Which is pretty much how many atheists tend to portray Christians... it's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot now, is it?
Evolution debunked?
- Thread starter ggazoo
- Start date
Which is pretty much how many atheists tend to portray Christians... it's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot now, is it?
Yes, I'm sure Liege would agree that the Darwinite ranters are likewise despicable.
This is indisputably true, of course. But how is that relevant to this topic? Does it have some bearing on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the cartoonish tract linked above?
Which is pretty much how many atheists tend to portray Christians... it's not fun when the shoe is on the other foot now, is it?
That metaphor only works if the shoe actually fits on the other foot. Can you actually find a real-life example of a pro-evolutionary scientist or teacher behaving like the teacher in the tract above? I daresay such ranting behavior is more common in the creationist camp. By no means am I saying it's the norm for creationists, but there is a certain subsection for which it is true. Furthermore, you don't see evolutionists trying to prove their views with silly cartoons. They have peer-reviewed journals for that.
That is the attitude of Darwinists here, and in most classrooms.
Such is the by-product of the cognitive dissonance and turmoil experienced by these "Darwinists" when their religious philosophy of evolutionism is questioned and debunked.
Nothing new under the sun, folks.
Really? In most classrooms, you say?
In the tract we see the teacher drawn with fire around his head, as if to indicate he is absolutely enraged that a student is debating with him. We see this teacher yelling "get out of my classroom!" We see him snarling "I could have you jailed for that!" and "How dare you mention the Bible in this school!" We see him berating and threatening this student in an almost violent manner.
Now, you're really telling me you think this is how real teachers behave in the classroom? If so, you're even more deluded than I thought. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
The fact is, it is becoming a trend that teachers are afraid to talk about evolution at all in class, due to constant hassling from parents.
Excellent.
You wish.
I should say, it's a shame they don't talk about other forms of evolution too, such as within syngameons, there is much research to be done on this, but the mainstreamers insist on Darwinism or nothing, Soviet style education.
How would you know?
Darwinism is the only model they teach, as fact, like it's a done deal, a foregone conclusion, intellectual dishonesty to the max.
No, actually you are behind the times. These days, the primary theory is called Neo-Darwinism.
The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.
The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.
I'm pro evolution, just not that kind, which is strictly theoretical in nature.
Right, you want a place for God in the system, because you think God is really great.
The actual lesson being taught has nothing to do with Darwinian theory. The lesson is not about the non-human world at all. The lesson is about scientists and intellectuals who do not espouse Christianity.
The intellectual is exaggerated in the same way, and for the same reasons, that drawings of physical phenomena are drawn out of scale in textbooks - to make visible the essential lesson, which in this case is the true inner nature of intellectuals and people who pretend to know stuff that fundie Christians do not.