• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationists not giving up

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Bikewer
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
Despite recent court victories in the Intelligent Design cases, the creationists have other avenues to pursue:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...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.
 
*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.
 
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?
 
Somedays I'm all for ID being taught in schools. A bright teenager could shred it in about ten minutes.
 
Not an original idea, I'm afraid, but cribbed from other creationism/"ID"/whatnot debates. Still it's a valid enough sentiment.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
Mine didn't (and in a small southern town, too!)
 
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
 
hammegk said:
A possible analogy between theory of gravitation, and theory of evolution:
Click to expand...

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!"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom