Creationists continue to push for *intelligent design* to be taught with equal weight of the evolution theory, and Texas is not exception. What's different here than in some other places is that the school board president, dentist Don McElroy, doesn't believe in evolution, does in creationism, and wants to change textbooks to point out the weaknesses that HE believes in. And thus, Carl Baugh sees an opening for his fake fossil.
“I don’t think it is going to displace the theory of evolution,” said Baugh. “My hope is that the scientific concepts of archeology and paleontology will be used under the guidelines of the Texas schoolbook committee. Any evidence supporting that should be presented, and hopefully this particular fossil will be presented, for the students to be able to see that there is evidence supporting an alternative concept as opposed to just evolution.”
McLeroy expressed frustratation over the defeat of the state board’s conservative faction in 2003 over “Teaching the Controversy,” putting ID in Texas’ biology textbooks. “All the arguments made by all the Intelligent Design group, all the creationists, ID people, I can guarantee the other side heard exactly nothing, they did not hear one single fact, they were not swayed by one argument. It was just amazing. I mean, my fellow board members… they were not impressed by any of this… It was only the four really conservative, orthodox Christians on the board [who] were willing to stand up to the textbooks and say they don’t present the weaknesses of evolution.”
Heh. Well, one thing's for darn sure, if that fossil gets put into a dang textbook as evidence, it will sure make the weaknesses of EDUCATION prominent, particularly a Texas education.
P.S. I'll be more than happy to retitle that footprint as NOT FAKE once it's been examined by accredited science labs that specialize in fossil aging, instead of tests by catscans at the local medical center. But no way should any intelligent person allow it otherwise to slip into a SCIENCE textbook.
I have seen "Dr." Baugh's presentation and was immediately in question of everything that he said. I started by inquiring about his credentials which are printed in his book. The "Graduate School of Pacific Studies " does not exist in the US. Having the opportunity to ask him about this, he said of course not, it is located in Australia. I then contacted the head librarian at the main library in Canberra, Australia. The school does not exist there either. So if he's lying about his credentials, I have no doubt he would lie about other things.
I personally believe in creation. But Idon't need any human to convince me of this fact. I also love to hunt and study fossils. I believe that Baugh has an agenda, therefore his actions are questionable.
What always amuses me about this 'conversation' (evolution theory vs. the other stuff) is how little imagination the 'creationists' / 'intelligent design' folks have when contemplating the mysteries of life. How anyone could look upon the biological evolution of life forms on our planet as anything less than marvelous and insist this could not be the work of what most people call God, is beyond me.
first of all, this article is accusing the fossil of being fake, when there is NO EXPLENATION OF HOW IT IS FAKE. Second of all, the education system would NOT be stupid to allow Christianity, or this fossil in text books. It's not like any of the things that evolutions states are actual facts anyway, right? They are just theories and examples of circular reasoning, as they use a theory to prove another theory within their beliefs. And even if the fossils were proven to be real, you probably wouldn't believe it anyway. As an example, remember the dinosaur tissue and blood found in the T. rex fossil? Who by the way was an evolutionist!!! It was proven to be real, and the evolutionists came up with some crazy theories to how it could *survive 65 million years. At the end of the day, evolution has never had any substantial evidence to support any theories, when creationism, has so much evidence, from paintings drawn by cavemen, that include humans with dinosaurs, to tissue in a trex fossil, human bones mixed with dinosaur bones, and ancient sculptures on castles depicting images of specific dinosaurs. How could they draw and design things 2000 years ago, when dinosaur fossils hadn't even been discovered? What has evolution brough to the table? Nothing.
Creationism shouldn't be taught as science because, first, it's based on a flawed book with a mythological origin story. But beyond that,
Science and religion are two different human activities that seek to understand our world. Science rigorously applies the observation of natural phenomena and systems plus studies of modifications to these natural systems, to develop models that explain the order and function of the universe. As a key principle of science, evolutionary theory cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation. Furthermore, because it has developed out of scientific investigations, evolution cannot be equated with socially or religiously derived beliefs. Evolutionary theory, like all scientific descriptions of the workings of nature, is subject to continuing modification to reflect new knowledge gained through observation and experimentation.
The U.S. education system has witnessed repeated efforts to incorporate religious beliefs into scientific curricula as a counterpoint to evolutionary theory. Most recently these efforts have focused on intelligent design, which has been mischaracterized as a scientific theory by its principal proponents. Because intelligent design is not built upon a scientifically testable hypothesis, is not derived from a base of valid experimental studies, cannot point to any scientifically validated body of literature, and makes no testable predictions, it cannot be described as a scientific theory. The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science. It also compromises a central purpose of public education—the preparation of a scientifically literate citizenry and workforce. Portraying non-scientific content as science in curriculum at any educational level poses a threat to the future scientific, technological, and economic competitiveness of the nation.
Incidentally, this is not the place to prosletyze or post links to creationism websites. If you have a comment on Alvis Delk's footprint, have at it,that is, after all, the topic, but leave out the religious dogma, won't post it.
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be patient-we
have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude?
totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments
but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt
propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up
right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting