Saturday, January 08, 2011

My Darwinist trap is working

As I mentioned in the comments section of my previous post, my intention in drawing attention to a bill now before the Kentucky General Assembly (HB 169) that is being criticizing for being a plot to impose creationism on defenseless school children is not to support creationism. I happen not to be a creationist.

In fact the bill, which is similar to a bill passed last year in Louisiana that critics criticized for being part of a conspiracy to impose "Intelligent Design creationism" [sic], says nothing about creationism. And there is literally nothing in the bill that would impose it in any way shape or form.

In fact, the people now criticizing this bill for somehow imposing creationism are completely ignoring the fact that Kentucky law already has creationism on the books. KRS 158.177. Check it out:
In any public school instruction concerning the theories of the creation of man and the earth, and which involves the theory thereon commonly known as evolution, any teacher so desiring may include as a portion of such instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may accordingly read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby affording students a choice as to which such theory to accept.
This is already Kentucky law. So why would you need another law to say the same thing? What could this law possibly do to further creationism that current law doesn't already do?

The answer is, of course, nothing. So what good, then, is the bill?

The answer is: to show the absurdity and dogmatic nature of Darwinists who are willing to publicly oppose critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion in defense of their position.

It's sort of like fishing: you put our your lure and wait for the unsuspecting fish to bite: you put out the legislative lure and wait for the unsuspecting dogmatists to bite. And let me tell you: the Darwinist fish are biting big time. Just go and look at the comments section of my previous post, and you'll see the largely Darwinist peanut gallery in a feeding frenzy. I'm reeling them in right and left.

I've got them all on record now in opposition to critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion.

This is just too easy.

10 comments:

Art said...

Just remember - in Martin's eyes, the A Beka curriculum encourages "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion".

Martin has quite a different idea of these things than do most informed people.

Martin Cothran said...

What, are you just sore at the A Beka people because they haven't opposed critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion like you have?

Art said...

Well, let's see what Martin considers to be "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion":

The sequence of study found in all other current biology texts can implant a subtle evolutionary philosophy in the students’ minds.

Yup, that's some objective discussion.

The Bible, the oldest record of man’s past, reveals to us the close working association between created man (Adam) and other living things.

Yup, terrific logical analysis there.

Supporters of the punctuated equilibrium concept argue that most ‘missing links’ are missing from the fossil record because they never existed,

Well, bald-faced lies are appropriate for Highlands Latin. That's nice to know.

No true ‘missing links’ have ever been found to bridge the gaps between different kinds of organisms

More lies.

When a hypothesis has passed the test of many well-designed experiments and has the support of other scientists, it is referred to as a theory.

LOL. And Martin wants readers of this blog to think he knows something about philosophy. He probably agrees with A Beka. (Heck, he must. He forces parents to pay good money for this dreck.)

In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise. Give examples of truths recorded in the Scriptures many years before they were recognized by scientists.

More critical thinking. NOT.

Well, at least Martin's true vision of "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion" is on the record.

Art said...

Well, let's see what Martin considers to be "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion":

The sequence of study found in all other current biology texts can implant a subtle evolutionary philosophy in the students’ minds.

Yup, that's some objective discussion.

The Bible, the oldest record of man’s past, reveals to us the close working association between created man (Adam) and other living things.

Yup, terrific logical analysis there.

Supporters of the punctuated equilibrium concept argue that most ‘missing links’ are missing from the fossil record because they never existed,

Well, bald-faced lies are appropriate for Highlands Latin. That's nice to know.

No true ‘missing links’ have ever been found to bridge the gaps between different kinds of organisms

More lies.

When a hypothesis has passed the test of many well-designed experiments and has the support of other scientists, it is referred to as a theory.

LOL. And Martin wants readers of this blog to think he knows something about philosophy. He probably agrees with A Beka. (Heck, he must. He forces parents to pay good money for this dreck.)

In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise. Give examples of truths recorded in the Scriptures many years before they were recognized by scientists.

More critical thinking. NOT.

Well, at least Martin's true vision of "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion" is on the record.

Art said...

Well, let's see what Martin considers to be "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion":

The sequence of study found in all other current biology texts can implant a subtle evolutionary philosophy in the students’ minds.

Yup, that's some objective discussion.

Supporters of the punctuated equilibrium concept argue that most ‘missing links’ are missing from the fossil record because they never existed,

Well, bald-faced lies are appropriate for Highlands Latin. That's nice to know.

No true ‘missing links’ have ever been found to bridge the gaps between different kinds of organisms

More lies.

When a hypothesis has passed the test of many well-designed experiments and has the support of other scientists, it is referred to as a theory.

LOL. And Martin wants readers of this blog to think he knows something about philosophy.

In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise. ...

More critical thinking. NOT.

Well, at least Martin's true vision of "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion" is on the record.

Martin Cothran said...

I am receiving Art's comments in my e-mail but I'm not seeing them here. Another blogger says he is having a similar problem and said something about an overactive Blogger spam filter.

Here is the first of several of his posts. I'll post the others following:

Well, let's see what Martin considers to be "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion":

The sequence of study found in all other current biology texts can implant a subtle evolutionary philosophy in the students’ minds.

Yup, that's some objective discussion.

Supporters of the punctuated equilibrium concept argue that most ‘missing links’ are missing from the fossil record because they never existed,

Well, bald-faced lies are appropriate for Highlands Latin. That's nice to know.

No true ‘missing links’ have ever been found to bridge the gaps between different kinds of organisms

More lies.

When a hypothesis has passed the test of many well-designed experiments and has the support of other scientists, it is referred to as a theory.

LOL. And Martin wants readers of this blog to think he knows something about philosophy.

In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise. ...

More critical thinking. NOT.

Well, at least Martin's true vision of "critical thinking, logical analysis, and objective discussion" is on the record.

Art said...

Martin, the other posts were slightly-modified versions (with some formatting that went missing in the above). I was trying to change or trim items, expecting that some html or length issues were messing things up. No need to post them. Hopefully, it will be possible for others to figure out what was a quote from A Beka.

Sorry about that ...

Singring said...

Martin, the reason that passage you cite is still in the law is because nobody is using it to teach creationism. If they would they knew the instance they did the ACLU would run to the supreme court which has already ruled that teaching creationism in unconstitutional and have it struck down.

The new language is precisely engineered to circumvent that problem. Of course you know that, you just pretend not to.

'I happen not to be a creationist.'

I know. You prefer the snazzy new label: Cdesign proponentsist'.

Singring said...

'In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise.'

Goodness me.

It is embarassing that this is taught in any school anywhere.

Art said...

A Beka:

'In a paragraph, explain why the Bible is completely true and accurate when it speaks of scientific matters, although it is not a scientific textbook or treatise.'

Singring:

Goodness me.

It is embarassing that this is taught in any school anywhere.


Embarrassing? I rather suspect that Martin is proud that students at Highlands Latin are taught this.