How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

And here's something that I think is pretty amusing -

You evolutionists will never - NEVER - know if you were right You'll know if the creationists were right, tho!

We creationists will know if we were right, but we'll never find out if we were wrong!

[Rían]

and speaking of these matters ...

Originally Posted by Draken

I have no objection at all with the United States of America voluntarily becoming a nation of sub-scientific dullards at the behest of ranting 'christian' mullahs.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. I don't see what this sentence - or indeed the entire post - has to do with what I posted about, which is allowing mainsteam, peer-reviewed scientific criticisms about neo-Darwinism being openly discussed in classrooms.

People like Skell know very well that few scientists would claim ANY theory is perfect and without controversial elements.

This sentence has at least something to do with the subject, so I"ll address it.

The subject is what is taught in classrooms. And to people who are willing to look at statements from people with actual experience, in at least SOME (and IMO, many) areas, neo-Darwinism is being treated with an almost religious awe, and doubts and problems with the theory are NOT being discussed. IMO, the problem is not so much with the primary level - the actual scientists - as it is in the secondary and tertiary levels - the classrooms and the press. And as many people do not have access to the actual scientists, or their journals, many (if not most) people get their opinions about evolutionary theory from these secondary and tertiary sources. And from what I have seen and heard, far too often anything at all critical of neo-Darwinism is not being brought up at these levels. And IMO, this is wrong.

This is nothing to do with science, or 'seeing both sides of the argument' - ...

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with re-establishing real science.

... and ALL about religion - and a rather primitive take on religion at that.

Watch out - historical prejudice rears its ugly head again!
Are you saying that any idea that has been around a long time is necessarily wrong? I'd like to see you support that!

As the theory of evolution is no more controversial than many other scientific theories ...

Wow - do you TRULY believe that?

why not cut to the chase and stop teaching ANY science as fact?

Why should we stop teaching science? I'd just like evolution to be back on the same playing field as the rest of the sciences.

[Rían]

and speaking of these matters ...

Originally Posted by Draken

I have no objection at all with the United States of America voluntarily becoming a nation of sub-scientific dullards at the behest of ranting 'christian' mullahs.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. I don't see what this sentence - or indeed the entire post - has to do with what I posted about, which is allowing mainsteam, peer-reviewed scientific criticisms about neo-Darwinism being openly discussed in classrooms.

People like Skell know very well that few scientists would claim ANY theory is perfect and without controversial elements.

This sentence has at least something to do with the subject, so I"ll address it.

The subject is what is taught in classrooms. And to people who are willing to look at statements from people with actual experience, in at least SOME (and IMO, many) areas, neo-Darwinism is being treated with an almost religious awe, and doubts and problems with the theory are NOT being discussed. IMO, the problem is not so much with the primary level - the actual scientists - as it is in the secondary and tertiary levels - the classrooms and the press. And as many people do not have access to the actual scientists, or their journals, many (if not most) people get their opinions about evolutionary theory from these secondary and tertiary sources. And from what I have seen and heard, far too often anything at all critical of neo-Darwinism is not being brought up at these levels. And IMO, this is wrong.

This is nothing to do with science, or 'seeing both sides of the argument' - ...

On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with re-establishing real science.

... and ALL about religion - and a rather primitive take on religion at that.

Watch out - historical prejudice rears its ugly head again!
Are you saying that any idea that has been around a long time is necessarily wrong? I'd like to see you support that!

As the theory of evolution is no more controversial than many other scientific theories ...

Wow - do you TRULY believe that?

why not cut to the chase and stop teaching ANY science as fact?

Why should we stop teaching science? I'd just like evolution to be back on the same playing field as the rest of the sciences.

[Rían]

I'll leave the ice to you guys and toss another concept into the mix here.

I hope everyone here is willing to be logically consistent. If you guys will agree to abide by this standard, then I challenge the evolutionists who have said that creationism/ID is entirely outside of the scientific realm to do the following:

1. The next time you're at a party and meet an archaeologist or an anthropologist, take them aside and say, "I've heard some things about people like you that are truly ridiculous. I've heard that you actually dig things out of the ground and then say that people made them! You fool! Don't you know that science (at least since the definition was hijacked by a small but fervent minority) is entirely about finding naturalistic causes to things we see? How can you take that thing that is called the King Tut death mask, for example, and have the unscientific nerve to say that it was made by humans? Can't you see that we must find naturalistic causes for EVERYTHING, or it's not science? You need to propose and test theories for how things like running water or wind could have shaped the mask to coincidentally look like a face, and how perhaps a sand storm could have etched the lines that coincidentally look like his eyes and mouth and nose, or else you should be laughed out of the scientific community and your degree torn up, because that is how science is defined nowadays."

2. The next time you tour NASA (or was it JPL?), grab the first Mars rover scientist you see and pin him/her against the wall and say, "I certainly hope that silly creationist crowd hasn't influenced YOU guys! The next time you get a rover on Mars I hope that if you see something that looks like a 10-story building, complete with things that look like vehicles driving around with things that look like living, thinking beings in them, that you will, of course, remember that science (at least since the definition was hijacked by a small but fervent minority) is all about finding naturalistic explanations for things we see. Explore how Martian wind forces might erode a Martian mountain to coincidentally look like a 10-story building! Or perhaps rocks can mutate on Mars! Whatever you do, I certainly hope you will NOT infer design or intent from ANYTHING you might see."

3. The next time you're in the desert (Arizona or New Mexico, I think?) and pass the SETI project, pull a "U", screech into their parking lot, crash through their doors, and say the following: "I can't even believe you guys are looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life! You're actually scanning the sky for signals? Can't you see that if you find a signal, even if you can decode it and see a 10-foot-high being with 3 heads enjoying a backyard barbeque and swim party, that it MUST BE random chance? After all, ANYTHING is possible given enough time, right? At least that's what the evolutionists say when their ideas are determined to be statistically impossible. So you guys stop right now - there is no reason at ALL for you to infer anything but naturalistic causes from any type of signal you might receive, no matter what its characteristics are."

So, evolutionists, are you willing to say these things to these people?

I wrote it in a rather humorous way, but please seriously, and with an open mind, consider what I have said.

[HOBBIT]

Sorry Rian, those make no sense and have absolutely nothing to do with people who "believe in" evolution.

[Rían]

do you mean you wouldn't say those things to those 3 groups of people, yet you would criticize those who look for indications of intent and design in the area of origins?

Could you please explain what you think the difference is?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We want to give our students the whole truth about everything, even this theory, and let them think about it themselves. Let's put everything on the table - warts and all! - and let free scientific inquiry flow unfettered.

Thats already true NOW. This is simply spin on what the agenda really is which is to attack at all costs a concept that apparently goes against so much of the core belief systems of a certain section of the population. And they will use any tactic and any trick to win what they see as a fundamentalist battle not as simply a furthering of scientific information. They have gone from proposing something biblical without a hair of evidence to focusing their political energy into mandating the rewriting of text books and the teaching of "holes". But the people are still the same and the agenda is still the same. They just realized they need to seperate their tactics from direct religious reference if they want to have a chance of being seen as more then a joke in the scientific world. I suppose you have to admire their persistance duplicitous as it is...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We want to give our students the whole truth about everything, even this theory, and let them think about it themselves. Let's put everything on the table - warts and all! - and let free scientific inquiry flow unfettered.

Thats already true NOW. This is simply spin on what the agenda really is which is to attack at all costs a concept that apparently goes against so much of the core belief systems of a certain section of the population. And they will use any tactic and any trick to win what they see as a fundamentalist battle not as simply a furthering of scientific information. They have gone from proposing something biblical without a hair of evidence to focusing their political energy into mandating the rewriting of text books and the teaching of "holes". But the people are still the same and the agenda is still the same. They just realized they need to seperate their tactics from direct religious reference if they want to have a chance of being seen as more then a joke in the scientific world. I suppose you have to admire their persistance duplicitous as it is...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And here's something that I think is pretty amusing -

You evolutionists will never - NEVER - know if you were right You'll know if the creationists were right, tho!

We creationists will know if we were right, but we'll never find out if we were wrong!

And gosh what a great reason to reject science... Better play it safe rather then worry about being accurate eh? Sounds like the same argument some people have used for believing in god...

True scientists arent concerned with winning petty little contests. Just with the pursuit of science by means of the data we have currently. True scientists dont go into a field because they want to verify a belief system. They go into a field because they want to know how things work.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And here's something that I think is pretty amusing -

You evolutionists will never - NEVER - know if you were right You'll know if the creationists were right, tho!

We creationists will know if we were right, but we'll never find out if we were wrong!

And gosh what a great reason to reject science... Better play it safe rather then worry about being accurate eh? Sounds like the same argument some people have used for believing in god...

True scientists arent concerned with winning petty little contests. Just with the pursuit of science by means of the data we have currently. True scientists dont go into a field because they want to verify a belief system. They go into a field because they want to know how things work.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats already true NOW...

No, it's not. Unless you care to call a lot of people, testifying to their first-hand experience, total liars.

And even if it WERE true - what's wrong with having it written into the curriculum guidelines that currently known, peer-reviewed-and-written-up-in-scientific-journals criticism against some parts of the theory of evolution shall be taught? Seems to me that all it does is safeguard students against the fanatic religious evolutionists that DO exist (I'm not saying all teachers are that way, but some are) and are afraid to tell anything against the theory. Protect the students by writing things like this into the curriculum guidelines, so that they are exposed to the full picture!

And if you say it's already true now, then what possible reason could you have for objecting to it being explicitly written in?!?

(The fear level I see in ardent evolutionists continues to amaze me!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Thats already true NOW...

No, it's not. Unless you care to call a lot of people, testifying to their first-hand experience, total liars.

And even if it WERE true - what's wrong with having it written into the curriculum guidelines that currently known, peer-reviewed-and-written-up-in-scientific-journals criticism against some parts of the theory of evolution shall be taught? Seems to me that all it does is safeguard students against the fanatic religious evolutionists that DO exist (I'm not saying all teachers are that way, but some are) and are afraid to tell anything against the theory. Protect the students by writing things like this into the curriculum guidelines, so that they are exposed to the full picture!

And if you say it's already true now, then what possible reason could you have for objecting to it being explicitly written in?!?

(The fear level I see in ardent evolutionists continues to amaze me!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And gosh what a great reason to reject science... Better play it safe rather then worry about being accurate eh? Sounds like the same argument some people have used for believing in god...

um, that was supposed to be funny ...
(and correct at the same time)

Think about it! Am I right, or am I right?

And what in the world does that have to do with rejecting science?? Nothing.

True scientists arent concerned with winning petty little contests. Just with the pursuit of science by means of the data we have currently. True scientists dont go into a field because they want to verify a belief system. They go into a field because they want to know how things work.

I agree. I'm glad there are many good, "true" scientists out there, and that some have the guts to go against mainstream consensus if they truly believe the data points that way. Thank God for the honest scientists - whatever they believe the data indicates.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And gosh what a great reason to reject science... Better play it safe rather then worry about being accurate eh? Sounds like the same argument some people have used for believing in god...

um, that was supposed to be funny ...
(and correct at the same time)

Think about it! Am I right, or am I right?

And what in the world does that have to do with rejecting science?? Nothing.

True scientists arent concerned with winning petty little contests. Just with the pursuit of science by means of the data we have currently. True scientists dont go into a field because they want to verify a belief system. They go into a field because they want to know how things work.

I agree. I'm glad there are many good, "true" scientists out there, and that some have the guts to go against mainstream consensus if they truly believe the data points that way. Thank God for the honest scientists - whatever they believe the data indicates.

[Rían]

(btw, I need to give my sister a quick call and ask her what she thinks of the Kansas stuff - she's a middle-school science teacher who believes evolution happened - I keep forgetting to ask her, because her husband has had some health problems recently, and that's what's at the front of my head when I call her.)

[Rían]

(btw, I need to give my sister a quick call and ask her what she thinks of the Kansas stuff - she's a middle-school science teacher who believes evolution happened - I keep forgetting to ask her, because her husband has had some health problems recently, and that's what's at the front of my head when I call her.)

[Grey_Wolf]

Don't you all know that the Martians seeded Earth when they left their meteor-devastated planet for a destination unknown.

We're shown so at the end of Mission to Mars. That's as good a theory as any.

And in that last sequence we're also shown how evolution precedes any "creational ideas of Man".

[Grey_Wolf]

Don't you all know that the Martians seeded Earth when they left their meteor-devastated planet for a destination unknown.

We're shown so at the end of Mission to Mars. That's as good a theory as any.

And in that last sequence we're also shown how evolution precedes any "creational ideas of Man".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

That's as good a theory as any.

It's certainly on-par with macro-evolution's claims!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

That's as good a theory as any.

It's certainly on-par with macro-evolution's claims!