Creationists at it again

Bill Buckingham, a devout Christian who rejected a biology text because it was “laced with darwinism” has succeeded in getting creationism onto the school biology curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania. This sickens me.

Bill wants to “give the balanced view of intelligent design and Darwin’s theory”. Intelligent design is just a fancy name for creationism, a faith based concept with absolutely no scientific grounding. Darwinism, or natural selection is a scientifically proven theory that has survived and grown for 145 years.

If Bill really wants to provide his students with a balanced view, then he also needs to consider the myriad of other creation myths that exist in the world. Of course this material is more suitable for a comparative religion course, but Bill seems to think it’s biology.

To get a clearer picture of Mr Buckingham, here’s what he had to say about the idea of removing ‘under god’ from the pledge:

“America was founded as a Christian country. While we welcome people from other countries, that doesn’t give them the right to change things. If they don’t want to say it our way, they can go back to the country they came from.”

How enlightened.

10 thoughts on “Creationists at it again”

  1. Nothing wrong with Bill’s introduction of “creationism.”

    It goes a little something like this: God created Darwin, who in turn enlightened us with evolution.

    P.S. The “other creation myths” doesn’t seem to include the Raelians. 😀

  2. God is definitely a theory that should be taught. It does not have to be presented in a
    “Christian” context. It seems funny that the only ones threatened by the theory of
    creationism are from the atheist religion. framboise lambic is far better.

  3. How do you propose to teach God in a non-“Christian” context? Or are you talking about a non-“Christian” God? Whichever God you’re talking about, why does he/she/it belong in a science class? How can the scientific method be applied to your God? Any God, by definition, is not a scientific theory.

    Atheism is not a religion, and atheists are not “afraid” of creationism. They are just appalled that it can be considered scientific in any way. Atheists are also not the only people who feel this way; there are plenty of non-fundamental Christians who can see creationism for the unscientific hooplah that it is.

    Yes, framboise lambic is excellent.

  4. Atheism is a religion. It is a specific system of belief built around God (or the absence
    of God), a code of ethics a philosphy of life. This religion moitivates what should and
    should not be taught in a classroom. I am not advocating the removal of the theory of
    evolution…even though it is not proven and experiments cannot prove evolution.

  5. Hmm, seems you are unable or unwilling to answer any of my questions, not that I expected you to.

    Atheism is an understanding that the universe can be explained without believing in any supernatural entities. It requires no belief, only an understanding of scientific evidence. Atheism has no moral code or code of ethics, atheists are free to choose their own morals and ethics.

    Atheism has nothing to do with what gets taught in a classroom. Even though atheism depends on science, it is not itself science. What motivates scientific education is the fact that science works and provides verifiable answers.

    Evolution, meaning natural selection, can and has been proven, and experiments have demonstrated natural selection. Breeding cows to produce more milk is basically an experiment in selection. Maybe you’re confusing evolution with the origin of life.

  6. True…I don’t think God should be taught in a science setting. I do think that the flaws
    in evolution should be taught and that other thoughts on the origin of life exsist.
    I disagree with your response to the atheism question. It does require a faith belief that
    there is no God. Scientific evidence does not point to the absence of diety. Most people
    have relative ethics. Atheism like every core belief or thoughts on God are so intrinsicly
    buried within us that it is impossible to separate its motivation from our conscious and
    subconscious descisions. Sorry I was not trying to avoid your earlier questions.

  7. Faith is not required to accept the absence of something. Not believing does not require belief. I don’t need any faith to accept that santa claus or the tooth fairy do not exist. If I spent all my time believing in the absence of things I would never get anything done. If something doesn’t exist, I don’t need to worry about it. The only things I need to be concerned about are things which exist which I cannot explain. For example, I cannot explain what happened before the big bang or how the big bang happened; that bothers me; but I do not need to invent fictional deities to fill that gap in my knowledge, I’m comfortable with leaving that unexplained until a reasonable and verifiable explanation presents itself.

    Vampires, hobbits, angels, demons, gods, leprechauns, bigfoots, aliens, pink elephants, one eyed purple people eaters, elves; I don’t need belief to not believe in those things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.