My point here is not to particularly attack b4bigbang, it is to take this one pretty typical creationist claim and point out that it is an absolutely unsupportable falsehood, and that this is pretty typical
of creationist arguments.
The judge also declared that ID meets none of the tests of a scientific theory and that it is simply an updated version of century - old
creationist arguments against Darwin's theory of evolution.
This is the third post dealing with a recent aggregation of
old creationist arguments that has been making the rounds on social media, 44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults.
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 biology.
Nye's first two examples basically blew apart the
whole creationist argument — we have ice cores that demonstrate a history of over 680,000 years.
This attitude has also been held among scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some scientists founded a new journal, Creation / Evolution, a «Committee of Correspondence» and a Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and
dismantling creationist arguments.
The outcome rests with the Texas State Board of Education, whose 15 members will decide in November whether to accept newly drafted biology textbooks, which may
contain creationist arguments.
The problem of non-ancestral «ancestors», by Jim Moore (discusses the
common creationist argument that H. habilis is not a valid species)
This week I have been making my way through a list of old and
debunked creationist arguments put together by Michael Snyder (a young - earth creationist), giving the old arguments new life on social media.
A creationist commenter on a post of mine discussing
lame creationist arguments first admitted that he did not actually read my post, and then began to repeat the same tired creationists lies and logical fallacies we hear over and over again.
The Orwellian - named «Discovery Institute» is an organization dedicated to the promotion of Intelligent Design (ID), which is little more than a superficial repackaging of long -
discredited creationist arguments against evolutionary theory.They do not have a legitimate scientific program, although they desperately try to create the impression that they do.
Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating
the creationist argument by even showing up.
RS If they're anything like
the creationist arguments being presented here then I'm not missing much, am I?
It goes to
a creationist argument.
If
the creationist argument can't handle something as fundamental as the speed of light, how can anyone believe it?
You know
the creationist argument has been dealt with already.
It is his contribution to countering
the creationist argument that the fossil record is too patchy to support the theory of evolution.
This is
a creationist argument that is trotted out repeatedly despite being shown conclusively to be scientifically inaccurate many, many times.
The discovery is another blow to
creationist arguments that something as complex as a human eye could never evolve from simpler structures.
Feb 3, 1998: I added a Debates section to
the Creationist Arguments page, containing online debates with Richard Milton and Karl Crawford.