Creationists not giving up

[Bikewer]

Despite recent court victories in the Intelligent Design cases, the creationists have other avenues to pursue:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/AAB7DD631E2DDF388625716D00778EB8?OpenDocument

This article in our local paper details the agenda of Answers in Genesis, a group trying a more "backdoor" approach to inserting creationism into the science classroom.

The usual arguments are made; "why isn't science more open-minded?" "why should student be taught to question science as part of critical thinking?", and so on.
Depressingly, these arguments sound reasonable to the scientifically-illiterate public, who cannot articulate the definition of theory or hypothesis.

[clarsct]

*sigh*

But did I read correctly that this group was giving their talks in a school?

Dirty pool, old man, dirty pool.

That said, I definitely concur that students should be taught critical thinking skills. Then we might se and end to this nonsense.

[Meffy]

I assume that, as a gesture of good will and honest reciprocity, experts on evolution science will be invited to lecture during church services... yes?

[ChristineR]

Somedays I'm all for ID being taught in schools. A bright teenager could shred it in about ten minutes.

[clarsct]

I assume that, as a gesture of good will and honest reciprocity, experts on evolution science will be invited to lecture during church services... yes?

Excellent riposte.

*tips hat*

[Meffy]

Not an original idea, I'm afraid, but cribbed from other creationism/"ID"/whatnot debates. Still it's a valid enough sentiment.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmm.

I get the sneaky suspicion, and I may be amassing a pile of straw here, that their position is that the 'other side' has already been presented in the classroom.

To which I would reply that their side has been presented at church, but that may a touch niave.

Personally, if they believe in their 'side' so much, they should be open to a good, honest debate, correct?

[Meffy]

That's pretty much how I see it, right down the line.

[The Painter]

I remember when I was in Jr. and Sr. high school. The teachers told us to talk to our priest, reverend, rabbi or whatever about creation. The school was teaching the theory evolution, and we were free to believe what we wanted. No one made a big deal about it. It’s just a theory, right? I wonder if the string theory crosses some religious taboos?

[ChristineR]

I think Hare Krisnas believe the moon landing was faked because the claim that men could walk on the moon violates their religious theory of life on multiple planets and how that's supposed to work. I don't hear anyone advocating that be taught in schools.

[Jimbo07]

Am I the only person on Earth whose biology teacher just taught biology and never said a single word related to any sort of 'controversy'?

It was just:
- Here's a snake
- Here's evolution
- Cut this thingy open
- Let's muck about in this creek and study dirty water

[Hagrok]

Am I the only person on Earth whose biology teacher just taught biology and never said a single word related to any sort of 'controversy'?

It was just:
- Here's a snake
- Here's evolution
- Cut this thingy open
- Let's muck about in this creek and study dirty water
Mine didn't (and in a small southern town, too!)

[Lamuella]

It’s just a theory, right?

Sure is. Gravity's just a theory too.

[hammegk]

A possible analogy between theory of gravitation, and theory of evolution:

If reality is a beautiful woman, theory of gravity is precise set of mathematical equations describing her to the smallest detail, with the unknown obscured by the tiniest string bikini.

The theory of evolution covers her with many of layers of heavy clothing, and men describe her beauty looking only at her fingerprints, free at any time to change the words of their story.


But, yes, both are "theories". :D

[drkitten]

A possible analogy between theory of gravitation, and theory of evolution:

A better analogy.

If reality is a beautiful woman, the theory of evolution as understood by evolutionary biologists may not put her in quite in a string bikini, but we're certainly talking about a cutoff t-shirt and a set of Daisy Duke shorts.

The theory of evolution as understood by creationists and hammegk is a magazine photograph of a fur coat, with a caption reading "Imagine how your wife would look in this!"

[hammegk]

Agreed, and neo-evolutionists get to touch and measure many different styles and sizes of fur coats, as they describe their dream woman.


Defining "creationist" as "skeptical of neo-Darwinism", even that is correct.

[Meffy]

Anyone bandying furs about that they didn't grow themselves will have this human-sized skunk to reckon with. Please employ other metaphors -- sports and war are overdone so maybe the theme could be aeronautics, craft textiles, or musical standards of the 1930s.

[Beleth]

Or, maybe the contextual appropriateness of the analogy vis a vis Western culture could be seen and recognized without getting sidetracked into undue political overcorrectness.

Yeah... let's go with that.

[bjb]

I have learned to hate analogies because they are always flawed and misleading. It is much better to address a subject as it is. Analogies are a cheat because allow the user to redefine the subject to suit their own purpose. This is why creationists love to use analogies, *because* of the misleading flaws.

[thaiboxerken]

Somedays I'm all for ID being taught in schools. A bright teenager could shred it in about ten minutes.

But most people, including teens are not bright.

[blutoski]

But most people, including teens are not bright.

Especially teens. I work with them daily, and the prime motivating question for anything they do is: "but will this help me get laid?"

If Dawkins had boobs or muscular abs, there'd be a lot more teens interested in evolution.

[Lamuella]

Especially teens. I work with them daily, and the prime motivating question for anything they do is: "but will this help me get laid?"

If Dawkins had boobs or muscular abs, there'd be a lot more teens interested in evolution.

so what you're saying is that he should get his wife to do his talks for him?

[bluess]

so what you're saying is that he should get his wife to do his talks for him?

Assuming she has boobs and muscular abs.

And will wear a string bikini while lecturing.

[Lamuella]

I don't know about her abs, but Richard Dawkin is married to the rather lovely Lalla Ward, of Dr Who fame.

[CaveDave]

I assume that, as a gesture of good will and honest reciprocity, experts on evolution science will be invited to lecture during church services... yes?
But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement.:D

Dave

[Meffy]

But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement.:D
*ponder* Were I a lecturer, how I'd feel about that would depend on just how multi-purpose the room was.

[Lynx2174]

A possible analogy between theory of gravitation, and theory of evolution:

If reality is a beautiful woman, theory of gravity is precise set of mathematical equations describing her to the smallest detail, with the unknown obscured by the tiniest string bikini.

The theory of evolution covers her with many of layers of heavy clothing, and men describe her beauty looking only at her fingerprints, free at any time to change the words of their story.


But, yes, both are "theories". :D

um, not really. we know the mechanism for evolution, wheras nobody quite knows for sure how gravity works. so gravity can be described accurately, but evolution can be explained.

[bjb]

That's true. Newton postulated 'action at a distance', without saying how or why or what mechanism created the action. The 'action' was assumed to exist, then equations based upon that assumption were created that just so happened to match up with observations. Based on the success of Newton's gravitational theories, the theory have been accepted as valid. However, problems were eventually found with Newton's equations. They did not accurately predict the orbit of Mercury, and it took Einstien and relativity to explain the discrepancy.

This shows that the 'bikini' analogy is wrong. The theory of gravity does not descirbe reality 'to the smallest detail'. The unknown that aren't addressed by gravity are knowable through relativity and the other developments of modern physics.

The second part of the analog claims evolution is wrong because the theory changes, but this is how science works. As new information comes along, theories must change to fit reality. This bothers creationists because they are used to never changing their mind, no matter how much reality comes along that doesn't fit their ideas. However, we have already seen how our understanding of gravity has changed over the centuries, and will continue to change as we understand more about it. Nobody seems to attack gravitational theory just because it has changed over time, but the creationists feel the need to attack it for this reason. Again, the bikini analogy fails.

[hammegk]

What never fails is the human ability to delude oneself, coupled with the regression to idiocy exhibited by crowds.

[drkitten]

What never fails is the human ability to delude oneself, coupled with the regression to idiocy exhibited by crowds.

And no one knows more about exhibiting his own idiocy to crowds than hammegk.....

[hammegk]

Neo-Darwinists are gaining on me though. YECs lead the pack.