Creationist Students Visit 'Evolution Headquarters': The Smithsonian

[Temporal Renegade]

To quote from the opening paragraph:
*****************
Every winter, David DeWitt takes his biology class to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, but for a purpose far different from that of other professors. DeWitt brings his Advanced Creation Studies class (CRST 390, Origins) up from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., hoping to strengthen his students' belief in a biblical view of natural history, even in the lion's den of evolution.
---
"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt, a professor of biology. "We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students."
*****************

For the rest of the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003690.html?hpid=topnews

 

[fuelair]

How pathetic.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Hmmmm... The Washington Post, huh? Personally, I think this feature would be better suited for publication in The Washington Times.

 

[paximperium]

"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt, a professor of biology. "We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students."

Yes....yes it definately is and he says it like its a bad thing.

 

[temporalillusion]

"Every year I take my students to a Christian church. There's nothing balanced there, everything is 100% Christian based."

Arguments that fail are ok as long as they're directed at someone else.

 

[Wowbagger]

None of those students will ever have the chance to make new, innovative discoveries, about life forms, until they learn to break out of their Creationist mindset.

 

[Ian Osborne]

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." - Richard Dawkins.

And while we're at it, when are history classes going to give equal time to the people who say the holocaust didn't happen?

 

[Cainkane1]

"Advanced Creation Studies class" How can an advanced course in creationism go beyond goddidit?

 

[Sun Countess]

Well, I hear the "Proof from bananas" hypothesis takes at least two weeks for the average Liberty University student to understand.

 

[Darat]

Yeah and even then 50% fail the practical.

 

[steve s]

Yes....yes it definately is and he says it like its a bad thing.

That was my first thought--a bias toward reality is a bad thing?

Well, I hear the "Proof from bananas" hypothesis takes at least two weeks for the average Liberty University student to understand.

And about thirty seconds to refute.

Steve S

 

[ponderingturtle]

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." - Richard Dawkins.

And while we're at it, when are history classes going to give equal time to the people who say the holocaust didn't happen?

And at the Holocaust museum they don't give that any credibility

 

[Dragonrock]

If he wants to face evolution head on then why doesn't he invite Richad Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, or PZ Myers to guest lecture in his classroom? THAT would be interesting.

In fact, it would be so interesting that I would take the class just to watch it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If he wants to face evolution head on then why doesn't he invite Richad Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, or PZ Myers to guest lecture in his classroom? THAT would be interesting.

In fact, it would be so interesting that I would take the class just to watch it.

I'd PAY to see something like that!

 

[KingMerv00]

What is "Advanced Creation Studies"? "God really really did it"?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

What is "Advanced Creation Studies"? "God really really did it"?

"Goddidit" vs. "Goddidit, and here's why {insert 'evidence' here}".

My guess.

 

[phantomb]

"They were surprised, though, by the bronze statue of man's earliest mammalian ancestor.

"A rat?" exclaimed Amanda Runions, a 21-year-old biochemistry major, when she saw the model of a morganucodon, a rodent-like ancient mammal that curators have dubbed Grandma Morgie. "All this hype for a rat? You're expecting, like, at least an ape." "

That's right. Obviously the museum curators should have just chosen a more glamorous species instead. It would work out fine because as it is they just choose these things at random, they're not based on scientific investigation at all.

Honestly, what must courses in Creationist Biochemistry be like. Evolution logically follows when you have organisms passing on their traits to newer generations while suffering from mutation and selection by environmental attrition, so how do they get around proving evolution by merely teaching the material? Do they literally teach that animals don't have DNA, or that DNA doesn't mutate, or that natural selection doesn't happen?

 

[KingMerv00]

Honestly, what must courses in Creationist Biochemistry be like. Evolution logically follows when you have organisms passing on their traits to newer generations while suffering from mutation and selection by environmental attrition, so how do they get around proving evolution by merely teaching the material? Do they literally teach that animals don't have DNA, or that DNA doesn't mutate, or that natural selection doesn't happen?

In biochemistry, you spend a lot of time on ATP, the Krebs cycle, and the like. Biochemistry is a big enough topic that one could treat DNA almost as a footnote and still have the illusion of completeness.

 

[quixotecoyote]

In biochemistry, you spend a lot of time on ATP, the Krebs cycle, and the like. Biochemistry is a big enough topic that one could treat DNA almost as a footnote and still have the illusion of completeness.

I wish there was a different way to do it. I took it (a very chem oriented bio class anyway) as part of a liberal arts undergrad and since I'm not in that field, it informs very little of my life. I barely remember any of it.

I think learning the macro-level stuff first, stuff that could inform how you view and understand the world, would be more useful.

 

[phantomb]

In biochemistry, you spend a lot of time on ATP, the Krebs cycle, and the like. Biochemistry is a big enough topic that one could treat DNA almost as a footnote and still have the illusion of completeness.

So would any employer actually hire a biochemist who didn't study DNA and evolutionary biology? Wouldn't you need to have these bases covered to work in most fields of biochemical research?