RE: Response to Don P.

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 08:20:47 EDT

At 07:31 AM 8/8/2005, Glenn Morton wrote:

>--- "Donald Perrett (E-mail)"<> wrote:
>In response to Burgy: Prove their science wrong and even YEC parents
>will begin to look elsewhere. But in doing so, you must offer these
>devoted Christians a form of science with a Christian perspective. We
>can't just give the science alone. That is why there are people pushing
>against established scientific facts. Science is seen as
>atheist. Until someone steps up and can offer these parents sound >
>biblical understandings that relate to science then they will go
>where Christ comes first and science second, even if the science is
>wrong. Keep in mind that most parents don't have the
>scientific background that people on this list do. ~ Don
>This is exactly why I developed the views I have. I think like Don, that
>it is extremely important to offer something. The problem is that one
>rarely gets complex ideas into the minds of people who don't want to
>actually think and there in lies the problem. While few like my views they
>do offer the YEC a way to have HISTORICITY in Genesis, something most
>people who argue against YEC deny. And that denial drives them deeper
>into YECism because they see no alternative but an atheistic view of
>life. ~ Glenn

### Along those same lines, consider what I posted elsewhere last night in
response to someone who asked a question
in response to an article entitled someone else had posted entitled,
"Bush's comment rankles science"

"How can anyone take these people seriously when they are so rabidly
anti-God?" ~ KMR

My response: The article states, "..His statement implies that there
actually is a significant debate within the scientific community over the
validity of evolution."

There's a REASON why most people are under the impression that something
other than hard science and biology is being taught in those classes in the
public schools. Look at who they're using as featured speakers at their
"science" conventions and spokemen in their PR campaigns.

They are NOT scientists.

So who are these people that Pxxxxxx Hxxxxx promotes on his web page in
every one of these evolution threads? Here's who they are (NOTE their
laughable "scientific qualifications"):

[1] Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Circulates Online by James Still

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of James Still:

James Still B.A., Philosophy, University of Minnesota - "...helped to build
and maintain the Secular Web. ... President of the Internet Infidels from
2000 until 2002. ..Compulsively and deterministically dwells on
philosophical problems and issues, ..epistemology, avid
yoga practitioner ... reads widely in Eastern mysticism"
<>, etc.,
etc., <>@

[2] "The Wedge at Work": How Intelligent Design Creationism Is Wedging Its
Way into the Cultural and Academic Mainstream by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.

The so-called "scientific" qualifications of Barbara Forrest:

Barbara Carroll Forrest - B.A., English, Southeastern Louisiana University,
1974 - M.A., Philosophy, Louisiana State University, 1978 - Ph.D.,
Philosophy, Tulane University, 1988

Teaching positions:

Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, 2002 - Present
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Full-time Instructor of Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,
Part-time Instructor in Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University,

Among her awards: "Friend of Darwin" Award, National Center for Science
Education, March 1998

Conference Presentations [excerpts]:

"A Critical Philosophical Analysis of the Moral Distinction Between Active
and Passive Euthanasia," Mid-South Sociological Association, Jackson, MS,
November, 1978.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," and "The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Science
and Society Conference. Russian Academy of Sciences; Institute of the
History of Natural Sciences and Technology; Faculty of Philosophy, St.
Petersburg State University. St Petersburg, Russia, June 19-25, 1999.

"Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," at Science and God: A Naturalistic Examination of Cosmology,
the Anthropic Principle, and Design Theories. Society of Humanist
Philosophers, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, September 25-26, 1999.

Lectures/Presentations [excerpts]:

"Creation and Evolution: A Philosophical View of the Concept of Balanced
Treatment." Public forum: "Evolution and Creationism in Louisiana Public
Schools," SLU, March 31, 1981.

"The Influence of Darwin on 19th- and 20th-Century Culture," Dept. of
Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, April 21, 1995. ...

Journal Articles [excerpt]: "An Analysis of the Causal Interpretation of
Karl Marx's Theory of History," Lamar Journal of the Humanities, Spring 1989.

...Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the
Connection," Philo, Fall-Winter 2000.

"The Possibility of Meaning in Human Evolution," Zygon, December 2000.

etc., <>@

So if they want to recover their reputations and be respected by the public
as serious scientists, I suggest that they distance themselves from all the
people (such as those named above) who are promoted by web sites like,, and blatantly illogical people like
Richard Dawkins:

Received on Mon Aug 8 08:22:41 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 08 2005 - 08:22:42 EDT