Intelligent Design SUV

Your SUV for two people is ready to go!

51 percent of the UK population state a belief in intelligent design.

Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey. By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent. Last Updated: 10:20PM GMT 31 Jan 2009

51 percent of the UK population state a belief in intelligent design, ID. While the survey did not specifically mention ID it was worded as thus.

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages"

What is the purpose of this article? To reflect society's views or to persuade readers to change their mind about issues.There is a definite bias against a Genesis account of Genesis. Richard Dawkins is given allegiance to twice for calling such Christians as ignorant.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings revealed a worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons. . . .

. . . Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is "pig-ignorant" about science.

In the conclusion of the article at least credence was given to theistic evolution. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury stated"

"I'm an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet."

In the United States evangelicals are strongly opposed to theistic evolution. It is interesting that Lord Carey uses that language as a Church of England Preacher. The Anglican Church is similar to the Episcopal Church in the United States. It is not considered evangelical at all.

Atheists Proclaim Praise Darwin on Billboards

Response from Article:

Freedom From Religion Foundation billboards honor Darwin. By Mike Miller — 1/28/2009 7:46 pm. he Capital Times, Madison, Wisconsin.

In earlier posts I commented upon the atheist advertisements on buses in the UK. Today I focus on the infamous 'Praise Darwin' billboards by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Just in time for Darwin Day, February 12.

Earlier campaigns hit as many as 15 states with slogans such as "Imagine No Religion," "Beware of Dogma," and "Keep Religion OUT of Politics." In addition to "Praise Darwin" the subtitle reads, "Evolve Beyond Belief."

Darwin Day is celebrated around the world annually by scientists and museums, and according to a Web site devoted to the celebrations there are currently 301 celebrations planned in 31 countries, not counting the new Madison billboard. The billboard features the Foundation's signature stained glass window motif along with King James biblical type face and also includes a picture of Darwin.

What will the result be of the campaign? Will Christians become less vocal over the issues of ID in public schools? I think those in the Science community who oppose intelligent design ideas should become angry over the campaign. The ads are implying an anti-religion agenda exists among all evolutionists. Teaching evolution will be perceived more than ever as teaching against God.

Tim Lahaye’s USA Today Opinion about United States Separation of Church and State.

Tim Lahaye’s USA Today Opinion about United States Separation of Church and State.

Faith-based ministries fit nation's history. Tim LaHaye, author and minister - Rancho Mirage, Calif. 1-29-08

Tim Lahaye, who wrote the popular Left Behind Series, commented about the biblical heritage of American government and schooling. The myth of separation of church and state has been promoted and repeated by public school officials for years. The emphasis has been to remain completely void of religious ideas.

Fact: The words "separation" or "church" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Fact: The only group prohibited from the establishment of religion is the government, as stated in the First Amendment. But our government has violated this requirement by prohibiting prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and by banning the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, and by denying the theory of "intelligent design" of man's origin in public school science classes.

Another myth that I have been exposing in the blog is that there is polarized front to mandate ID be taught in public schools. Because America has become full of frivolous lawsuits, liabilities have restricted teachers from sharing personal biases about religion. If a teacher is to be truly effective their needs to be a sharing of ones personae to the students.

Darwin versus Creationism - the great debate : Response

Darwin versus Creationism - the great debate. By Kate Whiting.Wednesday, 28 January 2009
So what of the future for creationism? http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

The Belfast Telegraph actually has an objective article relating to the creation - evolution debate in England. Professor Michael Reiss a biologist was attacked by the scientific establishment. This mountain of criticism did not come because he advocated ID or creationism, but merely suggested that a teacher be sensitive to questions students had who brought questions concerning creation and evolution. Reiss was forced to resign.

The article discusses a brief history of the struggle and Michael Reiss offers two potential outcomes for the future.

“One future which I hope we don’t have in the UK is that we become more and more like the situation in the US, in other words, a larger proportion of people are creationists and it becomes more and more difficult to discuss and teach evolution in schools and society becomes increasingly polarised,” Reiss says.

“Another possibility, which the optimist in me hopes is the case, is that precisely because there is now more discussion about these issues, we end up with a consensus about the role of education in both RE lessons and science lessons teaching in this area and there’s eventually a better understanding among people both of science and religion.”

Which Future Will Prevail in the UK?

It is interesting that Reiss did not give a third option for future of the UK. The third option is what Richard Dawkins and others hope would dispel all religious beliefs whatsoever. As one who believes in creation, I would hope the first future would prevail in the UK. Evolution cannot explain life origins when there is a recognition of a special creation of humanity. This view I have confidence will prevail and more scientists will brave the orthodoxy of religious evolution and declare Darwinian evolution needs to be laid to rest.

(Photograph of Michael Reiss by Frank Baron from: Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design click here for more information)

Introducing ID the Future

The Discovery Institute has informative podcast available weekly called ID The Future. Podcasts are archived going back to January 1, 2007. You can find the latest podcast by clicking here. They run about 10 minutes.

This week's podcast deals with the Texas State Board of Education consideration of new science standards.

Last week, the Texas State Board of Education met to consider a draft of their new science standards. At the meeting, the Board’s Chair, Dr. Don McLeroy did a remarkable thing – he gave the rest of the Board a science lesson, which began when McLeroy proposed a new standard regarding evolution. Listen in to this episode of ID the Future as Dr. McLeroy lays out a compelling case for the existence of scientific controversies over evolution.

Here is a statement regarding the podcast purpose.

The ID The Future (IDTF) podcast carries on Discovery Institute's mission of exploring the issues central to evolution and intelligent design. IDTF is a short, weekly podcast providing you with the most current news and views on evolution and ID. IDTF delivers brief interviews with key scientists and scholars developing the theory of ID, as well as insightful commentary from Discovery Institute senior fellows and staff on the scientific, educational and legal aspects of the debate.

ID and Creationism Close Cousins?

Texas Two-Step New York Times Response : Editorial. Published: January 25, 2009. (A version of this article appeared in print on January 26, 2009, on page A22 of the New York edition.)

The new standards dropped a phrase that had been in previous ones requiring students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories. Although that language may seem innocuous, it has been construed in recent years as code words for introducing critiques of evolution theory put forth by advocates of creationism and its close cousin, intelligent design.

ID and Creationism Close Cousins?

The New York Times Editorial Opinion called intelligent design and creationism close cousins. This is a common tactic to muddle the discussion of the relevance of ID being presented in public schools. In earlier decades there had been discussion in courts over the promotion of creation science. Intelligent design theories do not share a seamless connection with creation science. Creationism can mean several things, but the media has more commonly associated it with biblical literalism.

Very briefly here are five big reasons why ID and creationism are not close cousins.

1. ID does not refer to the Bible whatsoever in its inquiry.
2. ID does not address the biblical claim of a worldwide flood.
3. ID does not infer that fossils are a product of a worldwide flood.
4. ID does not promote the idea that all language groups were formed at Babel, as the Bible declares.
5. ID does not promote a young earth.

If there can be any comparisons made between ID and creationism it might be 3rd cousin twice removed. Certainly not close cousins!

Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution: Response

The Discovery Institute gave kudos this week to the New York Times. They actually reported accurately what the Texas Academic Freedom Bill represents. If one wants to see how media bias operates, then the issues of ID, creationism and evolution debates are a place to look.

I wish the New York Times would have offered the rebuttal to the assumption science is in danger with ID teaching.

Split Outcome in Texas Battle on Teaching of Evolution. By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. Published: January 23, 2009

But some defenders of evolution said the amendment was intended to engender doubt in students about what most biologists accept as fact: that evolution occurs, even if there is debate about how and why.

The fact that evolution occurs in observation is not debated by ID proponents. evolution meaning genetic changes from progeny to progeny is not disputed by ID scientists and scientists who advocate creation. (there is a difference in these two types of scientists.)

Friday’s voting capped two days of discussion on the state’s science standards, which are routinely revisited every 10 years. But the final vote does not come until March.

Whatever the 15-member board decides then will have consequences far beyond Texas, since the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation. The new standards will be in place for the next decade, starting in 2010, and will influence the writing of the next generation of biology texts, which the state will order this summer.

Though the requirement to teach strengths and weaknesses of theories was first adopted here two decades ago, teachers have largely ignored it. But it has taken on new importance in recent years, as groups questioning Darwinism have invoked the mandate in raising objections to evolution’s being taught to the exclusion of other theories.

We will be waiting and seeing what Texas does in the March meeting. Between now and then, there is a hope that critics of ID will actually realize what the issues are about. Children in public schools do not deserve to be brain washed into thinking there is only one way life came into existence.

ID Scientists and Evolutionist agree - Darwin's Bad Tree

Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists.

It has taken 150 years for a news story to reflect what ID and Creation scientists have been saying for decades. Darwin's tree is dead. The UK Telegraph reported this today.

Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists.Last Updated: 10:01AM GMT 22 Jan 2009
Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
He says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.

Dr Bapteste said: "The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it's time to move on."

Darwin's model is no stranger to controversy. It has played a key role in the much larger debate with creationists who are convinced life on Earth is so complex it could only have come about from intelligent design – in other words, the hand of God.

I think the next change in scientific text books is a section about the controversy of life from non life. As more information is discovered, the complexity of life is more revealing. ID scientists have no fears of future discoveries. Only much interest.

The Texas Battle for Academic Freedom for ID has Publicly Begun

This morning there was much discussion in Austin, Texas regarding the Academic Freedom rules. This rulling will allow teachers in public schools the freedom if they wish to teach about the controversy of Darwinian evolution. This controversy is certainly true in the realm of how life came from non life. Anika Smith posted the following on All Eyes on Texas. (January 21, 2009 8:51 AM)

We're down in Austin, covering the Texas Board of Education hearings today, and this morning's public testimony is... well.. interesting. To say that there is interest in this issue is an understatement -- the room is packed with people standing along the walls and sitting with their laptops on the floor, waiting for their turn to get a word in on this controversy.

It's interesting to hear the testimonies from both sides in the public. We just had a mother speaking in favor of keeping "strengths and weaknesses" in the science standards who shared how her children's AP biology teacher would not allow any questioning of Darwin's theory -- the Board members called it "intimidation," and that doesn't seem far off:

Here are some of the complaints of allowing teachers the freedom to discuss ID.

UT-Austin professor Arturo de Lozanne, who rather sweetly told the Board that the strengths and weaknesses language would destroy the scientific supremacy of the great state of Texas.

How is Texas declared a scientific supreme state? What are the studies which show this? Has an intelligently designed study been created to determined this? Did Texas evolve into a supreme example of scientific excellency?

Students who question evolution "fall behind their peers in admissions."

What studies declare this? What type of evolution are you talking about? observable genetic changes or make believe stories of how life came from non life.

This is an invitation for pseduoscience to harm us all.

How will we be harmed? What are the studies to show we will be harmed? How would a teacher sharing the controversy of ID for 10 minutes doom their students?

Testimony scheduled Wednesday in curriculum debate : Response

In the next couple of weeks more news will be seen regarding Louisiana's rules that were adopted for their department of education. Texas will also be spotlighted for similar legislation. A different ruling is being discussed in Mississippi regarding textbook stickers. I think MS should focus more on the same legislation that LA and TX are focusing upon.

It is important to sift through the propaganda that ID proponents are requiring teachers teach ID. This is not the focus on the rules in Louisiana and Texas. This sets these states apart from the Dover, PA ruling three years ago. The Dover school board without contacting Discovery Institute required ninth grade science teachers to read a statement that ID is a possibility. If one were to read the statement it would take about 75 seconds. Because of this, the Dover, Pennsylvania trial lasted six weeks and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

See: Testimony scheduled Wednesday in curriculum debate

For a response of the Discovery Institute regarding the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District lawsuit visit this link.

Louisiana Creates: New Pro-Intelligent Design Rules for Teachers: Response

The rhetoric is getting nasty since a week ago new pro-intelligent design rules for teachers were introduced in Louisiana. A creation believing science teacher dared to comment about it on blogs.sciencemag.org. I do not agree with spending much time on evolution of life from non-life or creationism, I think there is strong academic merit in acknowledging the controversy.

In an earlier posts I mentioned the new Louisiana legislation. Below is a comment of interest from someone named Karl.
Louisiana Creates: New Pro-Intelligent Design Rules for Teachers. January 15, 2009. by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. from http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/louisiana-creat.html

By Karl Priest on January 16, 2009 7:45 PM
I am a recently retired public school teacher. For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials as well as the ACLU I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science. I always let the students figure it out for themselves.

The lack of civility of those opposing Louisiana’s laws are obvious in responses to post. The hatred of religion is shown in these Science Frogs postings. I mean Science Blogs. The study of science is supposed to be built on objectivity and not subjectivity. In response to Karl’s posting as a science teacher the following comments are made.

PLEASE ENTER THE WORLD OF REALITY. I can believe milk and cookies will magically appear in front of me. But there is no scientific reason to think so.

The folks teaching creationism in schools really need to be taken out of the gene pool before they contribute their defects. Otherwise, we're going to end up with some very skewed evolution . . .

Please explain the math that convinces you there is a god, or am i just suppose to have faith with no evidence?

Guess I'll have to cancel those plans I had to travel to Louisiana and spend lots of money. Oh wait, I had no such plans...

Another crackpot, the world is full of them.
The history of Christian theology is entirely build on a collective delusion.

Shame on you Karl for allowing dogma to cloud your judgment as an educator. Your legacy will be one of embarrassment and contempt.

My favorite response to Karl's posting was:

Lousiana apparently likes their students ignorant. To each their own.

Notice how they spelled Louisiana. I am sure their education system was far superior than any Louisiana offers. :-)

As I have insisted in previous posts, the study of evolution of origins of life can be accomplished in one sentence. “We currently do not know how life from non-life took place.” Most creationists understand that evolution is not an ugly word. Evolution processes are not disputed by creationists in the realm of observable or empirical science.

Any good science teacher that has a bias toward ID or creationism or evolution is going to enforce empirical science is the focus of all scientists today. Conclusions about origins of species are based upon suppositions of natural methodology.

Any good science teacher in Louisiana will be focused on equipping their students for standardized tests, such as the ACT or SAT. This is what colleges primarily look for in determining the academic standing of students. In light of the fact that 10 - 20 percent of a class room session is devoted to taking roll, calming kids down, taking up homework etc. it is amazing that people are so upset about the idea that God did create the Heavens and the Earth.

Creation music video. I Believe: from Creation Calls

Creation music video. I Believe: from Creation Calls by Brian Doerksen. This is a cool song and video.

Creation stories in science class? Response

I imagine that many periodicals will be comparing ID and Creationism with numerous fanciful stories. As one can read in my previous postings, there is a fundamental difference between ID, creationism and myths. That difference is that there are scientists that do advocate ID and creationism for the causation of everything. Below is a portion of an article from The Independent. http://www.theind.com/content/view/3729/92/. Creation stories in science class?. By R. Reese Fuller. Friday, January 16, 2009

Patti Garner of the Louisiana chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State brings up an interesting point about the Louisiana Science Education Act. Now that the restriction prohibiting the inclusion of religious beliefs (specifically that a supernatural being created humankind) has been removed by BESE in a vote of 10-0, aren't all creationism beliefs and stories now fair game for presenting in science class? Can teachers now advance Muslin, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aztec, and Mayan creation stories in the science classroom to balance the theory of evolution? Garner says, "They can conceivably teach their point of view about the start of life, and that would prove that this is a creationism bill because people would be in an uproar about that." Can any creation story (and there are plenty) now be taught as science?

Evolution has a make believe story as well.

It is interesting that the Louisiana chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State would make this act an issue. Humanism is a registered religion with the United States government. It is listed as a religious faith which stands against religion. Lawyers could make the case that because life from non life is not a fact, then it is a religious tenant of Humanism. Boys and girls let's learn about how over billions of years rocks appeared from microscopic atoms. These rocks were rained on for millions of years until goo formed. The goo grew and grew and grew. Because the goo grew and grew and grew we now have you. How do we know this happened? Scientists imagined that it took place.

The Difference Between ID and Astrology Teaching

Critics of ID have lavished over an editorial cartoon which suggests that astrology , alchemy, phrenology and magic should be taught. This posting is a response to this particular criticism. See my earlier postings where I discuss creationism and public schools.

How much time does the average science teacher spend teaching about evolution? I would not think very much time at all. One reason I am for the Academic Freedom movement is to support teachers in the way they teach and students in their expressions. Teachers should not fear being fired for at least acknowledging controversy exists.

The difference between ID astrology, (even Chinese horoscope), alchemy, phrenology and magic is that there are numerous scientists who advocate some form of ID publicly and quietly. Not all ID scientists agree the same. For example Behe has expressed an openness to common decent in his book "The Edge of Evolution." Visit my blog for more responses to evolution and creation in society. www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.

Louisiana Passes Rules Implementing Historic Academic Freedom Act: Response

Will Louisiana's new Academic Freedom Act serve as a model for other states? In reading it's description their is no mandate that creationism or ID has to be taught in science classes. On the other hand would it also allow teaching of a stork that brings babies to waiting parents? How about leprechauns creating the earth?

Will astrology and alchemy be taught alongside with creationism?

Read below the Discovery Institute's article entitled "Louisiana Passes Rules Implementing Historic Academic Freedom Act" Posted by Anika Smith on January 15, 2009 8:59 AM

The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted unanimously to adopt rules today implementing the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the landmark academic freedom bill passed last summer.

The rules approved by the BESE effectuate the academic freedom bill’s purpose to allow teachers to use supplementary materials to teach controversial scientific theories without threat of recrimination.

The wording in the act makes the distinction of controversial scientific theories can be expressed. The difference between creationism and astrology, alchemy and other beliefs is scientific controversy. Where are the scientists that advocate astrology or Alchemy?

Let Scientists Views on Origin be Known!

Their are thousands of scientists who have given significance credence to the theory of intelligent design, creation or at least theistic evolution.

Even the famous Ken Miller who was a witness for evolution in the Dover, PA trial advocates a type of intelligent design. See "Catholic scientist has faith in both God and evolution." He believes that at least the laws of the universe were ordained for evolution to take place. Should not this view also be expressed?

Water and methane together equal life on Mars? Response

I commented on the Times of India website regarding the article, Water and methane together equal life on Mars?(15 Jan 2009,).REUTERS

WASHINGTON: New observations of the atmosphere on Mars show fairly large amounts of methane along with water vapor in the summertime— the
strongest suggestion yet that living organisms might be producing the gas.

NASA scientists stressed that there is no direct evidence that anything living produced the methane, which could be produced by volcanic activity, could be made by live microbes, or could be left over from long-extinct life.

NASA has started their donation campaign early this year. Water and methane on Mars is not news. Millions of humans on earth are dying due to diseases that can be cured through scientific research. Go ahead dig away at your dirt on Mars NASA. Please do not use my tax money. Evolution did not take place on Mars. www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.

Creationism slowing economic development in Louisiana?

The Bayou Buzz website while finding a place on Google's News source lacks website design and congruency. Here is the headline and news following. Concerning Creationism in Louisiana this week: The idea that teaching creationism will slow economic development is laughable.

Will “Creationism” be taught in elementary and secondary schools in Louisiana?
That will be the question as the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education discusses the issue perhaps as early as Tuesday.

Some opposing the idea believe it will be a real setback for economic development. Last year, the concept became law and signed by Governor Bobby Jindal. How it is applied depends upon the guidelines applied by the BESI Board Board. There are complaints that creationism is teaching religion in the classroom. There are also fears that the guidelines adopted could lead to lawsuits.

I thought the comment by Written by Neil Thomas on 1/13/2009 on the same page was interesting relating to Bobby Jindahl's education.

The viewpoint that evolution is the only scientific method of explaining life is improper. The idea that intellectuals believe in evolution and only dolts accept creationsism is misguided. For purposes of education, both can be taught without introducing religion into the classrooms. Creationism is but an alternate theory. Both evolution and creation are theories, with neither theory confirmed as an absolute scientific fact. Be mindful that Bobby Jindal is a Rhodes scholar with an advanced degree in Biology. All religions explain the universe through creation. Thus, no one religion is being advanced for purposes of academic discussion in the classroom

The fact that Bobby Jindal is a Rhodes scholar is fascinating in this discussion of origin beliefs. As I have posted in previous blog posts, creationism does not dumb down students in academia. Not one scientist will suggest absolutely that life arose from non-life as a fact. Science will not allow this to be stated in such terms. The prophet Isaiah quoted the Lord's words:

For this is what the LORD says - he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isa 45:18

Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab : Response

Nearly is not Nearly Enough!

Fox News had in their main head line today “Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab.”Tuesday, January 13, 2009. By Robert Roy Britt. I think the headline is highly inaccurate with it’s use of the word “nearly.” I think an objective scientist after reading this news story would also object to the word “nearly.”

One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:
Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Notice the words Perhaps, maybe and possibly. These are words that are filled in textbooks on Science. It is interesting the article does not address the "possibility" of panspermia or seeds of life from other planets.

Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested that cellular life arose from other planets they call it the frozen accident theory. This is interesting because of Crick and Watson's ground breaking discoveries involving DNA. The evidence of incredible complexity in a single cell demands one to either consider a designer or ignore the creator all together.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened.It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

This paragraph describes intelligent design. The molecular enzymes were placed in a specific place under controlled laboratory arrangements. Read further:

DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell. DNA and the genes within it are where mutations occur, enabling changes that create new species.

RNA is the close cousin to DNA. More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA.

RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap.

In today's world, RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles, which include coding for proteins.

Once again observe the phrase RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. The assumption is given that life is 4 billion years old. How could this be? It all about assumptions in order for evolution to take place.

The world of imagination takes place because today's world is not conducive to creating life. The picture to the left demonstrates an artists imagination of how the world once existed. Notice how big the moon is.

How convenient for the atheist to place so much authority on blind chance for life to form. -John Martin. www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.

Website urges teachers to undermine creationism

As if evolution promotion was not getting any stronger. Teachers in California are urged to challenge student's religious beliefs while promoting evolution. Of course this happens all the time on a college level by individual professors. Why should children be challenged for their faith in God by public school teachers?

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 1/13/2009 7:00:00 AM
A government-funded website in California is promoting harmony between religion and evolution. Christians have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court against the website.

According to a Pacific Justice Institute press release, the website is urging public school teachers to "challenge [their] students' religious beliefs that evolution contradicts their faith." Lower courts have sided with the schools so far, according to PJI attorney Brad Dacus, who is taking the case to the nation's high court.

"[This lawsuit comes] after unsuccessfully stopping the University of California-Berkeley from continuing a program that is all about training teachers to undermine children with traditional religious beliefs about creation, and instead actually persuading them theologically why evolution is correct," he explains.

Dacus believes the state of California is funding a campaign against religion. "This lawsuit is all about funding a program that is outright anti-religious -- and that is a clear violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as well as the free exercise of religion," he points out.

Public school teacher need not worry about a child's faith. Real faith in God will be tested regardless of a state mandated indoctrination of atheism. This movement shows the ostentatious audacity of some militant atheist.

ID does not promote ignorance!

This is a response to a blog that appeared on a Richmond, Indiana blog posting on January 12, 2009. From the website pal-item.com.

Focusing on ID along with evolution will not dumb down America’s youth. One main reason why America is doing poorly compared to other nations is America's government school system. This is primarily due to low expectations in mathematics courses and reading comprehension.

Evolution acceptance has nothing to do with practical areas of science education. To understand chemistry and Physics, for example, one must understand algebra, geometry and calculus formulas. These formulas are observed by students worldwide. Why are students in North America lagging? Not because of evolution’s acceptance.

To really understand biology one must understand organic chemistry, physics and statistics. What do high school students get in a biology course? For the most part they only get taught a bunch of information with little to no laboratory interaction in the area of genetics, animal behavior or field studies.

Evolution or Intelligent Design acceptance has nothing to do with how successful a student will become. These are ideas that should be allowed to be discussed freely by professors and students. In conclusion, why should much time be spent on the topic of origins of life anyway? Empirical science should be the focus of America's youth in the science classrooms.

What will result from the atheist bus ads?

The atheist advertisements on bus campaign is about over. Thank God! Perhaps now a survey can be done to check out it’s effectiveness. Are people happier now because they have been told that God ‘probably’ does not exist? (See my previous blog post)

Are more people convinced that evolution is the only way life became into existence? Are people that believe in this less worrisome?

Some are questioning the UK’s atheist bus advertisements on legal grounds. Worldnet daily reported about the campaign in an article entitled "God doesn't exist? Proof demanded! Dispute is latest in war over bus advertisements." Posted: January 10, 2009. 12:30 am Eastern. © 2009 WorldNetDaily

Officials with the Christian Voice in the United Kingdom have brought the issue of the truthfulness of the "no-God" ads to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, which regulates ad statements across the nation.
"Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers," said a statement on the organization's website. "This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their produces or services before an ad appears.". . .

"Well, I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code anyway, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist," he said.

"The ASA does not just cover goods and services, it covers all advertising. The advertisers cannot hide behind the ASA's 'matters of opinion' exclusion, because no person or body is named as the author of the statement. It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules."

It is doubtful that any legal action will be effective for the atheist bus campaign, but hopefully this type of advertising will not take place again. $200,000 went into the advertising. What is the benefit? Perhaps the British Humanist Association will grow in members. Richard Dawkins also contributed to the effort. Perhaps he will take a survey to see how many Britain citizens worried less due to the advertisement which says "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."