Loosening Darwin's Grip

Citizen Magazine ^ | March 2003 | Clem Boyd

[VadeRetro]

Of course, now comes the classic Creationidiot whining about "That's too long! I don't understand!".

Not to mention that it doesn't have movies of them morphing from something before into something beyond. Creationist Combat Manual, page 114, para. 2: "Demand that any fossil presented as an 'transitional' be moving and transforming before your eyes."

That seems to be an early cut of Kathleen Hunt's work. The last one, greatly extended but still six years old, is here.

[steve-b]

The board voted to apply disclaimer stickers to the books. But pro-family groups, such as the local chapters of the American Family Association (AFA), Concerned Women for America and the Christian Coalition, wanted more

Making concessions to yahoos is like giving Saddam Hussein just one more Last Chance.

[steve-b]

However, we don't have EVERY single fossil of every animal that ever lived on earth. I guess that's a requirement to prove evolution, to the creationidiots.

Actually, they require a fossil from each creature that ever lived showing it as it was in old age and also a fossil from each creature showing as it appeared during its prime of life.

[Dataman]

Good one, Remedy!

Chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, a five-time Nobel nominee, commented, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."

Double Standards may be the primary trait of the rabid evolutionist.

[gomaaa]

"Any teacher wo does not present evolution as a model or worse yet does not describe the concept of modeling, does a disservice to the creative, young mind.
During my early educational experience Darwinian evolution was presented as fact. It was years later that the concept of modeling was examined and still later that I realized Darwinian evolution was a "popular" model."

Someday I plan to teach physics, hopefully at the college level, but we'll see. When I do so, I hope to find time in the curriculum for a whole unit on critical thinking in science. I mostly hope to teach them the seemingly lost art of debunking 'junk' science. Stuff like "free energy" and the so-called 'research' being done on psychic abilities. It is shocking to me sometimes what kind of stuff gets passed off as science these days, and too many people believe it because it's presented to them as science. Sometimes this is just foolishness, but mostly it has to do with misconceptions about science and people just not knowing any better.

I hope that I will teach my students to be skeptical, even about well established physics theories. Skepticism is a large part of what the scientific method is based on. I would hope that they do ask questions about evolution and not just take it as a bunch of facts we shove down their throats.

I would also hope they pretty much end up accepting it. It's not a complete theory, but then many of the most cutting edge ideas we work with in physics are not yet complete. That's the whole fun of it! If you accept that quarks are the basic constituents of protons, neutrons and other particles, I would hope you wouldn't throw out the whole thing just because Quantum Chromodynamics (the study of quark-gluon interactions) is not yet perfected. We know that quarks exist, we just can't describe the precise manner in which they do their thing.

Similar with evolution. Too many people attack it as "only a theory", but so is Quantum Mechanics, and you don't hear many people crticizing that. There are LOADS of evidence in favor of evolution as it is currently accepted by the scientific community today. It's not just "popular", it's the only credible explanation of the biological evidence that is currently out there.

In school classrooms, we should teach kids the basic currently accepted theories out there. There should always be the understanding that everything they are presented with in 9th grade, from Psychology to Biology to Physcis, could possibly be disproven and modified by the time they graduate. That's science. It constantly changes as new evidence comes to light. The best we can do is teach our kids to think critically, but we should present them with good theories and good evidence to back it up.

What worries me is that the recent trend of allowing "criticism" of evolution in the classroom is actually a code word for promoting ID or creationism. ID, in its most basic form is pretty innocuous. It accepts that evolution happens, but suggests that a "creator" gives it ever so subtle nudges from time to time that are pretty much undetectable to us. This actually doesn't try to refute any scientific data or even the mechanisms proposed to explain it. It just adds a layer that makes it more acceptable to the religious minded among us. I think that's fine. If it helps you resolve your faith and science, then run with it.

But this really doesn't require ANY changes in what is currently taught in schools. As soon as you start requesting that challenges to evolution be offered, you get away from ID and more towards creationism. "Serious" challenges to evolution invariably ignore significant evidence and exploit commonly held misconceptions about evolutionary theory. I wouldn't have a problem with such ideas being presented to kids, provided they were given ample critical thinking tools to begin with and could distinguish these common arguments from credible challenges.

As it stands, I really don't think the Ohio resolution changes ANYTHING and is kind of pointless. Kids should be taught to be critical anyway. If this is done properly, they will almost certainly come to the same conclusions about evolution as the general scientific community.

[Dataman]

It just means some people (fundamentalists) are daffy.

All you descendants of primates have to do is overwhelm us with all of your proof. While you're at it, overwhelm the scientists that doubt your precious ideology.

[Dataman]

Creationist Combat Manual, page 114, para. 2: "Demand that any fossil presented as an 'transitional' be moving and transforming before your eyes."

Do I sense a little panic in your objective reasoning?

[Dataman]

Making concessions to yahoos is like giving Saddam Hussein just one more Last Chance

Litekeeper, on the basis of the substantial argument just given by steve-b, I'm switching to evolutionist right this minute.

[Dataman]

I do sense some panic here:

John HK: However, we don't have EVERY single fossil of every animal that ever lived on earth. I guess that's a requirement to prove evolution, to the creationidiots.

canuk_conservative: OK, explain dinosaurs.

shortshadow: Elmer Gantry alert

j logjam: (fundamentalists) are daffy.

therealPatrickHenry'sspinninginhisgrave: creationoid

[f.Christian]

Evolution is the islameification of America ...

submission --- allahDarwin is all ...

"total" --"only" -- ONE SCIENCE ... "no competition" !

Death TRIBUTE (( taxes ))-- extermination to the Truth --- the infidels (( theists )) !

Political brainwashing (( God // conservatism // Truth )) --- INDOCTRINATION (( ATHEIST LIES )) !

[BibChr]

I'm always stirred by the nobility and fearless objectivity of all the Darwin's Witnesses here, aren't you?

But seriously....

BTW, I always have the exact same reaction as you when I see that "Patrick Henry" person. From earliest days, I wondered why he would choose the name of someone who would abhor his stances, someone by whose fundamental principles of life he obviously is deeply threatened, and to which he is obviously deeply hostile. You might as well choose "Mengeleman," or I "ClintonChr," for our screenies.

Dan

[Dataman]

submission --- allahDarwin is all ... "total" --"only" -- ONE SCIENCE ... "no competition" !

There is a lot of truth to that. The evos fear criticism, fear competition, and fear academic freedom. Dissenters are punished.

Republicans are the party of the religious, while Democrats are the party of secularists. That, you may well protest, puts the matter altogether too simply. You are right. But the foregoing generalization is not far off the mark, and is getting closer. Such are the findings of an important article in the Public Interest, “Our Secularist Democratic Party,” by Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, two social scientists at Baruch College, New York.

So what are the evos doing on a conservative forum?

source

[Dataman]

BTW, I always have the exact same reaction as you when I see that "Patrick Henry" person.

That reminds me of that Alexander the Great anecdote: A soldier was accused of cowardice so he was brought before Alexander. Alexander inquired of his name. It was also Alexander. The Great's response: "Change your ways (I beleive the Greek would be metanoew) or change your name."

[f.Christian]

Darwinists missionaries --- door to door ... golden plates // links --- nobody ever saw !

Weird upgrades --- virus --- cult of darwin !

[VadeRetro]

VadeRetro: Creationist Combat Manual, page 114, para. 2: "Demand that any fossil presented as an 'transitional' be moving and transforming before your eyes."

Dataman: Do I sense a little panic in your objective reasoning?

Four years I've been watching creationists refuse to see what they make such a great chest-thumping display of demanding. (In this case, transitional forms.) Why do you imagine I'm panicking now?

[ThinkPlease]

Four years I've been watching creationists refuse to see what they make such a great chest-thumping display of demanding. (In this case, transitional forms.) Why do you imagine I'm panicking now?

Over on BaptistBoard.com they panicked so hard over there, about a year ago they started retroactively moderating all of the evolutionists, anything that even hinted at being evidence was commented right out of the post, and never seen again. Hey! But now Setterfield and his wife can pontificate over there alllllll they want, with nary an evolutionist to argue with them. It's hard to argue with creationists when your best points never make it to the net. I suppose they like it that way, eh? No other forum descends into madness quite like a Creationist forum!

[f.Christian]

Creationist have a forum ...

it's called life -- civilization -- the future too ...

where evolution will not exist !

[Remedy]

Whilst digging in the fossilyard

And whistling-past-the-graveyard

Hoping to find

A rock with a mind

They cleverly disguised

A bone with two eyes

Named proto-man-apus

Which fooled near all of us

Till one inquired

Which was first acquired

The eye or the bone

Their response-

It’s a clone.

[BibChr]

LOL

[js1138]

Nice post. Perhaps it needs to be re-posted every time there is an assertion of "no transitional fossils."