Mod Hat — Brief note It always feels unfortunate when greeting new members with both welcome mixed into warning, but here is some irony: Your list of three names can help people find a seventeen year-old page from a well-known conspiracist website, discussing three teachers accused of inappropriately weaving religion into science education, such that lessons sounded like sales pitches. Interestingly, what those names have to do with the rest of the post is unclear, but the next paragraph of your post, quoted above, is lifted, word for word, from Olivia McFadden, A Bird in the Hand: Some Thoughts Concerning Evolution, Creation, and the Teachings of the Catholic Church (Bloomington: Xlibris, 2009), page 19↱, and reads in your post like a sales pitch. If the quote is somehow otherwise connected to the Ashton book, that would be one thing, but you haven't really made that clear, and that last paragraph is quite clearly a lift of the subsequent paragraph in McFadden. Nonetheless, the paragraph quoted above does constitute plagiarism, and we really need people to avoid that. You don't even need modified MLA or anything formal like that; just author and title tends to be sufficient, and, it's true, sometimes the year is important. And in some cases, sure, famous quotes are often simply attributed. But the one paragraph is definitely plagiarism, and the other, about Ashton, would likely require citation in a university paper, or similar endeavor.
I think Truth1980 is most likely a drive-by troll who we won't hear from again. If we do, I might take a little time to respond to his unevidenced assertions regarding evolution, but at this point it doesn't really seem worthwhile. Notice, though, that he doesn't say what "field" he is talking about. He could very well be at one of the various Mickey Mouse religious "universities" that they have in the States, where mostly they study the bible and Christian apologetics. A lot of cherry picking goes on in such places, so that students are often exposed only to pro-Christian arguments and information, and shielded from information that might lead them to ask inconvenient questions. Truth1980 doesn't say exactly what "this field" is that he is studying. Maybe the relevant field is Evolution denial 101, or "Christian evidences against evolution 101" or similar. The only thing we know for certain is that it isn't proper biology.
My one son is a high school science teacher who has a young earther in one of his classes. He decided that confrontation would be a bad choice, and is leading up to evolution slowly. He thought Hutton and fossils would be a good place to start, and is proceeding as the student starts asking questions. .................. curiously, in our conversations on the subject we seem to discuss young eartherism as though it were a disease(mental illness) wanting a cure.
I think I see the issue; your evangelical minister is not a prominent scientist. Hope that clears up your confusion! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
btw: My posts in this thread, when they were moved here, were described by the moderator as follows: "I have moved your evolution denial to a new thread and a more appropriate forum." Posts 32, 38, and 40, here, are labeled "evolution denial". Officially. On a science forum. Casual as that may be, I submit that as worrying, in the context of creationist "disputes" with evolution. Unwary. These are in America essentially political, and aimed at abetting authoritarian influence on American education - to the detriment of science, among other libertarian endeavors. The driveby creationist here is well connected - not a stray, and not here for intellectual debate.
That message was supposed to go to the opening poster. It looks like everybody who posted in the thread received it. Don't worry. It was an error. You're not being persecuted. I agree he doesn't seem interested in debate, seeing as he just jumped in to make pronouncements on something he clearly doesn't understand. As for his connections, how can you tell?
The facts of evolution. Darwin provided an explanation for those facts. To refute Darwinian evolution, it is necessary to provide a better explanation. It could be called Creationist evolution or Alan Smithee's (if he is the author) evolution. Without a better explanation, Darwin's explanation wins by default.
"Alan Smithee" is a pseudonym used by Hollywood directors who don't want their name on the film's final form.
not withstanding that evolution is not by its inception non creationism. creationism could potentially be the act of creating evolution. the feel of the start of the content is around 14 years old male yelling for the first time wanting to be heard. looking for a voice. mostly parroting but not realising they are not really forming a self idiation perception of an idea. as you put it "trolling" is motly the same mentality theologically speaking for a moment, did Darwin ever declare he was no longer a christian ? i dont think so. thus his beleif in god was never up for arguement. the modern assertion that defines creationism to be at war with evolution is in fact the religious genocide attempt on public school science and forcing religion into public schools as a process of attempting control of society.[the act of dictators] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin
"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." "During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."[41]
