Floyt
Chordate
...well maybe not THAT innocent, judging from the high number of student pregnancies around here 
Anyway, it's Orientation Week at the University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ; hordes of fresh-faced youngsters get their introduction to the harsh realities of university life by drinking solidly for seven days, running around wrapped in bed-linen, and getting their courses approved. There's a lot of stalls set up on campus where various organizations make their pitches, from the banks and insurance companies to ANZAC to at least five different religious communities. Unfortunately, the very first booth you encounter is Jehova's Witnesses. That booth is dedicated exclusively to pushing creationism.
Grabbed a booklet entitled "Life - how did it get here? By evolution or creation?", with what I could swear is a naked Mel Gibson on the cover, backdropped by a gorilla. It's a kind of roundhouse blow, merrily romping through every misunderstanding and half-truth available, and an education in the art of quote mining. Poor Niles Eldredge is misquoted to death on "the failure of gradual evolution" (I guess they can't do it to Gould anymore, but Eldredge might still be unknown enough to serve as victim). Discerning a possible tell, I did a check-up on the other source featured in this section, "The New Evolutionary Timetable", and wouldcha have known it - a book specifically arguing a re-interpretation of the fossil record under a punctuated equilibrium viewpoint. The PE debate must have been a godsend for creationists as a source for chopped-up quotes.
We then go on through "inexplicable complexity", "no transitional species", "6000 years", a slightly pointless "Nature invented it first" part, to end up with full-blown preaching. Bonus feature: drive-by Catholicism whacking. The idolaters!
I find myself steaming slightly at finding this featured prominently at a university freshers event. The problem is that the entire thing comes over as quite convincing if you are not familiar with the techniques of quote mining, re-hashing superceded information (why all the references to popular science books from the 6os? We actually DO have amphibic whale fossils now, thank you very much!), mis-stating and selecting and simple lying. Especially if you don't know a lot about evolution, which by my experience, freshers here don't. (I did my undergrads in Munich, not much difference there, admittedly)
I can see the point of having the various Christian flavours, the Hare Krishnas, the Buddhists presented at this fair. This is about networking, assisting people to link up with the campus groups, maybe some gentile proselytizing, be my guest. But that particular stall is entirely devoted to pushing creationism on students, at the point where they should get a start into the scientific community. Kind of like handing out free ball-and-chains at the beginning of a marathon.
I wonder at the philosophy of the university in this regard, and plan to be a bit of a pest on the issue this semester. I'd be interested to hear what people here think about the necessity to make a distinction between "religious group info stall" and "creationism pushing stall". My take is the one is perfectly all right, the other - not. First to admit my reasoning is not crystal clear to myself, though.
Anyway, it's Orientation Week at the University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ; hordes of fresh-faced youngsters get their introduction to the harsh realities of university life by drinking solidly for seven days, running around wrapped in bed-linen, and getting their courses approved. There's a lot of stalls set up on campus where various organizations make their pitches, from the banks and insurance companies to ANZAC to at least five different religious communities. Unfortunately, the very first booth you encounter is Jehova's Witnesses. That booth is dedicated exclusively to pushing creationism.
Grabbed a booklet entitled "Life - how did it get here? By evolution or creation?", with what I could swear is a naked Mel Gibson on the cover, backdropped by a gorilla. It's a kind of roundhouse blow, merrily romping through every misunderstanding and half-truth available, and an education in the art of quote mining. Poor Niles Eldredge is misquoted to death on "the failure of gradual evolution" (I guess they can't do it to Gould anymore, but Eldredge might still be unknown enough to serve as victim). Discerning a possible tell, I did a check-up on the other source featured in this section, "The New Evolutionary Timetable", and wouldcha have known it - a book specifically arguing a re-interpretation of the fossil record under a punctuated equilibrium viewpoint. The PE debate must have been a godsend for creationists as a source for chopped-up quotes.
We then go on through "inexplicable complexity", "no transitional species", "6000 years", a slightly pointless "Nature invented it first" part, to end up with full-blown preaching. Bonus feature: drive-by Catholicism whacking. The idolaters!
I find myself steaming slightly at finding this featured prominently at a university freshers event. The problem is that the entire thing comes over as quite convincing if you are not familiar with the techniques of quote mining, re-hashing superceded information (why all the references to popular science books from the 6os? We actually DO have amphibic whale fossils now, thank you very much!), mis-stating and selecting and simple lying. Especially if you don't know a lot about evolution, which by my experience, freshers here don't. (I did my undergrads in Munich, not much difference there, admittedly)
I can see the point of having the various Christian flavours, the Hare Krishnas, the Buddhists presented at this fair. This is about networking, assisting people to link up with the campus groups, maybe some gentile proselytizing, be my guest. But that particular stall is entirely devoted to pushing creationism on students, at the point where they should get a start into the scientific community. Kind of like handing out free ball-and-chains at the beginning of a marathon.
I wonder at the philosophy of the university in this regard, and plan to be a bit of a pest on the issue this semester. I'd be interested to hear what people here think about the necessity to make a distinction between "religious group info stall" and "creationism pushing stall". My take is the one is perfectly all right, the other - not. First to admit my reasoning is not crystal clear to myself, though.
