Now it's Ohio, debating Darwinism

BioMed News ^ | 5 February 2002 17:17 EST | Apoorva Mandavilli

[MissMillie]

Frankly, whether it is possible or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not "creationism" is science. Science, by definition, deals with that which is natural and/or naturally occuring. "Creationism" is about the supernatural, and has no place in a science curriculum.

[ThinkPlease]

ID folks advance hypothesees that point to flaws in Darwin's theories...recall again that all that is required to disprove a theory is contradicting evidence, which exists in abundance for evolution.

The only thing ID has ever hypothesized is that there might be a designer. Not yet has there been a falsifiable scientific theory presented, as far as I know little or no progress has been made toward one. Until then, ID is a gedanken experiment with no room in any high-school science classroom.

[Junior]

Geez. Ol Sparky is spoutin' the same crap we disabused him of on our last outing. Even so, here's

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource

So that he can bone up (no pun intended) on the state of the art in crevo discussions before uttering the same old tired canards...

[Vince Ferrer]

Why not just teach the pros of cons of each, and end up with the honest assessment that we just don't know?

This is exactly what the ID position is.

[PatrickHenry]

A tiny segment of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

[Virginia-American]

(this was posted to VadeRetro on another crevo thread)

Let's mention another aspect of these discussions that fascinates me: the psychology of the people on the other side. Nearly all are totally evidence-proof.

Ain't that the truth! I also find the rhetoric and psychology fascinating.

One thing I've noticed on many threads, is that D*m*cr*ts, drug warriors, and creationists all share several rhetorical flourishes:

1) They don't have opponents who simply disagree, who weigh the evidence differently and come to different conclusions. No, you're a Cl*nt*n-hating rightwing conspirator, or a spaced-out druggie who loves the Taliban and hates America, or an atheist trying to rationalize his sinfulness.

2) Part of this is ascribing motives to their opponents and then attacking that particular strawman.

3) They prophesise the most horrible consequences if you don't follow their prescriptions. "seniors starving", "everybody a junkie", "no possible basis for morals".

4) Flat-out ignorance and impermeabliity to evidence. Have you ever tried to pin a D*m down on exactly what it was that GW Bush (or Jeb, or Katherine Harris, or whoever) was supposed to have done to 'steal' the election? They *know* he did *something*, and that's enough! It's like getting a Woddie to admit that Anslinger appealed to racism when he was lobbying for the MJ tax act, or getting a creationist to acknowledge that very similar DNA sequences are found in different species, and that the tree of variations in the DNA pretty well matches the tree of life deduced by evolution.

[goody2shooz]

...getting a creationist to acknowledge that very similar DNA sequences are found in different species, and that the tree of variations in the DNA pretty well matches the tree of life deduced by evolution.

Amen, and thank you.

[=Intervention=]

I note that you take no issue with the flaws in Darwinism. The ID position (inasmuch that I can speak for them and as much as it is monolithic) is that there must be an alternate theory that does not have as many holes as evolution does. Behe, etc bring up the points of irreducable complexity and interdependence. The basic theory is that similarity in works suggests the imprint of a single author -- much like the characteristics of all of Shakespeare's works, or all of Monet's works readily show their similarities and their commonalities. But to demand that Only evolution be taught without also presenting its flaws or even ackowledging the existence of critics is to do schoolchildren a disservice. Yet that is exactly what you advocate, no? And that is the point where the state crosses the line from teaching into preaching. Advocation of that is being as dogmatistic as the church in Gallileo's time. Teach a theory without admitting contradicting evidence without ever stating that a theory itself never be proved (theories can only be disproved)...it is humorous.

[=Intervention=]

As I stated earlier...only atheistic scientists are concerned about "Creationism" as it is a perjorative word that they invented to cover all those who had alternative theories that suggest the possibility of a designer. The only "creationists" that will ever be discovered on this witch hunt are the unfortunate ones that the "scientific" community tar this year in further attempts to justify their funding.

[=Intervention=]

Please see my posts. They are in direct contrast to your own straw-men...:)