Creationists not giving up

Bikewer · 14th May 2006, 08:12 AM

Despite recent court victories in the Intelligent Design cases, the creationists have other avenues to pursue:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...8?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 · 14th May 2006, 08:15 AM

*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 · 14th May 2006, 08:18 AM

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 · 14th May 2006, 08:19 AM

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

clarsct · 14th May 2006, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by 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?

Excellent riposte.

*tips hat*

Meffy · 14th May 2006, 08:39 AM

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

clarsct · 14th May 2006, 08:44 AM

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 · 14th May 2006, 04:18 PM

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

The Painter · 14th May 2006, 04:53 PM

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 · 15th May 2006, 09:19 AM

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 · 15th May 2006, 09:52 AM

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 · 15th May 2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by 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

Mine didn't (and in a small southern town, too!)

Lamuella · 15th May 2006, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by The Painter

It’s just a theory, right?

Sure is. Gravity's just a theory too.

hammegk · 16th May 2006, 08:36 AM

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".

drkitten · 16th May 2006, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

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 · 16th May 2006, 08:46 AM

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 · 16th May 2006, 08:55 AM

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 · 17th May 2006, 11:20 AM

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 · 17th May 2006, 12:16 PM

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 · 17th May 2006, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by ChristineR

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 · 17th May 2006, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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 · 17th May 2006, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

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 · 17th May 2006, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

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 · 17th May 2006, 03:01 PM

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

CaveDave · 17th May 2006, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement.

Dave

Meffy · 18th May 2006, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by CaveDave

But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement.

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

Lynx2174 · 18th May 2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by 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".

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 · 18th May 2006, 09:53 AM

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 · 18th May 2006, 10:16 AM

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

drkitten · 18th May 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by hammegk

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 · 18th May 2006, 11:29 AM

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

14th May 2006, 08:12 AM	#1
Bikewer Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 4,985	Creationists not giving up Despite recent court victories in the Intelligent Design cases, the creationists have other avenues to pursue: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...8?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.

14th May 2006, 08:15 AM	#2
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	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.
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

14th May 2006, 08:19 AM	#4
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,071	Somedays I'm all for ID being taught in schools. A bright teenager could shred it in about ten minutes.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,071	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

14th May 2006, 08:34 AM	#5
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	Originally Posted by 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? Excellent riposte. tips hat
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

14th May 2006, 08:44 AM	#7
clarsct Humor Impaired Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Cultural Desert Posts: 4,910	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?
	__________________ When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics. Oh nonsense. Still not hugging you. -Kiless Forum Tosser and Skirt Chaser

14th May 2006, 08:18 AM	#3
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	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?

14th May 2006, 08:39 AM	#6
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Not an original idea, I'm afraid, but cribbed from other creationism/"ID"/whatnot debates. Still it's a valid enough sentiment.

14th May 2006, 04:18 PM	#8
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	That's pretty much how I see it, right down the line.

14th May 2006, 04:53 PM	#9
The Painter Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,136	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?

15th May 2006, 09:19 AM	#10
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,071	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.
ChristineR Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,071	__________________ Avatar (c) Neopets.com

15th May 2006, 09:52 AM	#11
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,199	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
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,199	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

15th May 2006, 10:05 AM	#12
Hagrok Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ABQ, NM, USA Posts: 900	Originally Posted by 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 Mine didn't (and in a small southern town, too!)
	__________________ Indecision may or may not be my problem...

15th May 2006, 10:54 AM	#13
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371	Originally Posted by The Painter It’s just a theory, right? Sure is. Gravity's just a theory too.
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371

16th May 2006, 08:36 AM	#14
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	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".
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

16th May 2006, 08:40 AM	#15
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 16,294	Originally Posted by hammegk 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!"

16th May 2006, 08:46 AM	#16
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	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.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

16th May 2006, 08:55 AM	#17
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	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.

17th May 2006, 11:20 AM	#18
Beleth FAQ Creator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Not in a cave Posts: 4,133	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.
	__________________ Moderator, Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Big Fan, Stop Sylvia Browne

17th May 2006, 12:16 PM	#19
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	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.
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079

17th May 2006, 12:20 PM	#20
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,273	Originally Posted by ChristineR 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.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

17th May 2006, 12:58 PM	#21
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken 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.
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158

17th May 2006, 01:37 PM	#22
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371	Originally Posted by blutoski 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?
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371

17th May 2006, 02:48 PM	#23
bluess Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Dithering between book choices in a shop somewhere. Posts: 3,247	Originally Posted by Lamuella 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.
	__________________ 'Lord Emsworth, that amiable but bone-headed peer, stood at the window drooping like a wet sock.' -PG Wodehouse, The Crime Wave at Blandings

17th May 2006, 03:01 PM	#24
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371	I don't know about her abs, but Richard Dawkin is married to the rather lovely Lalla Ward, of Dr Who fame.
Lamuella Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 371

17th May 2006, 09:54 PM	#25
CaveDave Semicentenarian Troglodyte Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Buddy Holly's home, Surrounded by tumbleweeds, duststorms, and tornados. Posts: 1,364	Originally Posted by 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? But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement. Dave
	__________________ I, for one, welcome our new Authoritarian Socialist Overlords! . . . All Hail, Comrade Obama! WHO IS JOHN GALT? . . . Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. "Some say that I'm a wise man, some think that I'm a fool. It doesn't matter either way: I'll be a wise man's fool." Procol Harum "In Held 'Twas In I"

18th May 2006, 08:01 AM	#26
Meffy Anthropomorphic Skunk Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Unincorporated Territory of Croatan Posts: 4,232	Originally Posted by CaveDave But only in the multi-purpose room in the basement. ponder Were I a lecturer, how I'd feel about that would depend on just how multi-purpose the room was.

18th May 2006, 08:07 AM	#27
Lynx2174 Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Location: California Posts: 242	Originally Posted by 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". 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.
	__________________ Fight apathy or dont. This isn't ****ing rocket surgery.

18th May 2006, 09:53 AM	#28
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	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.
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079

18th May 2006, 10:16 AM	#29
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	What never fails is the human ability to delude oneself, coupled with the regression to idiocy exhibited by crowds.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

18th May 2006, 10:24 AM	#30
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 16,294	Originally Posted by hammegk 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.....

18th May 2006, 11:29 AM	#31
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Neo-Darwinists are gaining on me though. YECs lead the pack.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422