Houston Chronicle against creationism, period


Today the Houston Chronicle’s editorial page spoke up. They don’t like creationism in any form.

Texas schools must have the best science and technology instruction possible to make the state competitive in a 21st century economy. A science class that teaches children that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that species did not evolve from species now extinct is not worthy of the name.

Churches and other private institutions are proper places for the discussion of religious beliefs. Public school science classes are not.

Where are the Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Abilene, Beaumont and Waco papers? Is anyone tracking?

About these ads

8 Responses to Houston Chronicle against creationism, period

  1. Parva Caepa says:

    The only resort to not having knowledge is to invent it. That is the origin of mythology. The intricate stories woven to make reality fit the narrow descriptions of nature in the Bible are interesting but totally fabricated myth. One giant flood created the endless topographical changes in the earth. God “aged” the earth just to make it look billions of years old. And so forth.

    The Yahwists were great story tellers in their attempt to explain the unknown story of creation. Theirs was a spiritual lesson not a lesson in biology, geology or any other scientific study.

    Like

  2. HannahJ says:

    As apparent from your comment, jah, you can’t tell sarcasm when you see it. Then again, one could blame the internet for that…

    While I may step down now (and am eager to see you prove your maturity by not having the last word), be warned. I’ll be back, be it even several years from now.

    Like

  3. j a higginbotham says:

    Based on her comments at Martin Cothran’s vere loqui, I doubt we will hear anymore from HannahJ (if it is the same person). Her posts here seem to have just about exhausted her knowledge as she doesn’t go into detail there either. Anyhow, it seems she is happier when people disagree with her than agree: “Four people … all picking apart my comment. I’m quite pleased. “

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    No, Hannah, that’s not it. In fact, that allegation was a part of the case in the Arkansas trial in 1981. Creationists alleged that Darwinian bias kept their science papers out of the science journals. Judge William Overton invited them to submit to the court several of the papers that had been written up on the science of creationism, but then were rejected by science journals. Creationists could not find a single paper on creationism that had ever been rejected by science journals. The truth became clear: Creationists don’t do research, hence no papers written, hence no papers published (or rejected).

    Since 1981 there have been approximately two papers claimed by creationists or intelligent design advocates as published supporting their claims. Neither paper involved new research; both were surveys of claims that might lead to a hypothesis. One of the papers was retracted. But the trial in Dover established, I think, that those were the only two papers submitted between 1981 and 2005. In 24 years, creationism was so sterile that it could not produce a single piece of research for a paper.

    So again my challenge: If creationism is science, where is the science? Where are the papers?

    If you claim bias against the papers, then please tell me what researchers, where, are conducting the research that is NOT published? If you take it to that next level of refutation, you’ll discover that there is not a single lab on Earth working on a creationism idea.

    If creationism is science, where is the science? We’re all from Missouri: Show us.

    I gave you the link to PubMed, the major public, free database of biology research. In the 30 years of papers covered in that database, you could not find one to support creationism? There have been a couple thousand such papers on evolution just in the major journals.

    So here’s the total of creationism science: No papers published, no research projects written up and rejected for publication, no research projects written up, no research projects.

    I refuse to accept such poor performance as adequate to make the point. You shouldn’t accept it, either.

    Like

  5. HannahJ says:

    “there is no such research published yet.” Might that be because (gasp) evolution-happy journals refused to believe that there was a slight possibility of their Darwinian research being less than correct? Look in the unpublished stuff.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    If you can show me a piece of research that doesn’t support evolution theory, I’ll pay attention to it. So, here’s the link to PubMed; can you find the ID research there? I can’t. Pepper Hamilton’s hotshot lawyers couldn’t. The lawyers from the Thomas More Center couldn’t. Be our guest.

    Let me remind you that the ID advocates at the Dover trial agreed there is no such research published yet. Of course, they were under oath and under penalty of perjury. Same as the Arkansas trial in 1981, as soon as they went under oath, they couldn’t find any of that alleged research.

    I’m tempted to insist all ID advocates be put under oath. It would certainly shut most of them up.

    Like

  7. HannahJ says:

    So you’re point-blank disregarding every single piece of research done that doesn’t support Darwinism. “We don’t like something. Let’s oppress those who do.”

    Like

Play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,333 other followers

%d bloggers like this: