Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FEB. 12: Academic Freedom Day


skinsfan51

Recommended Posts

"The problem with man is not the lack of evidence, but the suppression of it." -Ravi Zacharias

Academic Freedom Day:

On Charles Darwin's 200th birthday (February 12, 2009), students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution. Let's make "Darwin Day" 2009 Academic Freedom Day!

http://www.academicfreedomday.com/

academic_021209.jpg

What's This All About?

On Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (February 12th, 2009), students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution. In 2009, let’s make "Darwin Day" Academic Freedom Day!

Across the country academic freedom on evolution is being trampled every day. Scientific research challenging Darwinism is thwarted. Teachers trying to discuss these challenges with their students are censored. Even students are subject to harassment and prejudice for expressing views that are skeptical of Darwinism. Scientists, educators, students need your help to protect their academic freedom rights.

The year 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. As you can imagine, Darwinists have a full year of celebrations planned, and February 12th—Darwin’s birthday—is likely to be the high-water mark for most of those celebrations.

We hope you’ll have celebrations of your own, celebrations that will help to promote academic freedom in line with the words of Darwin himself: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Please join us in celebrating Academic Freedom Day, February 12th, 2009.

We want student groups and clubs to organize simple Academic Freedom Day events, on or about February 12th. These events can be as simple as having a table on campus where people can sign the Academic Freedom Petition and find out more about academic freedom on evolution. Or, the events can be more elaborate including screening Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, or Icons of Evolution, on campus.

For more information about Academic Freedom Day and academic freedom issues please e-mail academicfreedom@discovery.org.

Read more here: http://www.academicfreedomday.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enter Irreducible Complexity (e.g. bacterial flagella) and say goodbye to Darwinian Evolution, folks! Design requires a Designer.

Wait, I thought it was the eye that could not have evolved... no, no it was blood clotting that could not have evolved.... oh wait, Kirk Cameron told me it was the banana that could not have evolved....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the flagella thing is actually your sig because I don't seem to be able to quote it, but anyway:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Have fun. If you seriously have any questions, let me know.

I'll read it, although he begins his argument upon a lie. Evolution did not take hold right after Darwin's book. Quite the opposite. Darwin was ridiculed for his beliefs. It was a long, long time--not until the Scope's Trial--that it started to get a foothold. So I'm hoping the rest of the article is factual and logical.

But I will say upfront that any rational person looking at the diagram of the flagella would be insane to conclude that it wasn't designed. Oh, well. Who cares about rational and logical thinking any more? :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll read it, although he begins his argument upon a lie. Evolution did not take hold right after Darwin's book. Quite the opposite. Darwin was ridiculed for his beliefs. It was a long, long time--not until the Scope's Trial--that it started to get a foothold. So I'm hoping the rest of the article is factual and logical.

But I will say upfront that any rational person looking at the diagram of the flagella would be insane to conclude that it wasn't designed. Oh, well. Who cares about rational and logical thinking any more? :doh:

"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, this is a clever twist.

It's not about whether my empty religion-based beliefs have an ounce of scientific basis... its about denying ACADEMIC FREEDOM and CENSORING of BRAVE DISSENTING VOICES.

It's all in the presentation. :laugh:

Reminds me of another "presentation"..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." (no, he only got a blow job:cool:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll read it, although he begins his argument upon a lie. Evolution did not take hold right after Darwin's book. Quite the opposite. Darwin was ridiculed for his beliefs. It was a long, long time--not until the Scope's Trial--that it started to get a foothold. So I'm hoping the rest of the article is factual and logical.

But I will say upfront that any rational person looking at the diagram of the flagella would be insane to conclude that it wasn't designed. Oh, well. Who cares about rational and logical thinking any more? :doh:

The idea of evolution took hold pretty quickly in the scientific community.

A man that was called Darwin's Bulldog was named the President of the British Royal Society in 1883. That is still a PRESTIGIOUS position for a scientist and indicates the general acceptance of evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

You don't give a person to that position that is most famous for supporting evolution unless the general scientific body at the time supports evolution.

(Anyway, he didn't even say what you said he said.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do plan on sticking around this time or is this gonna be another hit-and-run attack where after your thread is dead and people refute your recycled arguments you leave and bide your time until you find another excuse to bring in your propaganda?

To answer from the reality of my life, I have one. :D Sorry, but I don't have time to sit out here hour after hour like I used to. Too many people need the Lord, so I travel with my family all over America telling them how to find peace. As I have time I will defend the truth. When that time runs out, I must go. My post today was time relevant, so I posted. But I do come out here from time to time to read what's going on. I just don't post all the time.

Sooooooo....maybe you should spend more time raking your own back yard before you try to rake mine. :D;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of evolution took hold pretty quickly in the scientific community.

A man that was called Darwin's Bulldog was named the President of the British Royal Society in 1883. That is still a PRESTIGIOUS position for a scientist and indicates the general acceptance of evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

You don't give a person to that position that is most famous for supporting evolution unless the general scientific body at the time supports evolution.

(Anyway, he didn't even say what you said he said.)

He said "almost from the moment," implying that it took immediately, and then he said, "like a prizefighter in the late rounds losing badly on points," clearly implying that Darwinism, from that "moment," to now has been the victor. I'm simply pointing out that Darwinism did not take hold anywhere near the "moment" of Nov. 22, 1859 when he first published "Origin." I did not misrepresent Miller.

But Huxley, a propaganda machine, did help Darwin's cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said "almost from the moment," implying that it took immediately, and then he said, "like a prizefighter in the late rounds losing badly on points," clearly implying that Darwinism, from that "moment," to now has been the victor. I'm simply pointing out that Darwinism did not take hold anywhere near the "moment" of Nov. 22, 1859 when he first published "Origin." I did not misrepresent Miller.

But Huxley, a propaganda machine, did help Darwin's cause.

I think his point is that the fight started pretty much immediately.

And there were certainly influential pro-Darwin people VERY early on. Lyell was very influential and encourage Darwin to publish and Wallace had even published something already moving in that direction so when Darwin published there were already people moving in that direction to be the "pro-Darwin" fighters.

Darwin's work wasn't like other influential work (i.e. Mendel's) which was essentially ignored for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From real scientists, with real credentials, who would make you look like a knicker-wearing school boy.

Do you even think through what you say? :rolleyes: Do you think the people behind this ID movement are rosey-cheeked, pot-bellied preachers who dream up this stuff at a redneck BBQ?

Did it ever occur to you for one little second that Darwin was a dissenting voice in his day? Something tells me that you would have decried his censoring.

Gotta love the hypocrisy!

ID is a non-starter from a scientific perspective because it makes no useful predictions. There are no useful hypothesis that flow from it other than some powerful force/person/species created life on Earth that if still exist today has the ability to avoid detection from us if it so desires.

And that isn't useful because it can't be disproven (I can't disprove God).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about whether my empty religion-based beliefs have an ounce of scientific basis... its about denying ACADEMIC FREEDOM and CENSORING of BRAVE DISSENTING VOICES.

From real scientists, with real credentials, who would make you look like a knicker-wearing school boy.

Do you even think through what you say? Do you think the people behind this ID movement are rosey-cheeked, pot-bellied preachers who dream up this stuff at a redneck BBQ?

Do you think that they opened up to the Book of Genesis one day and said, "I start here" and then formed their ideas and pigeon-holed their understanding of the evidence based on that beginning? Shoot, many of the ID crowd aren't even Christians. They weren't looking to be Christians. They simply looked at the evidence and came to the reasonable conclusion that the world and universe around us look incredibly, and undeniably, ordered, and from that they came to the further logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.

Did it ever occur to you that Darwin was a dissenting voice in his day? Something tells me that you would have decried his censoring. So why are you for censoring dissenting voices in our day? Voices that have many extremely valid arguments.

Your hypocrisy is amazing!

"If a book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it.
But for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose
." -Thomas Jefferson

No one here is asking for the teaching of creationism over evolution. What is sought is the academic freedom to debate the issues side by side without being ostracized or called a "quack," when all the world knows that these men and women aren't quacks. They are qualified scientists just as much, or more in many cases, than their evolutionary counterparts.

"
So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent
that, of the infinite numbers of men who have exited thro' all the time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe." -Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ID is a non-starter from a scientific perspective because it makes no useful predictions. There are no useful hypothesis that flow from it other than some powerful force/person/species created life on Earth that if still exist today has the ability to avoid detection from us if it so desires.

And that isn't useful because it can't be disproven (I can't disprove God).

Stating and proving that God created everything vs. an accidental, naturalistic explanation of origins is extremely useful. There are moral consequences to Darwin's conclusions. You can try to deny this as much as you want, but history doesn't lie. The entire basis of Hitler's evil philosophy, and the entire basis for such mistaken "science" as eugenics, came straight from Darwin. (And don't quote the nonsense that Hitler was actually an agent of God. He may have believed that, but he used his belief in evolution, and the "survival of the fittest," to carry out his deeds. Words are empty; actions carry the day.)

Some of these lesser informed on this board will mock what I just said, but they are simply ignorant, so I can understand their conclusions. How could what they consider "truth" be linked to such horrors? For they themselves would never approve of such things. Yet, it's true.

Others who do know the truth, but yet cannot accept it, will simply live in denial. I understand that what I'm saying here is a detraction from the main topic at hand. But I want it to be clearly understood that a belief in a Creator goes far, FAR deeper in the help and prosperity of the human race than Darwinism could ever go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire basis of Hitler's evil philosophy, and the entire basis for such mistaken "science" as eugenics, came straight from Darwin.

So Hitler took the science from evolution and did evil things with that information.

It's a good thing no one has ever done anything evil in the name of God. How could what they consider God the "truth" be linked to such horrors? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, this is a clever twist.

It's not about whether my empty religion-based beliefs have an ounce of scientific basis... its about denying ACADEMIC FREEDOM and CENSORING of BRAVE DISSENTING VOICES.

It's all in the presentation. :laugh:

How do you know they are empty? What is the science behind you calling a religion-based belief "empty"? Is it just because it doesn't have an "ounce" of science behind it that this makes it empty? Why don't you offer religion the same level of respect you demand for science and stay out of the debate? :)

My personal belief on this issue is that the methods by which data is collected is entirely different. Religion is about revelation and Science is about observation. Science and Religion should both stay out of each other's court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Hitler took the science from evolution and did evil things with that information.

It's a good thing no one has ever done anything evil in the name of God. How could what they consider God the "truth" be linked to such horrors? :rolleyes:

But if evolution--specifically Darwinsim--is wrong, then how gross does that error seem!! So we can safely say that if the lie of evolution never happened, Hitler may have never happened. Eugenics may have never happened. And a myriad of other ills that have come from an incorrect worldview. When you start on a shaky foundation the entire building is shaky.

There is a big difference between this and someone taking the truth and reality of there being a God, and doing evil in His name. Starting with the worldview that there is a God is correct. Twisting that worldview and making it conform to your own wicked ideas and philosophies (like Hitler did, the crusades, radical Islam, etc.) is wrong.

The difference lies in the basis for belief. The basis of Darwinism is Darwin's belief system, and the belief systems of those who thought like him. When you consider what he, and they, proposed, one can conclude and predict an Adolf Hitler.

On on the contrary, the basis for a true belief in God is the Bible. And anyone who cries "Foul" at the crusaders and Hitlers of the world only needs to open the Bible and see if their actions have any basis in truth. If they do this they will find no basis whatsoever.

Truth twisted is still truth. Error twisted exposes error. And therein lies the difference between evil done in Darwin's name and evil done in God's name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know they are empty? What is the science behind you calling a religion-based belief "empty"? Is it just because it doesn't have an "ounce" of science behind it that this makes it empty? Why don't you offer religion the same level of respect you demand for science and stay out of the debate? :)

My personal belief on this issue is that the methods by which data is collected is entirely different. Religion is about revelation and Science is about observation. Science and Religion should both stay out of each other's court.

You're agreeing with Predicto, you know. The issue Skinsfan51 is raising has nothing to do with the philisophical or theological approach to demonstrating the existence of God. It's about whether or not science can appropriately draw conclusions about a creator.

You can even see this in Skinsfan51s very objections to evolution. He decries Hitler's philosophy that arose from evolution, but that doesn't speak to evolution itself, which is neutral, as is all science. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima might be seen by some as murder, but that doesn't mean that Physics itself is evil.

Actually, in point of fact,

, a Christian philosopher (whom I might have quoted once or twice ;)) makes the case that evolution, if true, is actually evidence for the existence of God. Alvin Plantinga, another big name in Philosophy, has made a pretty compelling case against naturalism using evolution.

Nobody asked me (and probably for good reason ;)), but I tend to side with Predicto as well. I believe that God's existence can be demonstrated using philosophy, and science can certainly be a tool in that endeavor (providing data from which we can draw philisophical conclusions), but the supernatural is outside the realm of science itself, more or less by definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we can safely say that if the lie of evolution never happened, Hitler may have never happened.

:rolleyes:

This notion is ridiculous, even for you.

On on the contrary, the basis for a true belief in God is the Bible.

I agree, but when you write that, it kind of reduces your credibility when you write this:

Question. Why does the idea of a Creator get labeled as "religion"? What if it's true? What do you do with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...