Wheaton scholars pen first 'Origins' college textbook bridging the Bible to ‘mainline science’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
BALTIMORE — Wheaton College professors have penned what is believed to be the first college-level textbook outlining mainstream scientific theories on origins of life and how they fit within a biblical framework, something they say has been lacking in Christian higher education for decades.
Based on over two decades of teaching origins at the historic Illinois evangelical higher education institution, the textbook, Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins , released last December, addresses many topics such as cosmic origins (Big Bang Theory), the geologic history of the Earth, the origin of life and diversity of life on Earth (evolution), the Genesis Flood, and Adam and Eve.
While highlighting various mainstream scientific theories and providing a biblical perspective, the book also takes a critical look at theories like Young Earth Creation. It examines the principles of biblical interpretation and features close readings of relevant Genesis texts.
“We did feel that it's a unique product compared to all the other kinds of textbooks that are out there,” said co-author John Walton, an Old Testament professor who also authored The Lost World series.
“It's a Christian textbook that presents mainline science as legitimate science. Lots of times, Christian books are more or less using mainline science as a foil or as the enemy. Of course, we don’t do that. We present the mainline science. At the same time, we present the limits of science in some of the ways that philosophy of science needs to understand.”
The book was published by InterVarsity Press and funded by the BioLogos Foundation. Its release comes as many in today’s secular culture think that scientific discoveries and Christian teachings must come into conflict. But the new book seeks to “diffuse tensions” by detailing how the sciences of origins fit into the story of “God’s creative and redemptive action.”
Chapters in the book were also authored by Professor of Philosophy and History of Science Robert Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry Larry Funck, Biology Professor Raymond Lewis, and Geology Professor Stephen Mosier.
All of those men join in on teaching Wheaton's 300-level general education elective course “Theories of Origins,” which has been taught there since the mid-1990s when a few different courses were merged together.
But until now, the professors have not had a textbook to teach the class. They have had to rely on various readings and books that dealt with faith and science issues but they were still lacking a good science text.
Moshier, Walton and Funck presented the book on Thursday during the BioLogos Conference that was attended by other scholars, professors, pastors and professors.
The BioLogos Foundation is an advocacy organization that promotes Evolutionary Creationism and was founded by National Institute of Health Director and evangelical geneticist Francis Collins to highlight the harmony between science and biblical faith. The conference’s theme was “Beyond Conflict.”
“It is not just a science textbook but it also talks about the philosophy and the limits of science,” Walton said at the conference.
“It's a book that is intended to be integrative in a number of different ways. Each of the chapters of the different sciences is integrative as they talk about their science. But we also have integrative chapters to deal with things like Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and the Genesis flood account. So we have biblical, theological chapters that are in there working the information that has been presented.”
Walton explained that what he outlined as far as Genesis accounts in the new textbook is similar to what he has written about in his The Lost World series that includes titles on Genesis 1, Adam and Eve and the Genesis flood.
“In that way, we are able to help students think about these big questions in science in connection with the big questions in Bible theology, particularly in Genesis,” Walton added. “We don’t just present conclusions to our interpretations; we also deal with hermeneutics. That is the methods that should be used to think about the Bible and interpret Scripture. Just like we do methodological discussions for science, we do methodological discussions for Bible and theology.”
The new book takes a different approach than the 2017 Zondervan title Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design . The Zondervan book featured contributions from Ken Ham (for Young Earth Creation), Hugh Ross (for Old Earth Creation), BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma (for Evolutionary Creation) and Stephen C. Meyer (for Intelligent Design).
Instead of looking at different theological views, the book focuses on the varying theories within the sciences. Different scientific and theological views are compared, but the book primarily presents mainstream scientific theories as a paradigm to be learned and understood through the workings of science.
“We’re looking at the consensus mainstream view. I would say that we are persuaded that there's validity to the mainstream scientific use of origins,” Moshier told CP in an interview. “And then that being the case, where is the potential conflict or harmonization with Scripture?”
Moshier said that the book tries to bring the philosophy of science and theology together by looking at “God’s two books.”
“God created nature, He also gave Scripture,” he continued. “So theology is really designed to look at the data of Scripture, right? And science is designed to listen to the data of nature. Well, nature and scriptures shouldn't conflict because they’re both from God.”
Moshier explained that the book takes a “historical approach” and looks at leads that were present before the time of famed naturalist Charles Darwin, during Darwin’s day, and the ideas that have come along after Darwin's death.
“We end up with a biblical and theological perspective relating evolution to a comprehensive doctrine of creation modeled by which the origin of species can be understood in the context of Christian faith,” Moshier detailed, adding that the book also evaluates elements of Intelligent Design that are applied to that topic.
“We distinguish the scientific theory of evolution from evolutionism. We want to make that distinction very clear. Part 6 on Human Origins is what set this book apart from anything we could have written 20 years ago in terms of what we know now — not just from the discovery of hominin species. Since we started writing this book, I think there were about five hominin species that have been discovered.”
According to the geology professor, what has been discovered about hominin species in recent years are more than just some “isolated bones.” He said there are hundreds of specimen in labs and museums around the world.
“There is a strong case to be made for these different creatures that have lived and God created them,” he explained.
As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, the book presents five different possibilities that can help readers make sense of the Genesis account.
“We don’t try to say to any of the students that this is what you have to believe,” Moshier assured. “We give them the tools to read any variety of literature or claims about origins they may read and have a much higher level of understanding about what goes behind some of those claims. I think we succeeded in opening the world up to students and removing the stumbling blocks that can sometimes lead students to the frustration of having to choose between evolution and creation.”
With the grant from BioLogos, the authors were able to hire illustrators to redraw and produce original graphics as well as secure illustration rights and photography used in the book.
Moshier told CP that he and his colleagues have not received any pushback from the Wheaton administration or donor base at Wheaton, an institution known for its evangelical identity and connection to former pupil Billy Graham. The book was approved through the school, which provided feedback in the form of wording suggestions.
“I think that Wheaton is one of those places where there is an appreciation for different opinions on matters like this,” Moshier said. “We don't see these as foundational doctrinal kinds of [matters]. I think the only statement in our statement of faith that really would bear on this is a statement affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve. Almost any of those five patterns that I talked about in the class, you could fit into it. You have to nuance at times, but you could fit it into there.”
Since the book was released just last December, it hasn't yet been adopted by courses at other institutions since teachers of spring courses need to have their book selections in the fall. But the authors are hopeful that professors from a wide range of courses at other schools will consider using it in their classes.
Moshier said that a good number of students who enter the SCI 311 class come from a Young Earth Creation background. While some of them alter their beliefs as a result of the class, some do not, Moshier explained.
“Some [students] will have the same view that they came with but they will express and actually thank us for the opportunity,” he explained. “To me, it's not my job to change people's mind or indoctrinate people. My job is to educate students so that they can make up their own minds. And every student who comes to Wheaton or any other Christian school goes through a process of deciding, ‘OK, is this my faith or parents' faith?’ Well, every young adult should go through that.”
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
““In that way, we are able to help students think about these big questions in science in connection with the big questions in Bible theology, particularly in Genesis,” Walton added. “We don’t just present conclusions to our interpretations; we also deal with hermeneutics. That is the methods that should be used to think about the Bible and interpret Scripture. Just like we do methodological discussions for science, we do methodological discussions for Bible and theology.”
The new book takes a different approach than the 2017 Zondervan title Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. The Zondervan book featured contributions from Ken Ham (for Young Earth Creation), Hugh Ross (for Old Earth Creation), BioLogos President Deborah Haarsma (for Evolutionary Creation) and Stephen C. Meyer (for Intelligent Design).
Instead of looking at different theological views, the book focuses on the varying theories within the sciences. Different scientific and theological views are compared, but the book primarily presents mainstream scientific theories as a paradigm to be learned and understood through the workings of science.
“We’re looking at the consensus mainstream view. I would say that we are persuaded that there's validity to the mainstream scientific use of origins,” Moshier told CP in an interview. “And then that being the case, where is the potential conflict or harmonization with Scripture?”
Moshier said that the book tries to bring the philosophy of science and theology together by looking at “God’s two books.”
“God created nature, He also gave Scripture,” he continued. “So theology is really designed to look at the data of Scripture, right? And science is designed to listen to the data of nature. Well, nature and scriptures shouldn't conflict because they’re both from God.”
Moshier explained that the book takes a “historical approach” and looks at leads that were present before the time of famed naturalist Charles Darwin, during Darwin’s day, and the ideas that have come along after Darwin's death.
“We end up with a biblical and theological perspective relating evolution to a comprehensive doctrine of creation modeled by which the origin of species can be understood in the context of Christian faith,” Moshier detailed, adding that the book also evaluates elements of Intelligent Design that are applied to that topic.
“We distinguish the scientific theory of evolution from evolutionism. We want to make that distinction very clear. Part 6 on Human Origins is what set this book apart from anything we could have written 20 years ago in terms of what we know now — not just from the discovery of hominin species. Since we started writing this book, I think there were about five hominin species that have been discovered.”
According to the geology professor, what has been discovered about hominin species in recent years are more than just some “isolated bones.” He said there are hundreds of specimen in labs and museums around the world.
“There is a strong case to be made for these different creatures that have lived and God created them,” he explained.
As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, the book presents five different possibilities that can help readers make sense of the Genesis account.
“We don’t try to say to any of the students that this is what you have to believe,” Moshier assured. “We give them the tools to read any variety of literature or claims about origins they may read and have a much higher level of understanding about what goes behind some of those claims. I think we succeeded in opening the world up to students and removing the stumbling blocks that can sometimes lead students to the frustration of having to choose between evolution and creation.”
With the grant from BioLogos, the authors were able to hire illustrators to redraw and produce original graphics as well as secure illustration rights and photography used in the book.
Moshier told CP that he and his colleagues have not received any pushback from the Wheaton administration or donor base at Wheaton, an institution known for its evangelical identity and connection to former pupil Billy Graham. The book was approved through the school, which provided feedback in the form of wording suggestions.
“I think that Wheaton is one of those places where there is an appreciation for different opinions on matters like this,””
Great! So, we can prove that the Tower of Babel is a myth, that the creation stories in Genesis are myths, that Noah's Ark is a myth which was plagiarized from Gilgamesh, we know that the 7 plagues were nothing more than natural disasters (some likely related to the explosion of Thera), we know that the earth is billions of years old, we know that bats are not birds, we know that it's likely that the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah was started by a natural fireball like the Tunguska event ... I could go on, but you get the idea.
Science is wonderful and really does help solve some of those questions. I'm so glad you agree.
None of Genesis is a myth. It was all quite real in our history.
Back up your claim with evidence.
It is bad enough to categorically dismiss uncomfortable science such as evolution, but apparently you also ignore the work of biblical scholars who spend their lives studying the Bible and related texts.
Here is an excerpt from BioLogos (who support the book you seeded) on the flood:
It is much better to actually read and learn rather than dogmatically profess beliefs based on nothing. Even the folks you support are offering insight that would be valuable if you would simply listen.
Yes it is! It's just one of many such creation stories found in various religions.
That's nice. Prove it! Let's see the evidence! And from a credible and proper scientific source and not one of your usual religiously biased sources!
Show me the proof. And an old book with no known authors that has been edited hundreds of times doesn't count, I want physical, observable proof.
Good luck with that. When challenged, he simply ignores the post or repeats the same tripe.
Or attacks nonbelievers, calls science "pseudoscience", and accuses everybody of trying to censor him.
Standard persecution complex.
[Removed]
Genesis is only a myth because there is nothing in biology or the geological record to support creation happening in that way. The possibility of a great flood is absolutely laughable for anyone who understands science at the 8th-grade level.
You can believe it to be true just as you can believe that 1+1=11 but there are no facts to support that emotional decision based on your religious beliefs.
Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/about/ shows it to be the very real answer to the questions about origins.
AIG is a logical excuse and an exercise in logical fallacies, usually special pleading and arguments from ignorance.
Not to mention straight out lies.
Not even a little! It's just dogmatic BS that some people only believe or want to be real, but offers not credible facts or evidence.
Answers in Genesis is one of the biggest bullshit sites out there. Make America Stupid Again!
Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins
Are you sure it's not
Understanding Scientific Theories of Oranges
Or The Oranges of the Species?
I am nostalgic for the days when the President of the US had mastered elementary school vocabulary.
Great article! Thanks.
An appreciation for different opinions on matters like this is sorely lacking in some....
Why would anyone appreciate opinions which clearly go against the facts?
i disagree - there's a great appreciation for mythology, but no appreciation for mythology passed off as fact.
You are trying to call opinions facts. Just because you think something, doesn't make it so.
Fact: the Earth is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay older than 6-10,000 years. Quite literally every single bit of data and evidence confirms this. There is literally not one single shred of evidence that suggests it was only recently created.
Fact: Noah is bullshit
A 600 year old man could not have built a wooden boat to house all the animals on Earth. Aside from the fact it was as previously pointed out, plagiarized, that boat would have had to have been absolutely gargantuan in size, and would have required a massive crew. It would have made oil tankers look like playthings, and the crew would have had to be in tens of thousands.
[deleted]
Are you now saying that it is a religious opinion? Should I also appreciate the different opinions of flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers?
If these people wanted to philosophically discuss the limits of science. Then great, I'm all in! But let's not pass this off as actual science. It is not.
Odd, when the seeder insists that many scientific discoveries are "pseudoscience" if they conflict with Biblical literalism.
That is what they are.
Declaration does not make it so. Repeated declaration in the face of evidence to the contrary is silly.
Pathetic (IMO)
Funny how you never seem able to prove it or discredit actual science and facts. Your "argument" is nothing more than "because I said so." Empty declatarations like yours is meaningless. It's no wonder no one, nor should anyone, takes you seriously.
https://www.icr.org/homepage/ This is where the truth of origins is found.
Yes, discovering how cells first formed would be a major breakthrough.
The answer (if we are able to find it) will come from science, not from an ancient, static, demonstrably errant book.
I am thinking The Bible would be better taught as literature. Much like Aesop's Fables and Huck Finn. My opinion.
" Wheaton College professors have penned what is believed to be the first college-level textbook outlining mainstream scientific theories on origins of life and how they fit within a biblical framework, something they say has been lacking in Christian higher education for decades."
So not scientific in anyway. Science requires that you do not start with a conclusion and work backwards to make it fit.
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation . It involves formulating hypotheses , via induction , based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
The Wheaton method is an apparent partisan religious method of attempting to find ways to fit facts to preexisting beliefs. It involves no careful observation, applying rigorous fanaticism about what is observed, using the fact that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation in an effort to manipulate the conclusions to a desired outcome. It involves twisting and contorting religious hypotheses to fit the actual observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions are not required; and confirming the hypotheses based on an ever-shifting interpretation of ancient manuscripts.
“So theology is really designed to look at the data of Scripture, right? And science is designed to listen to the data of nature. Well, nature and scriptures shouldn't conflict because they’re both from God.”
They shouldn't, but they do. And no amount of mental contortions are ever going to make them fit.
" I think the only statement in our statement of faith that really would bear on this is a statement affirming the historicity of Adam and Eve. Almost any of those five patterns that I talked about in the class, you could fit into it. You have to nuance at times, but you could fit it into there .”
Nuance? Are they really going to redefine impossible feats of mental contortion "nuance"? And the "historicity of Adam and Eve"? There is NO historicity of Adam and Eve. Our DNA proves our ancestors did not just appear out of thin air fully formed, and the population hasn't bottle necked with fewer than 1,500 individual homosapiens in over 70,000 years.
" Around 70,000 years ago, humanity's global population dropped down to only a few thousand individuals , and it had major effects on our species."
God is the creator and author of all nature and science.
That's nice. Prove it! Of course, to do so, you'll have to first prove there's a god.
I don’t have to prove a thing. I believe by faith and know there won’t be signs and wonders shown to those who refuse to see.
A proud declaration of belief based on nothing. Holding up unsubstantiated belief (faith) as something good rather than a failure of reason.
Science is the business of provable, peer reviewable, data. Faith is the opposite - the complete confidence in something without proof. In my opinion the use of "science" to explain God dilutes both to something nearly meaningless and anyone that needs scientific proof of God is by nature not very faithful. Therefore those that masquerade philosophy as science are being deceptive and should not be trusted.
Then you lack any and all credibility and all your claims are without merit and do not deserve to be taken seriously. None of the tripe you spew is scientifically valid either if you can't produce proof or evidence.
so in other words - you don't like scientific facts (since you refer to those facts as "pseudoscience" quite often), you'd rather just make yourself believe and then find/interpret "signs" accordingly since you already made yourself believe, correct ?
It was Idiocracy came to America waving the flag and dragging a cross...
Given this textbook is written from the Old Earth Creationist perspective and operates with a grant (and presumably the endorsement of BioLogos) it will certainly clash with Young Earth Creationist beliefs. BioLogos does not deny the science of evolution.
Odd that the seeder who proudly proclaims, repeatedly, that evolution is pseudoscience would see this endorsement of a book that directly contradicts his beliefs.
“Instead of looking at different theological views, the book focuses on the varying theories within the sciences. Different scientific and theological views are compared, but the book primarily presents mainstream scientific theories as a paradigm to be learned and understood through the workings of science.
“We’re looking at the consensus mainstream view. I would say that we are persuaded that there's validity to the mainstream scientific use of origins,” Moshier told CP in an interview. “And then that being the case, where is the potential conflict or harmonization with Scripture?”
Moshier said that the book tries to bring the philosophy of science and theology together by looking at “God’s two books.”
“God created nature, He also gave Scripture,” he continued. “So theology is really designed to look at the data of Scripture, right? And science is designed to listen to the data of nature. Well, nature and scriptures shouldn't conflict because they’re both from God.””
That means evolutionary sciences are properly explained without the utter nonsense imposed by YECs trying to change the laws of physics to fit their boneheaded notion that the Earth is < 10,000 years old.
This book contradicts your oft stated ridiculous claim that evolution is pseudo-science.
We already reached the mainstream view that fundamentalism is bullshit...
Muslim fundamentalists are full of shit. Jewish fundamentalists are full of shit. Christian fundamentalists are full of shit. They all started from the same line of mythical magical bullshit fiction. Abrahamic fundamentalists of all stripes are a bane on humanity holding all mankind back. So, I am not sorry at all if my equanimity here has offended almost everyone butt... All Fundamentalists and All Fundamentalism Sucks! Are we clear now?
The universe and the core of this earth are ancient. The earth as we know it was literally created by God in six literal days. Since the fall of Adam and Eve to sin to the present day is roughly 6,000 years. Large scale evolution from the life created in creation to now is pure pseudoscience idiocy.
Still waiting for you to prove it!
That's not what the fields of Geology, biology, paleontology, ect. say. Why should anyone accept your baseless claim?
Have you mentioned that to the scientific community? Perhaps you should tell them they have it all wrong? Then go ahead prove them wrong too! Otherwise, you're just spewing idiotic dogmatic tripe!
And, as I noted, you are contradicting both science and the book you have seeded.
There aren't any. Seriously, find me two conflicting scientific theories on any given topic. You can't, because there is always only one, if any at all. Tell me about the conflicting scientific theories on germs. Since I know you won't look into for yourself, a scientific theory is essentially the highest level of knowledge. It is something that we can test and say with complete accuracy in a given setting that "if X happens, then Y." A hypothesis only becomes theory when it is repeatedly tested, by numerous other scientists (all of which are looking for their claim to fame) and the results come out exactly the same, then further more it has to be accepted by the majority of scientists. Hence why there are very few scientific theories.
Fucking stupid from the start. you are trying to harmonize two very different things. Philosophy is a soft science, meaning that there is a lot of variation and nothing is very definitive. What this guy is trying to do is merry that with the hard sciences, which deals in, essentially, absolutes. If X action is taken in Y condition, then Z WILL occur (except at the quantum level, but that is a totally different animal and one that no one understands). You cannot join two things that operate on completely different premises and criteria.
THANK YOU. I've been saying it for years, I see little to no difference between the Abhramaic religions because they are all founded on the same pile of shit. Christians, Muslims, Jews, they are all the same to me.
Oh No, Thank You! It is so nice to occasionally find some agreement...
We don't agree on much, which is fine.
We do agree that a literal belief in fairy tales,and basing governmental policies and practices on it is absurd.
I thought we mostly always agreed. I usually vote your comments up...
so let's just throw sh*t against the wall and hope that something sticks ?
That's the "Norm" these days !
I hear the new Left Presidential Nutz wannabe's do that all the time.
Whatever "Sticks" huh !
More silly deflection.
I agree !
Dem. Presidential Candidates should have more to themselves than name calling !
isn't that what the Libs bitched about, about Trump ?
yet here they are, doing the exact same thing ! "Names", Names" Names" !
Oh....and don't forget the "FREE" shit either !
Government has no money...… soooooo, don't forget, they get the cash from the ones that want "Free" !
Are Dems the topic here?
No.
You can't defend the tactic used by the Wheaton "scholars", so you attack elsewhere.
It's a bit pathetic.
"words" don't discriminate !
Is this the topic ?
"so let's just throw sh*t against the wall and hope that something sticks ?"
Seems pretty "General" to me.....would you think ?
Yes....yes it is !
"Parrots" of the media and the supposed "New improved Intellectuals", deserve nothing more !
There is certainly a pattern here.
No, it's not general. Those words were used in regards to a certain text. You couldn't refute that it was a lousy tactic when used for that purpose, so you had to attack somebody else instead.
Do you agree or disagree with the Wheaton scholars tactics?
That is the topic here.
actually...it was !
"Do you agree or disagree with the Wheaton scholars tactics?"
Neither….I'll make my own decisions, since it's MY life, thank you !
Intellectuals can make mistakes just like anybody else. They are human beings. They have been right and they have been wrong. Intellectuals are products of their environment, their class, and their background. Intellectuals can be just as petty, two-faced and corrupt as politicians.
I'm a "Loner"....and proud of it !
It’s what they throw at Trump to no effect.
That’s for darn sure....
wait.. this article is about " Left Presidential Nutz " ?? ... looks like you are following in line and just throwing sh*t against the wall hoping something sticks
we can't do that - it would silence quite a few members of NT
I'm not seeing the problem.
[delete]
Agreed. Stay on topic.
Or, Ollie...
Pitiful Response.
I didn't know I actually had a religion.
The "Left" candidates are doing a very good job in directing my thinking !
No....It Is Me !
Actually.... it is !
"Do you agree or disagree with the Wheaton scholars tactics?"
Studies don't IMPRESS me. There is always a "Counter" study that comes out eventually !
This isn't a study.
Weird !
stud·y
[ˈstədē]
NOUN
1. the devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject, especially by means of books.
2. a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.
This is neither. It's an attempt to reconcile fact with fantasy
and yet.. you still continue to babble and throw sh*t against the wall hoping something sticks ....
I'll still note what the "Lefty" candidates say, wwwwwwhether you like it or not !
Yours or what the media has told you what is "Fact?"
Riddle me this:
If the Media is supposed to initial provide the "Facts", why does the media need a "Fact Check" arm of their own company as a filler to their initial reporting.
This has nothing to do with the media. Still deflecting.
And YOUR info. comes from ….WHERE again ?
Is the media your only source of information?
Deflection !
Yes, you are engaging in deflection. We're talking about questionable tactics used in the writing of a textbook. You're going on about the media.
where did you find "Lefty" candidates in the seeded article as the topic ? please point it out to everyone... or you can continue to babble and throw sh*t against the wall hoping something sticks.. btw, i could care less if you note what any candidate says or what any politician says - whether they are "left" or "right". why would it bother me ? it just happens to not be the topic of the seeded article... and oddly the seeder isn't saying anything to you about it...... seems a bit selective but i'm not surprised at all...
[delete]
It has not been accepted into "mainline science". Just because someone puts it in a "textbook", not accepted by any accredited universities or other scientific organizations or journals BTW, it doesn't mean anything.
Shit, I have a theory that actual level of belief in the Bible is a completely accurate measure of retardation. It isn't published anywhere or accepted by any scientific organizations, but fuck it, I said it so it is true.
That's essentially what theistic arguments about god or against actual science boils down to.
Fundies say the darndest things. There is no accounting for their faldegras...
And most of it is quite stupid!