The New Zealand branch of Focus on the Family sent a bunch of creationist hoo-haa to 400 high schools to try to get an alternative view of cosmology taught in New Zealand schools. They say, "We're a Christian organisation so we believe that God made the planet and God made the cosmos ... Science takes a theory and tries to establish it as the truth, and that's all this is."
What have they sent?
Focus on the Family has sent The Privileged Planet CD and booklet to 400 high schools, asking that they be made available to science teachers and school libraries.The Priveleged Planet. Guillermo Gonzalez's crap about how we live in such a perfect place in the universe that it must have been designed. Why not just make the universe entirely habitable? The place is 99.999999999999999% lethal to humans and all terrestrial life. Sure we live in a special place that we get to experience. But the universe sure isn't made for us.
The people in the NZ Education ministry won't ban it apparently. I guess they have all the guts that our elected and appointed officials do.
But scientists call it what it is though and it scientists know this is a canard to get religion in the back door:
Waikato University biological sciences senior lecturer Alison Campbell says the material champions creationism - the belief that God created the world as described in the Book of Genesis - claiming the universe is too perfect to have been produced by chance so must be the work of an intelligent designer.
It represented a religious viewpoint, she said, not a scientific one, and had no place in science classrooms.
"It's an underhand way of getting creationist material into schools."
New Zealander Michael Denton wrote a now famous anti-evolution book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis that is a classic and a steaming pile of bulls*** that Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, credits as having turned him onto anti-evolutionism.
1 comments:
Ah, yes. You atheists fairly seeth with contempt for theism and manifest rabid hatred of all ideas that differ with your own, as well as of the people who hold them.
You also set yourselves forth as objective, impartial judges of scientific truth.
Choose one. Because you can't have both.
Also, I find the use of the word "crap" in all of its forms to be decidedly unconvincing as a rhetorical ploy. It denotes a certain immaturity and insecurity and is rather ineffective in building confidence in the reader, at least for your own position. It could, however, be useful for building solidarity among the ranks of your ideological compatriots, who apparently have an intense need to read such vitriol, perhaps in order to confer a sense of meaning and belonging. If that is your purpose, then, hey, nicely played.
Post a Comment