Sunday, February 07, 2010

Creationists hold fair in West Bend to prove evolution wrong.

Lord, forgive them.

Welcome to Wisconsin Christian News

“Why Do 1,000 Scientists (and Growing) Believe Darwin Was Wrong?” That is the banner on the “What’s the Evidence?” fair booth which has been at Waukesha and Washington Counties this summer and is scheduled to be at Dodge and Sheboygan County fairs.

“A lot of folks come to the booth and admit to having questions about the Creation and Evolution controversy. They tell me they grew up confused, being told in church that God created them and going to school to be told that they evolved from apes,” says Mary Weigand of West Bend, Wis., founder of the booth.

It's nice that the wife of one of our creationist school board candidates is out continuing to confuse the youth of America about science. I know that Mr. Weigand will bring this same determination to the school board, should he win.

I'm still trying to work out what makes this Christian, since plenty of Christians believe in evolution too. Those Christians are probably simply being misled by their own capacity to reason and in this way, of course, by Satan.

Satan probably explains why I did so poorly in math in high school too.

26 comments:

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Mark,

I'm still confused how one can be "Christian" if one does not beleive in Christianity's basic core tenant---the need for Christ to redeem you from sin.

If one denies Creationism, they deny mankind's fall into sin and the need for Christ to redeem you from sin.

If one denies the basic need for Christ to redeem you from sin, that person may be many things, but "Christian" is not one of those things.

I don't think one can call themselves "Christian" when one denies the religion's core tenant---the need for Christ's redemption from sin.

Denying the story of creation denies the concept of sin and the very need for Christ.

John Jost said...

Mary Weigand has not yet RTFM, "read the f* manual". The theory of evolution does not propose that humans "evolved from apes", but that both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Since she is covering her ears and singing "lalala, I can't hear you", she will say it again tomorrow.

John Jost said...

From Wisconsin Christian News:

"What if I keep most of the Commandments?
Sorry. God requires absolute holiness and perfection."

I have had my laugh for the day.

Mpeterson said...

I try not to talk about my own religious views Kevin, since I don't think they're anyone else's business.

So I guess I'd ask you: are you just curious here, or do you really need to know?

Free Lunch said...

Creationists are very, very good at using The Big Lie to mislead people about the scientific discoveries related to evolution. The only sort of creationism that is remotely tolerable, when it comes to reality, is theistic evolution, because it doesn't deny the evidence. Those who ask "where's the evidence" as if there is none are telling lies.

It would be nice if Mary's husband either said that there is no way he will ever try to include any religious doctrines like ID/Creationism or try to insist on misleading critiques of evolution in a science class or told the taxpayers of West Bend that this is his intent and that they should expect to spend millions defending Mary's proposal in a losing waste of taxpayer money if he can get a majority.

We need to remind the Creationists that they do not have any science supporting their "alternatives" and that they have nothing but religious doctrine. They have to remember that teachers cannot teach this doctrine in public schools and that ID/Creationism lost big in Dover, Pa.

Free Lunch said...

If one denies Creationism, they deny mankind's fall into sin and the need for Christ to redeem you from sin.

Why do you appear to claim that the only way to be a Christian is to deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution that has been discovered by scientists over the past century and a half? Do you really think that God went to a huge amount of trouble to mislead everyone about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the age of life on earth and the common ancestry of life on earth? Why would He do that?

For what it's worth, the lies that support Young Earth Creationism were important in driving me away from religion.

Grant said...

I don't think one can call themselves "Christian" when one denies the religion's core tenant

Teach the controversy!

Free Lunch said...

Teach the controversy!

No kidding. Kevin's done a fine job of bringing out the bagpipes and haggis. No doubt in his mind everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and he cannot admit that his religious position is very much in the minority within Christianity. He would rather say that the billions of Christians who do not agree with his teachings are not Christian.

Any bets on if we would discover that his view of the world is unique, that there are no other Christians who believe exactly as he does?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Peterson,

My name is Skip Evans and I'm the president of the Wisconsin chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as the vice president and founder of Wisconsin Citizens for Science, a grassroots group formed to support quality science education in Wisconsin.

I'd very much like to talk to you about the creationism problem there in West Bend. If you could please contact me I'd appreciate just a small amount of your time.

Skip Evans
skip@penguinsites.com

DanBack said...

"It would be nice if Mary's husband either said that there is no way he will ever try to include any religious doctrines like ID/Creationism or try to insist on misleading critiques of evolution in a science class"

I've asked him twice via his blog and he won't respond. Which is as good as responding I guess.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

I've always been a proponent that the cure to speech that is disagreeable... is more speech.

Evolution zealots want to censor the all the alternative "theories" about how humanity came into being from children.

That's where my problem is. Not the evolution religion itself, but the advocacy all other religion needs to be censored from children in the public square.

Anonymous said...

"A modern believer can say and even believe that his faith is quite compatible with science and medicine, but the awkward fact will always be that both things have a tendency to break religion's monopoly, and have often been fiercely resisted for that reason. What happens to the faith healer and the shaman when any poor citizen can see the full effect of drugs and surgeries, administered without ceremonies or mystifications? Roughly the same thing as happens to the rainmaker when the climatologist turns up, or to the diviner from the heavens when schoolteachers get hold of elementary telescopes."

Anonymous said...

On the creationism thread at B(&)S, a so called conservative named Smeety basically said he wants the West Bend public school system to fail. My bet is that He and several of the flock are banking on the creationism ticket and the $2mil in litigation fees that would follow. They want more financial problems for public education in West Bend; they want failure.

Why do constitutionalist hate America?

Why do constitutionalist hate your average Joe's kids getting a shot at a better life through public education so they can kick in more money later towards social security and the capitalist system?

Free Lunch said...

Kevin wrote:

Evolution zealots want to censor the all the alternative "theories" about how humanity came into being from children.

There are no other scientific theories. There is no censorship. Your accusation is mistaken.

Evolution is a fact. The mix of genes in the population of organisms does change over time. The theory that explains the fact is the theory of evolution. As I said, it is the only scientific theory that explains what we know about evolution. It is sad that you are unable or unwilling to learn about it.

Your allegation that there is an 'evolution religion' is erroneous. I don't care if your errors about evolution are because of your ignorance, your foolish willingness to listen to the preachings of a minister who does not know science, intentional dishonesty or all of the above. Your opinion about evolution is indefensible. You need to start to learn a little about science before you make more false accusations.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free Lunch,

That's where your difficulty is: Evolution a theory...not "a fact".

Someone looked at the data and derived a theory at how humanity came into being.

Someone else could look at the same data and theorize it was divinity.

Why are you trying to censor the latter interpretation?

Its the same issue with the theory and religion of global warming. People look at the same data and come to a different "theory".

Kids should learn all intepretive theories, not just the narrow athiest academic ones.

I suppose creation books in the children's section of the library are verboten? Especially if that library is in the school?

That's why I love this issue, its tough for liberalism to come to grips with its overt and rampant intellectual censorship.

Free Lunch said...

Kevin's comments in italics

That's where your difficulty is: Evolution a theory...not "a fact".

No. Evolution happens. There are a huge number of facts that show that it happens. The theory of evolution explains why it happens.

Someone looked at the data and derived a theory at how humanity came into being.

That data is what shows that evolution happens.

Someone else could look at the same data and theorize it was divinity.

That claim is not in any way a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence that any divinities exist or have anything to do with evolution.

Why are you trying to censor the latter interpretation?

Teachers teach science in science class. Your 'interpretation' is not an interpretation of scientific evidence. It has nothing to do with science. If you want creation myths taught, do it in a comparative religion or literature class.

Its the same issue with the theory and religion of global warming. People look at the same data and come to a different "theory".

No, scientists do not.

Have you ever read or seen Thank You for Smoking? It's a story that shows how corporate lobbyists will say anything, no matter how dishonest to try to mislead people about good science. Those who reject anthropogenic climate change are either getting paid to spread fear, uncertainty or doubt or are victims of their FUD.

Kids should learn all intepretive theories, not just the narrow athiest academic ones.

That makes no sense at all. Kids need to be taught critical thinking and to have mastered it before they are told to pick among things that are true and things that are false. It is irresponsible to tell them that a completely nonscientific claim is equivalent to a scientific theory that is strongly supported by the evidence.

I suppose creation books in the children's section of the library are verboten? Especially if that library is in the school?

Why would they be? Mythology is fascinating to kids. They love it. The stories can be wonderful.

That's why I love this issue, its tough for liberalism to come to grips with its overt and rampant intellectual censorship.

As you can see, I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate honesty.

Mpeterson said...

Don't be dragged in. Kevin's argument about evolution being a theory only works because he's equivocating on the definitions of "fact" and "theory". Technically speaking, all "facts" are theoretical constructs built on a consistency of experience.

To call evolution "only" a "theory" is to suggest it's not as true as any other fact for which you have lots of evidence.

The judge in the Dover case saw through this without missing a beat.

Kevin is just trolling.

Free Lunch said...

Okay, Mark, I'll only respond to Kevin when he is clearly confused, not merely repeating old lies that every informed person knows is a lie.

John Jost said...

Kevin S, for goodness sake, why are we still acknowledging you?

"Someone else could look at the same data" and still believe in a garden, a snake, an apple, and a tree, 6000 years ago? Hell no.

"People look at the same data" and conclude that there is no climate change problem at all? Hell no.

You sound like Mary Weigand, "how come 1000 scientists reject creationism?" Well, how many scientists are there? I bet I can find 1000 people who still think the earth is in the middle.

And please, please, first, stop abusing the word "religion". The religion is yours exclusively.

And second, it's "atheist", not "athiest". You're just like Sarah there, she can't learn that it's "nuclear", not "nucular".

Mpeterson said...

Free Lunch: but how will we tell?

Free Lunch said...

Mark -

If it's just some old nonsense from Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, the Creation Research Society or the Institute for Creation Research or any of the businesses who are engaged in anthropogenic climate change denial, I'll assume that Kevin knows that they are lying and that he is merely repeating their lies.

There's not a lot of originality in the realm of science denial.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

Free lunch,

I like that, "I do not advocate censorship. I do advocate honesty."

So you were being honest when you claim evolution is "fact"?

When did the "theory" get dropped from the "theory of evolution"? I missed where the "theory" became "fact".

I do like how you couch your intellectual censorship by calling the opposing point of view "dishonest". Hardly scientific and objective in practice. Wrought with passion though...like a religion.

I find it hard to believe the Freedom from Religion people would support creation books in the school library.

Mpeterson said...

Free Lunch: I recognize all of it. Creationism has been a hobby of mine since the early 80's -- for real fun history see Spiritual Warfare: The Politics of the Christian Right by Sara Diamond.

Kevin, I'm calling shenanigans. All facts are, by definition, theories. Don't like me playing the 'expert' card? Take it up with my licensing authorities and have my charter revoked.

Beyond that, no more trolling the nice posters.

MS said...

Just as in 'The Princess Bride' ... "That word, I do not think it means what you think it means." the creationists seem to be turning words around to fit their own use/meaning. Semantics is a tricksey thing.

Learn the Language of Science:
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true. Here's a closer look at these important, commonly misused terms.
For complete article & definitions, see:
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions

article by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

John Jost said...

A brief and clear article. By the way, let us revisit the primary definition of religion according to TheFreeDictionary.com:

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Nothing to do with either evolution or man-made climate change.

MS said...

Ooops.. sorry, my link for the article did not come through. Here it is:
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
Learn the Language of Science
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm