A Product of the Warfare Thesis
Kopplin insists that there is no scientific evidence against evolution. While there is room for debate about particular biological evidences and exactly how they bear on the theory of evolution, there simply is no question that there is scientific evidence against evolution. Plenty of it. To deny that would be the height of anti science denialism. Yet this is precisely what evolutionists claim.
Kopplin explains that the church burned people alive for believing the Earth was round and that the Earth rotated the sun. A myth such as this is sure to move audiences, and is red meat for evolutionists, but it is, nonetheless, a myth. Historians call it the Warfare Thesis myth, but evolutionists won’t stop using it.
Not surprisingly Kopplin wants evolution to be taught in the public schools. But evolution is full of religious claims. Kopplin is pushing to have religious beliefs injected into the public schools—precisely what he claims to oppose.
This is the fruit of evolutionary thought.
Kopplin goes to school (Rice) a few miles from my residence, and I would love to hear him speak publicly about the people he believes are the problem. He is motivated by the problem he has with the Louisiana law that he believes is ruining his state's educational system. When it is pointed out to him that the law itself states that it in no way allows the teaching of religious beliefs, he will maintain that it is the ulterior motives behind the law that make it unacceptable. In other words this bright young man is really saying the problem is not what the law says but who the people are that wrote it and passed it, because he knows who they are, and they should not be involved in education decisions.
ReplyDeleteWell this bright young man and his allies have been rebuffed by the courts, perhaps not seeing the personal bias that they themselves are displaying (or anti-personal bias?). I believe the law was written with the help of the DI, as the TN law was. It is true that some school board members in the past believed that the law permits something that it does not: http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/07/29/livingston-parish-and-discover-institute-law/
So far the laws in the two states have proven bullet proof but materialist activists still have a problem with people not thinking like them. If anyone knows of Zack speaking in public can I have some questions for him here in Houston. I also have not found any blog where he posts regularly, his site repealcreationism.com seems to have petered out in 2013, maybe because of the failure to accomplish the goal he has in mind.
"Kopplin insists that there is no scientific evidence against evolution."
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty easy thing to insist when you get to decide what is and is not evidence.
In a way, he is right because data/observations/fact do not count as evidence for or against something until it is placed into a paradigm or it's meaning is interpreted.
So, for example, one piece of data that we have is that some machines/systems/organs, etc. are extremely complex and efficient. We know that these machines could not function without many of the genes they employ. We know that tweaking the genes can cause catastrophic problems for the functioning of these machines/systems. We know this from experiment. That is the data/facts/observations and they cannot be argued with.
What does it mean though? Here is where interpretation comes into play.
IDers point to this as evidence for Intelligent Design and irreducibly complex machines.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim the necessary parts of these machines already existed somewhere else in the cell and were co-opted for a new use.
BOTH of these statements are INTERPRETATIONS of the data! Neither can be proven by experiment.
Evolutionists believe that as long as they have an explanation, whether it can be tested or not, that is good enough to dismiss the interpretation of the ID/creationist side and therefore they think they are justified in making this kind of a bold claim that there is no evidence whatsoever against evolution.
Darwin's legacy to science was to accept storytelling as evidence! As Dr. Hunter says, "This is the fruit of evolutionary thought." Thanks a lot, Mr. Darwin!
As long as you accept untestable incredible claims like the co-option claim, then yes, in their minds, there is no evidence against evolution!
Zack evidently blindly accepts these stories as plausible explanations of what likely happened. The fact that they cannot be tested does not bother him; in fact, it probably makes him secretly happy because his claims cannot be falsified!
Exactly how these various parts that were co-opted evolved in the first place is not explained - just assumed. Exactly how these parts disassembled from their former use and properly re-assembled in a timely fashion for their new use by random processes is not known, but simply assumed. Exactly how the software was written to integrate the new machine into the cell is not explained, but simply assumed. This is one example of the faith of evolutionists.
Granted. ID cannot explain their side by experiment either. We too take it by faith that this is what happened. Dealing with history is difficult because testing and repeatability/direct observation is impossible.
So, which explanation better fits the facts? Opinion will vary on this, but this gets into worldview issues, not science. In spite of what we know to be true in human experience, somehow we think that when it comes to remote ancient history, impossible things can happen. "Miracles of chance" is said to be the "scientific" position because these miracles are not supernatural or from intelligence, but simply by chance. Chance is their god and they unashamedly/unapologetically worship it with all their heart.
Is there any bio sci evidence for evolution? How can there be sci evidence against a hypothesis? How would that work?
ReplyDeleteWhy is he bright? who says?
He is anointed by the establishment to fight the public who have no voice.
He betrays his state and would impose conclusions and ban opposition.
In short state control of truth in education.
The old commie way.
If he can say something is true then why can't anyone say its not true?
by the way.
teaching religious opinions is not illegal if they are true. otherwise the state would be banning a truth and teaching its not true and so that religious belief is not true.
so breaking the separation concept that is invoked for the attempted censorship.
just thinking from Canada..
Is there any bio sci evidence for evolution? How can there be sci evidence against a hypothesis? How would that work?
ReplyDeleteWhy is he bright? who says?
He is anointed by the establishment to fight the public who have no voice.
He betrays his state and would impose conclusions and ban opposition.
In short state control of truth in education.
The old commie way.
If he can say something is true then why can't anyone say its not true?
by the way.
teaching religious opinions is not illegal if they are true. otherwise the state would be banning a truth and teaching its not true and so that religious belief is not true.
so breaking the separation concept that is invoked for the attempted censorship.
just thinking from Canada..
What is the evidance
ReplyDeleteFor example:
Deletehttps://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/