is intellectually incoherent and, I would say, borderline dishonest in a man as intelligent and well-qualified as he is. Not quite as bad as James Tour but going in the same direction.


* A humorous term derived from the Dover School Trial fiasco

** "God of the Gaps" is an expression coined by Prof. Charles Coulson, a mathematician, theoretical chemist and committed Christian (Methodist lay preacher), whose lectures (on maths for chemists) I attended as an undergraduate.

Kenneth Miller is a far better bet. He is a committed Christian and a cell and molecular biologist and has written a number of books explaining how religion and science fit together. He is opposed to both creationism and the pseudoscience of ID.

 

[shunyadragon]

ID doesn't necessarily align with YEC. Stephen Myer for example appears to align with old age rather than YEC. His is an argument in support of a God, not young earth.

Meyer does not have any academic background in science, Hedging the Biblical literal young earth with OEC still amounts to rejection of the objective verifiable evidence in support if science,

Its Creation Science that is gaining traction I think, and that is because it is necessary given the push by atheistic naturalism to try to convince Christians there is no God. The first way to do this is to ignore sound bible theology and try to punch holes in the book (such as bible says earth is flat), then make the claim it's interpretation cannot be known unless one knows the true language and people, leading to the claim historical parts of it a not literal.

As far as science goes atheism is a belief and has no role in Methodological Naturalism, and is neutral to all religious beliefs and the many diverse conflicting religious beliefs in Creation in all religions,

By any other name Creation Science or Intelligent Design are two sides of the same coin. They are religious beliefs that lacks any scientific evidence nor a falsifiable hypothesis. You need to focus on your Creationist claims with verifiable scientific evidence and avoid name calling to justify your agenda. Atheists only represent 3-4% of the population of the USA, and over 50% of the population supports evolution and scientific history of the universe including Theistic evolutionists.

The Bible does say the earth is flat and the sun, moon and all heavenly bodies rotate around the earth,

If the Bible is truly and honestly literal YEC is the only interpretation, believed by the Church Fathers of Christianity.

The dismantling of internal consistency in the bible essentially destroys all notion of Christianity...without the Christian even knowing it.

For example, ive talked regularly with forums individuals claiming to be Christian who:

1. Do not believe Christ came to save us from the wages of sin (ie literal eternal death)
2. Do not believe that the Old Testament sanctuary service is both historical and prophetic in terms of outlining exactly how restoration and redemption work...they have absolutely no idea of the crucial importance of the old testament sanctuary in Christian belief of salvation
3. They do not believe God is going to restore the earth back to its former glory...essentially these people do not believe the world we see around us is corrupted and defaced by sin. They ignore prophecies of Daniel - stone cut without hands destroying the earthly kingdoms, instead citing the book shouldn't have been included in te bible canon and that is wasnt written by the prophet Daniel...completely ignoring its ties to the book of Revelation btw
4. Do not believe we should live by the 10 commandments, instead they are an old outdated covenant only for israelites
5. Don't appear to believe Christ was really resurrected
6. Don't believe that creation was a miracle because it's not scientific.

Fully 90%+ of all Christian in the USA believe in the above and of course believe God Created our physical existence and the majority accept the sciences of evolution and are Theistic Evolutionists/ They just do not believe in insane literal interpretation of the Bible.

The list could go on, however, its like they just follow a better version of Socrates! (who was probably a play right character invented by Plato)

The philosophers of Greece are an interesting subject, but nothing to do with the topic. The majority of the population of the USA including scientists are indifferent or clueless about Socrates and Plato. They likely slept through philosophy classes.

One cannot dismantle the bible to suit the interpretations of a majority of naturalistic scientists, students of uniformatarianism (which is directly contrary to biblical theology), who do not follow internally consistent and self revealing bible theology.

If we deal with science as science without an ancient tribal religious bias, the history of life, the earth and universe become clear. There is absolutely no evidence against uniform geologic history of the earth. Dating methods have documented this. For example as cited before, The over 100,000 years of lake varves in a lake in Japan compared with radiometric dating documents this uniformity in geologic history, and of course no possibility of a Noah world flood.

One only needs to read the fourth commandment Exodus 20:8-11 to recognise the problem and falsehood of any belief where darwinian evolution+secular cosmology are mixed with Christianity.

Reading the Bible has nothing to do with the validity of science. The independent objective verifiable evidence confirms the validity of science.

"For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth..."

The bible interprets itself...all one has to do is read it and follow the cross references to ensure correct doctrine. If one does that, its impossible to arrive at any conclusion in support of evolutionism. That is why Creation Science has grown exponentially in recent years.

Yes, is you honestly interpretate the Bible the YEC Creation in six days is the only viable interpretation as believed by the Church Fathers. Though impossible and irrational requiring intentional ignorance of science in the basic understanding of the nature of our physical existence today.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK but these are assertions, not evidence.

Yes, there is not scientific basis for ID, because the assertions are based on belief, and believers worldwide reject the science,.

The above is unclear, since the problem is Christian and Muslims who support ID and various anti-science Creationist beliefs based on ancient beliefs and texts and not science.

Where do you get your information about 3rd world and muslim countries from?

Simple google search. You need to do your homework. There are more references that document this.

Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A 2000 study conducted by a researcher of the University of Oklahoma found that 19% of participants believed that Islam's tenets were not at odds with Darwin's theory of evolution while 81% believed there to be some form of conflict between Islam and Darwinism.[96] One of the participants, an Islamic teacher, stood in opposition to the theory of evolution although was willing to accept certain aspects that were proposed by it.[97] The participants who believed there to be no conflict between Islam and Darwin's theory of evolution were split as it pertained to the possible relationship between primates and humans with only 6% of participants seeing no issue with the assertion.[98]

As per a 2008 report, evolutionary biology was included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution.[52]

A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 85% of Indonesian high school students and 86% of Pakistani high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."[1] However, in Indonesia, creationism is common among older residents, even among biology teachers and biology education professors.[99]

According to a 2013 Pew study, the numbers of Muslims who support evolution appear to be increasing slowly but steadily. For instance, a large majority of people accept human evolution in Kazakhstan (79%) and Lebanon (78%), but relatively few in Afghanistan (26%) and Iraq (27%), with most of the other Islamic countries somewhere in between.[4]

Creationist success in South Korea? | National Center for Science Education

A creationist campaign to remove references to evolution from high school biology textbooks in South Korea succeeded in May 2012, according to a report in Nature (June 5, 2012), when "the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised...

ncse.ngo

A creationist campaign to remove references to evolution from high school biology textbooks in South Korea succeeded in May 2012, according to a report in Nature (June 5, 2012), when "the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx." Also in the sights of the creationist campaign are references to the evolution of humans and the adaptations of the beak of the finch. All four are favorite targets of creationists, including the "intelligent design" movement. South Korean biologists are complaining that they were not consulted about the revisions; Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University, told Nature, "The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge."

The campaign was led by the Committee to Revise Evolution In Textbooks (which Nature calls "the Society for Textbook Revise"), an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research. Support for creationism in South Korea is high: in The Creationists (Harvard University Press, 2006), Ronald L. Numbers described the country as "the creationist powerhouse" in Asia. And acceptance of evolution is comparatively low: 64% of South Koreans agreed with "human beings are developed from earlier species of animals" in 2002, as compared to 44% of respondents in the United States in 2004, 70% of respondents in China in 2001, and 78% of respondents in Japan in 2001.

Dayk Jang faulted the South Korean scientific community for its inaction and is now organizing a group of experts to counter the creationist campaign. "When something like this comes to fruition, the scientific community can be caught flat-footed," NCSE's Josh Rosenau told the New York Daily News (June 6, 2012). "Scientists are not by their nature political." South Korea is an up-and-coming scientific powerhouse, Rosenau said, adding that it's crucial to continue to teach evolution in schools if the county wants to compete on the international stage. "Evolution is the core of modern biological science," he said.

Efforts at reform and encourage science in Islam and Christianity, are the Band Aide approach to solve the problem when the adults may philosophy up stairs. They teach the ancient scripture and mythology to the children in the basement.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, there is not scientific basis for ID, because the assertions are based on belief, and believers worldwide reject the science,.

The above is unclear, since the problem is Christian and Muslims who support ID and various anti-science Creationist beliefs based on ancient beliefs and texts and not science.



Simple google search. You need to do your homework. There are more references that document this.

Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A 2000 study conducted by a researcher of the University of Oklahoma found that 19% of participants believed that Islam's tenets were not at odds with Darwin's theory of evolution while 81% believed there to be some form of conflict between Islam and Darwinism.[96] One of the participants, an Islamic teacher, stood in opposition to the theory of evolution although was willing to accept certain aspects that were proposed by it.[97] The participants who believed there to be no conflict between Islam and Darwin's theory of evolution were split as it pertained to the possible relationship between primates and humans with only 6% of participants seeing no issue with the assertion.[98]

As per a 2008 report, evolutionary biology was included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution.[52]

A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators found that 85% of Indonesian high school students and 86% of Pakistani high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."[1] However, in Indonesia, creationism is common among older residents, even among biology teachers and biology education professors.[99]

According to a 2013 Pew study, the numbers of Muslims who support evolution appear to be increasing slowly but steadily. For instance, a large majority of people accept human evolution in Kazakhstan (79%) and Lebanon (78%), but relatively few in Afghanistan (26%) and Iraq (27%), with most of the other Islamic countries somewhere in between.[4]

Creationist success in South Korea? | National Center for Science Education

A creationist campaign to remove references to evolution from high school biology textbooks in South Korea succeeded in May 2012, according to a report in Nature (June 5, 2012), when "the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised...

ncse.ngo

A creationist campaign to remove references to evolution from high school biology textbooks in South Korea succeeded in May 2012, according to a report in Nature (June 5, 2012), when "the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx." Also in the sights of the creationist campaign are references to the evolution of humans and the adaptations of the beak of the finch. All four are favorite targets of creationists, including the "intelligent design" movement. South Korean biologists are complaining that they were not consulted about the revisions; Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University, told Nature, "The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge."

The campaign was led by the Committee to Revise Evolution In Textbooks (which Nature calls "the Society for Textbook Revise"), an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research. Support for creationism in South Korea is high: in The Creationists (Harvard University Press, 2006), Ronald L. Numbers described the country as "the creationist powerhouse" in Asia. And acceptance of evolution is comparatively low: 64% of South Koreans agreed with "human beings are developed from earlier species of animals" in 2002, as compared to 44% of respondents in the United States in 2004, 70% of respondents in China in 2001, and 78% of respondents in Japan in 2001.

Dayk Jang faulted the South Korean scientific community for its inaction and is now organizing a group of experts to counter the creationist campaign. "When something like this comes to fruition, the scientific community can be caught flat-footed," NCSE's Josh Rosenau told the New York Daily News (June 6, 2012). "Scientists are not by their nature political." South Korea is an up-and-coming scientific powerhouse, Rosenau said, adding that it's crucial to continue to teach evolution in schools if the county wants to compete on the international stage. "Evolution is the core of modern biological science," he said.

Efforts at reform and encourage science in Islam and Christianity, are the Band Aide approach to solve the problem when the adults may philosophy up stairs. They teach the ancient scripture and mythology to the children in the basement.

It's your claim, so you should be prepared to support it. So no need for the patronising tone.

This is not evidence of belief in ID.This merely indicates belief that there is some form of conflict between their religion and science, or esle of creationism in general.

This is not at all the same as ID, which is a specific pseudoscience that pretends it is scence and not part of a religious belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's your claim, so you should be prepared to support it. So no need for the patronising tone.

This is not evidence of belief in ID.This merely indicates belief that there is some form of conflict between their religion and science, or esle of creationism in general.

This is not at all the same as ID, which is a specific pseudoscience that pretends it is scence and not part of a religious belief.

Patronizing tom=ne??? You take first prize.

Backed up with references. You have offered nada in contrary to my posts.

Yes, after I presented my sources concerning the increase growth of ID world with you have failed to acknowledge the source and provide anything from your perspective.

ID and Creation Science are bed mates of the same anti-science ilk.

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 87240

Trump with a wig?