Darwinsts terrified, maintain "consensus" by censorship.

[edragone]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Maybe it's because they think it will affect the "prestige" of their journal. Perhaps the solution is in the presentation. The prominent journals could have a special section designed explicitly for more out there articles, or articles that go against the consensus. They would be presented precisely in that context, and invite debate.

That seems like a fair concept. Either something like this, or a "point/counter-point" section.

[really]

Originally Posted by NinjaKitty7

I would have to agree to an extent. At least in terms of the way media and politics frames any discussions of these sorts. There is definitely a strong push by some groups, who I am not convinced are in the majority, to infuse a specific type of Christian agenda into education. The Texas testbooks are a good example of an agenda based push into education. It seems to create a polemic debate that really muddies the water.

I wouldn't blame the media.
The religionist's vs. evolution have been attacking evolution since Darwin's day. It came to ahead with the Scope's Monkey trial and has periodically risen from the ashes. This war against evolution is unlikely to go away along as there are creationists.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by really

Without living in this country you may not have a good understanding of the creationist agenda, which is to infiltrate religion as they see fit back into the classroom and secular society in general. That's it in a nutshell. Every argument push by creationists is a smoke screen to that goal.

Our society here in the states has two rights where it concerns religion: they are no establishment of a particular religion and freedom from religion. Creationist's would like that not to be so.

I am afraid that we Europeans mostly laugh at the US creationists and fundamentalist preachers - with their multiple fancy cars and mansions paid for by donations, and a prostitute (male or female) in tow. We do know about it, however, and wince whenever a religion obsessed president (such as Bush) gets elected.

Arguments should be taken on their own merits - not dismissed just because they support a particular point of view.

David

[NinjaKitty7]

Originally Posted by really

I wouldn't blame the media.
The religionist's vs. evolution have been attacking evolution since Darwin's day. It came to ahead with the Scope's Monkey trial and has periodically risen from the ashes. This war against evolution is unlikely to go away along as there are creationists.

I just blame the media in terms of boiling down positions to their most extreme and presenting them as such. X vs. V. It seems rare to see someone respect religion and still acknowledge the validity of some scientific view points. But, to be honest, I don't watch the news much these days. After having kids, it's more My Little Pony than Nightline, so this view may be outdated.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by NinjaKitty7

I just blame the media in terms of boiling down positions to their most extreme and presenting them as such. X vs. V. It seems rare to see someone respect religion and still acknowledge the validity of some scientific view points.

This is very true, and it isn't just the media, scientists like Dawkins are happy to play along. The crazy thing is that this gives the creationists a free ride, because (at least as I understand some of them) they want to show that evolution did not occur by any mechanism. If science stuck to rebutting that claim, they would be on really string ground. They could simply show the reams and reams of biochemical similarities between us and animals (and even plants), instead, they have been lured onto much weaker ground, trying to assert natural selection as the only ultimate mechanism for evolution.

David

[porker]

Originally Posted by anonymous

How the scientific consensus is maintained:

Darwinist: The complexity of life is a result of evolution by means of natural seleciton.

Heretic: That's impossible. How do you explain the loss of entropy. A closed system will always increase in entropy. It's too improbable for all that order to arise by chance.

Darwinist: The earth is not a closed system it is an open system. It recieives energy from sunlight.

Heretic: Fine, but how much does that change the probability of all this order arising. By what calculations do you conclude that sunshine makes all this complexity probable?

Darwinist: I have two answers for that: 1) I don't need to do any calculations. Since any other explanation besides natural selection is impossible and I can see that complexity exists, it must have arisen by natural selection. And 2) Shut the f*** up!

The scandal behind darwinism is that it is only a hypothesis. Darwinists can't stand to have the searing light of science shine upon their hypothesis so they react by trying to censor critics.

You do not understand order in a physics sense, nor entropy in any well understood sense.

[really]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

This is very true, and it isn't just the media, scientists like Dawkins are happy to play along. The crazy thing is that this gives the creationists a free ride, because (at least as I understand some of them) they want to show that evolution did not occur by any mechanism. If science stuck to rebutting that claim, they would be on really string ground. They could simply show the reams and reams of biochemical similarities between us and animals (and even plants), instead, they have been lured onto much weaker ground, trying to assert natural selection as the only ultimate mechanism for evolution.

David

By this statement alone tells me you don't quite grasp the situation here in the states. At the heart of this war being wage by creationists isn't a war of facts. It is a war from religious belief.

Scientists do rebut and rebuke with scientific facts, but that does no good when creationists appeal to the average person. Even educators that should know better sometimes fall prey to sciencey sounding arguments or feel political pressure from average people to include creationism or ID in the curriculum and textbooks along side evolution. In a recent worldwide poll polling 30 nations asking the question: Do you believe in God ?; 60% of Americans believe in God, not a god, but the Christian God. Many want God back in in all aspects of everyday life which is the goal of creationists.
Reference; Atheism & Belief in God: Countries Get Ranked | LiveScience

[NinjaKitty7]

From a United States position, so much depends on the area you living in. With 50 states, each having their own culture wars as it were, it's hard to get a unified perspective. Living in Southern California is a far cry from living in Rural Kansas. For instance, I live in the Midwest, but I live in a fairly decently sized town/city. My experience is far different than someone living 6 hours south of me. But the media does like to play up the most extreme of these prospects. The deal with the Texas books is that it's such a large buying market, curriculum that they are interested in is often chosen to go national. Being as ideological as they are, much of that ignores slavery, civil rights, evolution, and so forth. Thus the worries. But America isn't the battle ground of religious zealotry it's made out to be, depending on your locale. Basically, don't be afraid to to visit our fine nation. We have awesome things outside of the culture wars.

[Roms]

Originally Posted by really

By this statement alone tells me you don't quite grasp the situation here in the states. At the heart of this war being wage by creationists isn't a war of facts. It is a war from religious belief.

Scientists do rebut and rebuke with scientific facts, but that does no good when creationists appeal to the average person.

I agree with you to a certain extent. Books about evolution are still filled with imaginary pictures. For example, you will see a lot of pictures with hairy bipeds so it nicely fits the theory. Where is the evidence that those bipeds were hairy? Have we seen one? Till this day you have very hairy people so what does that mean if you strictly follow these books? Those arent as evolved as we are.
Then you get told that humans started losing their hair as they were wearing clothes... again fiction. Humans still have hairs under their armpits and pubic area.
Same for dinosaurs. Lots of speculation there as well. T-Rex presented for so many years as the predator... it was most likely not because of its features - short arms and badly anchored teeth. Yet go back to a science class 10 years ago and this was presented as gospel. You want people to love and accept science then pour some humility in there and you will be able to change people's hearts and mind.
Newton - one of the greatest scientifc minds (and a strong believer) - once said "what I know is a drop what I dont know is an ocean". I dont think I could hear the same modesty from the likes of Krauss or Dawkins.

Even educators that should know better sometimes fall prey to sciencey sounding arguments or feel political pressure from average people to include creationism or ID in the curriculum and textbooks along side evolution. In a recent worldwide poll polling 30 nations asking the question: Do you believe in God ?; 60% of Americans believe in God, not a god, but the Christian God. Many want God back in in all aspects of everyday life which is the goal of creationists.
Reference; Atheism & Belief in God: Countries Get Ranked | LiveScience

Where does it specifically say Christian God in the article? Please point to the line. I have only read belief in God.
Dont forget that there two other monotheistic religions out there besides Christianity. That is Judaism and Islam.
The article mentions that the study started in 1991 and this is why according to one of the posters there is a disctinction between East and West Germany. Well, I'd say either the dates are wrong or the people who conducted the study found it interesting to split Germany into two to see the influence of communism.
Germany was reunited in October 1990.
The people who run the website are probably as rigorous as PZ Meyers who cant tell the difference between complex and complicated... so much for science.

[really]

Originally Posted by Roms

Where does it specifically say Christian God in the article? Please point to the line. I have only read belief in God.
Dont forget that there two other monotheistic religions out there besides Christianity. That is Judaism and Islam.

First the word god is capitalized. That's only done when referring to the Christian god. Secondly, Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same god. There are no countries listed which worship other gods.
All of the citizens of each country polled are familiar with or worship the Christian God, Japan included. Christmas is celebrated in Japan, but as a secular holiday, that suggests the Japanese people are familiar with the Christian god. Japan has a smaller but long standing Christian following.

Originally Posted by Roms

The article mentions that the study started in 1991 and this is why according to one of the posters there is a disctinction between East and West Germany. Well, I'd say either the dates are wrong or the people who conducted the study found it interesting to split Germany into two to see the influence of communism.
Germany was reunited in October 1990.
The people who run the website are probably as rigorous as PZ Meyers who cant tell the difference between complex and complicated... so much for science.

All of the citizens of each country polled are familiar with or worshiped the Christian God. The above doesn't matter.

Now do you see why it's God ?