Testing Darwin's Teachers

Loa Angeles Times ^ | March 31, 2006 | Stephanie Simon

[Virginia-American]

LIBERTY, Mo. — Monday morning, Room 207: First day of a unit on the origins of life. Veteran biology teacher Al Frisby switches on the overhead projector and braces himself.

As his students rummage for their notebooks, Frisby introduces his central theme: Every creature on Earth has been shaped by random mutation and natural selection — in a word, by evolution.

The challenges begin at once.

"Isn't it true that mutations only make an animal weaker?" sophomore Chris Willett

....

Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening. "I feel a tail growing!" he calls to his friends, drawing laughter.

.....

He's about to start on the fossil evidence when sophomore Jeff Paul interrupts: "How are you 100% sure that those bones belong to those animals? It could just be some deformed raccoon."

From the back of the room, sophomore Melissa Brooks chimes in: "Those are real bones that someone actually found? You're not just making this up?"

[Dimensio]

You are an average wordsmith and a poorer debater, but you are obviously not a trained scientist.

What, exactly, was wrong with my comments in post #105. Please be specific. Merely telling me that I am a poor debater and "obviously not a trained scientist" does not refute any statement that I have made.

Moreover, charlatans who employ philosophical grandiloquence ("baflle 'em with bullsh*t") as a mask to conceal their own lack of usable knowledge are easily identified by those of us who have actual scientific training.

What is the extent of your scientific training?

[Brit1]

Re Genesis..forget the propoganda just listen to thier music.

[Just mythoughts]

This teacher might spend a bit of his free time in learning what Genesis actually says, he could answer these students who have been taught that Genesis says this earth is a mere 6,000 years.

Genesis does not say how old this earth is, rather the heaven and earth were created in the beginning and then something happened. The event that caused the upheaval we see this day is described elsewhere. The creation described in Genesis is about this flesh age of man, it does not describe the age that the dinos walked upon this earth.

[9999lakes]

[1] Leftists, if they were consistent in their arguments, would say these students are expressing healthy interest, raising questions, and are thus being prepared for life "in the real world".

[2] Or at least that's what Leftists would say if the teacher was calling the POTUS a Nazi, and the War in Iraq genocide.

[3] But this is really a strong argument for vouchers. Let the parents pick a school where student CAN be learn respect for teachers.

[Dimensio]

[1] Leftists, if they were consistent in their arguments, would say these students are expressing healthy interest, raising questions, and are thus being prepared for life "in the real world".

Of what relevanec are Leftists to this discussion?

[9999lakes]

Relevant, because leftists, if they were consistent in their arguments would say that the article describes a healthy educational situation.

You DID read the article-- right?

[andysandmikesmom]

So, apparently the story that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, is still making the rounds?...I thought we had been through this before, many times, so I guess I should never be surprised when it pops up again...

[Dimensio]

Relevant, because leftists, if they were consistent in their arguments would say that the article describes a healthy educational situation.

Even if this is true, I do not understand the reason that you have introduced the subject of Leftists into the discussion.

[dread78645]

This teacher might spend a bit of his free time in learning what Genesis actually says, he could answer these students who have been taught that Genesis says this earth is a mere 6,000 years.

Why would you think Mr. Frisby doesn't know what Genesis actually says?
Do you think it's a good idea for a school teacher to debate a student on religious doctrine?

[Californiajones]

You keep getting me to try to argue evothink, I'm talking tonight about its affect on culture.

This IS a separate issue from the "real, studied, connoisseur's view" of Darwinism.

The affect on culture of EvoThink has been devastating. For Evos to deny that Darwinism has affected culture because it is "scientific theory" is ludicrous. Evolution does not occupy some high and lofty position outside culture because it is supposed science.

In fact, just the opposite has occurred -- damaging ideas have taken hold in Western culture because of the lie of Evolution.

More people have died from political mass murders in the twentieth century than in all previous wars combined. This is related to Darwinism. It was the foundation for rejecting the primacy of Biblical thought in the culture. The same Biblical thought that inspired Lincoln, Washington et all.

Sorry, again, that I'm not up on the intricacies of EvoThink; once one realizes that there is more going on in one single cell than Darwin ever could have imagined, the insanity of his idea becomes even more glaring. But Evos have to dismiss logic and natural law in order to swallow the camel of Darwin. So quit burping on me, I'm bored with it; it's meaningless as science and destructive to how young people in our culture see themselves.

We are not mere animals. We have an immortal soul. The intricacies and intimate design of all of life cannot be random; chaos does not create; complexity does not arise from the void.

What does interest me is the fact that human nature has not evolved over the centuries. Now, this is fascinating. We are still loathe to love one another as ourselves, we are still coveting our neighbor's wife, we are still taking the name of God in vain, we still don't love our neighbor as ourself and we rarely love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind.

That's what is interesting to me. The lack of evolution of our soul and spirit. And Darwinism or EvoThink denigrates civility, gentility as it attacks the idea that God is a personal Being who oversaw all the intricacies of life, down to loving each one of us personally. Sorry, but Darwin did not promote this idea nor did he believe it. And this is the foundational idea of Western Civilization -- for without the transformational power of JudeoChristain thought, we would be barbarians, we would still be living in an eye for an eye primitive society. And that is what Darwin takes us back to.

And to quote Jim Rob: watch the personal attacks. I'm discussing ideas, not you personally.

[Californiajones]

""... Here's my dare: You are diagnosed with a deadly disease - who do you see first? Your doctor or your priest? With whom do you trust your future? ...""

Here's my answer: I'd have to pray about who I'd see first, because I trust my future to Him.

If God is God, it is He who inspired all the good things in the world. It is He who organized all the plants and herbs and therefore medicines. There is no split in my worldview between medicine and the Spirit, why should there be? You are setting up a false dichotomy between science and religion for me because of your belief that EvoThink is science. Real science is demonstrable and tangible and functional and healthful and helpful.

Since God is a good God, He is behind good medicine He is behind good science, for that matter. He will use what He will for His purposes; don't let EvoThink put God in a box. He is beyond time, beyond our puny conception of Him, He is love and wisdom personified. Wow. Get your mind around that.

[Just mythoughts]

"Why would you think Mr. Frisby doesn't know what Genesis actually says?"

Were Mr. Frisby to actually know what was originally written in the Hebrew about what is actually given us in Genesis he would have said so. All he said about Genesis referred to what his mom taught him in Sunday school.

"Do you think it's a good idea for a school teacher to debate a student on religious doctrine?"

We would NOT be having this debate if what is actually written in Genesis were at the base of what these students are now being taught. Young earth versus an ancient earth should be easily determined given what is visible evidence upon this earth. The Bible is filled with the interlocking instruction that this earth is million upon millions of years old.

Now think about it, the majority of believers in Creationism, also believe that all humanity came from only two fully grown adult human beings, now if that is not evolution then there is no such thing as evolution. Genesis describes two different days of flesh humans being created and that is exactly what DNA demonstrates.

[Dimensio]

You keep getting me to try to argue evothink, I'm talking tonight about its affect on culture.

I fail to understand why you see a need to talk about the affect on culture, as such an affect has no bearing on the truth value of the theory.

This IS a separate issue from the "real, studied, connoisseur's view" of Darwinism.

That is true. For one, the cultural effect has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory, which brings up the question of why you find it important. For another, there is the matter that you have not substantiated even one of your assertions regarding alleged cultural effects.

The affect on culture of EvoThink has been devastating.

You have asserted this repeatedly, however thus far you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that this is true. Moreover, I fail to understand the relevance of this in regards to a discussion of evolution in a biology classroom setting.

For Evos to deny that Darwinism has affected culture because it is "scientific theory" is ludicrous.

I do not deny that the theory of evolution has affected culture. I do, however, dispute your claims regarding how it has affected culture.

Evolution does not occupy some high and lofty position outside culture because it is supposed science.

I have not denied this, however the cultural impact -- if any -- of a scientific theory has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of the theory.

More people have died from political mass murders in the twentieth century than in all previous wars combined. This is related to Darwinism.

Please demonstrate that this claim is true.

It was the foundation for rejecting the primacy of Biblical thought in the culture. The same Biblical thought that inspired Lincoln, Washington et all.

Please demonstrate that your claims are true.

Sorry, again, that I'm not up on the intricacies of EvoThink; once one realizes that there is more going on in one single cell than Darwin ever could have imagined, the insanity of his idea becomes even more glaring.

I do not see how Darwin's ignorance regarding the workings of biological cells have revealed his theory to be "insanity". Perhaps you could be specific in explaining how this is the case instead of simply asserting it.

But Evos have to dismiss logic and natural law in order to swallow the camel of Darwin.

How do we "dismiss logic and natural law"? Please be specific.

We are not mere animals.

This is not true. Taxonomic classification places humans in Kingdom Animalia.

We have an immortal soul.

Whether or not this is true -- and you have not demonstrated that this is true -- is completely irrelevant to the subject of evolution. I do not understand why you bring it up.

The intricacies and intimate design of all of life cannot be random;

It is not random, and no one claims that it is.

chaos does not create;

Apparently you are unaware of the concept of fractals.

complexity does not arise from the void.

No one is claiming that complexity arose from a "void". I do not understand the relevance of this statement.

What does interest me is the fact that human nature has not evolved over the centuries. Now, this is fascinating. We are still loathe to love one another as ourselves, we are still coveting our neighbor's wife, we are still taking the name of God in vain, we still don't love our neighbor as ourself and we rarely love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our mind.

What relevance does this have to the theory of evolution?

That's what is interesting to me. The lack of evolution of our soul and spirit.

Why does this interest you, and how is it relevant to biological evolution?

And Darwinism or EvoThink denigrates civility, gentility as it attacks the idea that God is a personal Being who oversaw all the intricacies of life, down to loving each one of us personally.

You are mistaken. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the involvement or lack thereof of any deities in our lives.

Sorry, but Darwin did not promote this idea nor did he believe it.

Whether he did or not has no relevance to the validity of the theory of evolution.

And this is the foundational idea of Western Civilization -- for without the transformational power of JudeoChristain thought, we would be barbarians, we would still be living in an eye for an eye primitive society. And that is what Darwin takes us back to.

You have failed to substantiate your assertions regarding the alleged consequences of the theory of evolution. Moreover, your arguments are themselves a logical fallacy, as you are attacking what you perceive as undesirable consequences of a theory rather than the validity of the theory itself. As I have said before, disliking the consequences of a theory does not invalidate the theory. If you are attempting to make a coherent, logical argument, then thus far you have not been successful.

[Non-Sequitur]

"Frisby tries to explain that evolution takes millions of years, but Willett isn't listening. "I feel a tail growing!" he calls to his friends, drawing laughter."

If I were Frisby my resonse would be "I feel a D- coming. Would you like to try for an F?"

[Oztrich Boy]

The Evolution advocates seem to want to believe that their side is EQUAL to the infallible biblical history of God's creation.

I seriously doubt that many "Evolution advocates" believe the investigation by thousands of scientists over a century+ to be equal to Bronze age goatherder mythology.

[Oztrich Boy]

I daresay much of the 20th Century mass murders in the name of totalitarianism would have been committed without the grease of EvoThink to soothe raging consciences.

I dare say much of if would. Your point being?

Oops, sorry, I know strict EvoThink aficionados don't believe that we have a conscience.

Actually they do. It's what they use to quash the desires to kill, steal, and rape, instead of the Fear of God that Creationists confess is the only thing stops them.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"So, apparently the story that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, is still making the rounds?..."

Some lies have better legs than others.

[9999lakes]

I'm just curious. What is it that you think this discussion SHOULD be about?

Do you really think the original article was about the various strengths of the evolution/creation arguments, or about the interaction of the students and the teacher?

[chesley]

I don't think so.

[chesley]

Guess not?