Sentences with phrase «by creationists as»

Ussher's work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old.

Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as «proof» that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.

Not exact matches

An Australian geologist who got his credentials dating rocks billions of years old, still selling his services as a qualified geologist, but also employed as as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research in the USA, where he supports a young earth.

Here's a geologist who received his credentials for dating rocks billions of years old, still selling his services as a geologist while being employed as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research.

However, he has also been employed as a «Creationist Assistant Professor of Geology» by the Institute for Creation Research.

As creationists often do when trying to attack evolution, they stack the deck by raising a bunch of questions evolution makes no attempt to answer.

The Creationists over at the DI cite him as being the leader of their Paleontology Research program even though, by his own admission, he has no credentials in the field.

«Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.

macro evolution is a term used as a smoke screen by creationists.

Fearful of having their books omitted from lists of «acceptable» texts, a number of publishers have acquiesced to creationist demands in various ways: by considerably reducing the space given to discussion of evolution, by referring to evolution as «only a theory,» by including creationist materials, or by placing references to evolution in a final chapter which the teacher could conveniently Omit.

Those are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they realized they couldn't deny evolution as an entirety anymore.

According to a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books by John Maynard Smith, the dean of British neo-Darwinists, «the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his [Gould's] work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.

Since creationists now claim that their putative «magic seed» volume is diluted 10 ^ 150 + times by inflation, their claim is now revealed as the most insanely erroneus idea ever devised by man!

Funny how creationists adamantly refuse to accept that they evolved from something so almost human as monkey, but have absolutely no problem blindly believing that they came from a mud dummy blown to life by a bearded old white guy.

Fortunately, I have a creationist friend, who has informed me that this can't be right, as the World is only one tenth as old (about 6,000) years and that all Australian Aboriginal languages were made by God in the Tower of Babel.

Mastropaolo belongs to the subset of creationists known as Young Earth creationists, who believe that Earth and its inhabitants were created by God some several thousand years ago - an account of which is laid out in the book of Genesis, in the Bible's Old Testament.

Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as «innocence.»

I think it is sad that, in the 21st Century, most major newspapers still carry astrology columns and that the Bronze Age mythology of Adam and Eve is still seen as true by about 40 % of the country, but things are changing slowly, as the inevitable forces of science and reason pry open even the most firmly closed of creationist minds.

Equally dangerous to science, however, if not more so, are those naturalistic scientists who play essentially the same game as the creationists, i.e., seek to lend credibility to their particular worldview by attempting to clothe it in scientific garb.

Please note, intelligent does not imply a human like being as God, by this definition... since part of it is beyond the human capability of conscious or unconscious perceptions... so creationists can stop celebrating.

I'm aware that young earth creationists, such as Ken Ham, try to make the story less implausible by stating that the story refers to «kinds» or «baramins».

Most Young Earth Creationists (Creationists who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old) believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by the waters of the flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 8.

As a result, the neo-Platonist tradition is becoming emboldened again, often encouraged by New Age spirituality (Goodwin's critics describe him as a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biologAs a result, the neo-Platonist tradition is becoming emboldened again, often encouraged by New Age spirituality (Goodwin's critics describe him as a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biologas a New Age mystic); Aristotelianism is likewise making a comeback, particularly in creationist arguments for the validity of concepts such as purpose and design in biologas purpose and design in biology.

EarthenVessel, the charactarization of religion as being anti-science has resulted from the resistance to change long espoused by the Catholic Church and the creationist resistance to evolution and a ~ 14 billion year old earth.

Creationist «well, what about the origin of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, the origins of life on this earth, the fact that the largest «gaps» in the fossil record correspond exactly with the organisms identified in the bible as being created by God, namely fish, birds, land animals and humans»

And the idea that a world of high - level sentient creatures could be created only through an evolutionary process is surely not a logical truth — as illustrated by all the creationists who deny that our world was so created.11 Hasker has defended his view of God only by implicitly giving it up.12

An ongoing attempt by creationists and believers to try to get the content of their beliefs on the same footing as science - based beliefs.

As shown by the Dover trial, creationists will use any underhanded, sneaky, backdoor attempt to get their religious views accepted as on par with sciencAs shown by the Dover trial, creationists will use any underhanded, sneaky, backdoor attempt to get their religious views accepted as on par with sciencas on par with science.

As for the Eye — Creationists only ever refer to the rhetorical portion of Darwin's statement in which he said «to suppose that the eye... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree» — but they never point out that he then went on to describe the evolutionary path of the eye — a theory which over a hundred years of careful research has confirmed.

Webb's conservative position on gun laws is well - known, but here he is on evolution: «This confrontation between religious and scientific theories is still unsettled even today, as creationists rationally argue that the living world could not have been fashioned without an «intelligent designer,» and that the theory of evolution as presented by the Darwinists still rests on scientific speculation that has yet to be proven.»

A creationist once held up a banana as proof of God but this is a fruit very much made by humans.

In January 2009, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) approved a policy that prevents Louisiana school boards from stopping schools using supplementary creationist texts hostile to evolution, such as books published by the Discovery Institute.

Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever - changing guises

Some liken the idea of teaching a Catholic version of science to the attempt by American creationists to have their version of evolution given as much prominence in the curriculum as Darwin's version of events.

Three things happened to the TEKS and all - science education standard that called for teaching the strength and weaknesses of theories, which had, back in the last time biology text books were adopted in the mid»90s, had been used as a club to beat publishers over whether or not they included weaknesses of evolution; by which they may enlist creationists and their claims, was taken out by the writing committees and attempted to be put back on several occasions actually by the school board members.

The fossils form such a neatly graded series, getting less and less ape - like and more and more human as they get closer in time to the present, that the most earnest creationist can do little more than muddy the waters by inflating and distorting the existence of points of disagreement between specialists, or trying to revive long since discredited Homo sapiens specimens once claimed to have been from extremely ancient deposits.

For example, the virulently racist creationist Louis Agassiz, as described by Stephen Gould in his book The Panda's Thumb.

Although the above two skulls look quite similar, most creationists claim that the first one (ER 1470) is human, while the second (ER 1813) is classified as an ape by the few creationists who even mention it.

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis.

Ironically enough, one of the best refutations of the idea that Neandertalism is caused by diseases such as rickets, syphilis or arthritis, is by a creationist author, Jack Cuozzo (1998, pp.275 - 279).

But neither are they part of the scientific vetting process; and they are definitely employed by special interests either that are anti-scientific in themselves (e.g., Creationists) or that have a concern to obfuscate or falsify scientific evidence, as in the cases you describe.

When I was «debating» evolution vs. creationism in DebunkCreation with creationists, every few weeks we would have a creationist come by with only a first name claiming to be a scientist but would refuse to even mention what his speciality was — and it soon became quite clear that the «scientist» knew very little about the scientific method or any area of science he chose to discuss, and as such was clearly not a scientist.

Following up on his impressive rebuke of evolution / science during last night's debate with Bill Nye, young - Earth creationist Ken Ham appeared on CNN to explain how global warming is also a lie, and that climate change, as we're observing it, can all be explained by original sin.

This is one common intellectual trick used by creationists — shift around your definitions as needed in order to manufacture apparent contradictions or at least confusion.

I can almost always predict what silly reasoning AGW denialists will use, because I'm already familiar with the reasoning used by AIDS denialists and other science denialists (such as young Earth creationists); Denialists tend draw on the same pool of tactics.

The IDers differ from the Creationists in that the Cers tried to attack evolutionary theory while holding fast to a literalist reading of Genesis — the 4004BC flood, whatever — and the IDers simply aim for «teaching the controversy», meaning that they want «Intelligent Design» to be part of the Biology curriculum as a counterpoint to evolution, but they are willing to concede ground on evolution so long as the «grand design» is kicked off by a creator (tacit in their educational material but the teachers know what to say to the students on this).