WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools

World Watch and The Rhinoceros Times ^ | January 8, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[highball]

But where's the evidence that it actually happens?

I know that the claim is frequently made, but I have yet to see a single piece of evidence supporting it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It's true by definition. Don't you believe in definitions?

<sarc off

[Condorman]

But the problems that the Designists raise with the Darwinian model are, in fact, problems. They do understand the real science, and the Darwinian model is, in fact, inadequate to explain how complex systems, which fail without all elements in place, could arise through random mutation and natural selection.

Not true. Is this irreductably complex?

[Condorman]

I have long said that Card is a decent fiction writer. His op-eds often leave something to be desired.

[CobaltBlue]

But where's the evidence that it actually happens?

I dunno, I haven't seen the inside of a science classroom in umpteen years. Maybe out in the hinterlands there is a cadre of atheistic biology teachers preaching a militantly atheistic explanation for the origin of the universe and life on earth in science class to all who will listen.

I rather think he's a figment of their imagination, sort of an urban legend, and that they never actually set foot in his classroom but, on the other hand, I have known a number of skeptical and/or atheistic scientists in my time and maybe sometimes they scoff to tender ears when it's not appropriate.

Fundamentalist Christians seem awfully sensitive to differing points of view, you may have noticed.

[munchtipq]

Indeed. It's really frustrating to see what's going on, because if you just look at Behe's claims, disregarding the conclusions, if those were verified they would be, in my opinion, an aid to teaching evolution. What you would then have is evidence that simple additive genetic mutation is not sufficient to produce the species we have, that these more complex mutations have to be taken into account, and that they're not just theoretical, that they actually happen. That, to me, brings more insight into evolution.

I feel like in a saner world, this would be the conclusion of the irreducible complexity argument, and it would be cool and people who read about it would say "wow, that's pretty cool" and things like evolutionary algorithms would start to include these mutations into their mutation set and all kinds of neat things might happen and we might even call it the "Behe Mutation Set" and now none of that is happening...

[Senator Bedfellow]

Nice. Where is that? Not that I plan to spend much time standing under it, mind you ;)

[narby]

The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific. The main points are:

1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).

2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).

3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).

4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).

5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).

6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).

7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).

Let's take these points in turn:

I nominate this article for the Darwin Central "Golden Fossil" award, for the most classic strawman argument. Here in 7 strawman points, the author builds a bogus case that he can knock down.

[dmanLA]

"God isn't trying to fool us, we are doing a good enough job on our own."


I don't know about that one considering what Paul writes

IIThessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

---

When they don't believe in Him...

[Condorman]

California (or so the website says).

Strong Arm Arch

[narby]

Darwinism is not just being used to teach elements of biology to children - it's being used as a foundation to "disprove" the existence of a Creator to generations of students.

You've got it exactly backward. It's a particular brand of Christian Fundamentalists (*not* Catholics, not Jews, and not some other Christian denominations) that set themselves up as the *true* knowledge base for earths history over the top of science, that is the problem. If these few Christian sects would acknowledge that the Bible is not a scientific text, and teach that there can be no conflict between science and the Bible, then the problem goes away.

Science cannot speak to the issue of whether there was a "creator" or not. All it can speak to is the history of what happened, not whether there was a supernatural entity that made it happen. It is true that some atheists seize on evolution to attack religion. But they are easily disarmed, as the Catholic church has disarmed them, by acknowledging that Genesis is not science, and can be interpreted easily to fit the scientific understanding of early earths history.

[narby]

Looks like the Darwinists still have work to do.

You sling around the word "Darwinist" as if it were "Communist" or "Nazi".

Science does not recognize a field called "Darwinism". That word is a boogy man word invented by creationists in order to give them something to demonize. It's no different from the way the Islamists demonize infidels, in order to stir up the masses at friday prayers.

[Elsie]

Piling On observed....

[Condorman]

irreductably = irreducibly

Grr...

[Elsie]

Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article

Well, I guess THIS sure ends the arguing!!!!

[Elsie]

Late Hit observed...

[Elsie]

I believe I was created in God's image, out of material that was an ape.

I believe I was created in God's image, out of material that makes up an Ape as well.

---

However; I have a LIVING soul.

[Elsie]

Harvard University, 1636;

Declared purpose was, "To train a literate clergy"

from the Rules and Precepts, "Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, John 17:3 and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdome, let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of Him prov 2,3.

Yale College, 1701;

Purpose as stated by the trustees on November 11, 1701; "To plant, and under ye Divine blessing to propagate in this Wilderness, the blessed Reformed, Protestant Religion, in ye purity of its Order, and Worship."

The primary goals outlined by the founders, stated; "Every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably lead a Godly, sober life"

Princeton University;

Offical Motto: "Under God's Power she Flourishes"

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ" -- Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, first President of Princeton

---

Thank GOD oops - WhoEver, that we sure don't teach THIS worldview any more!!!

[Elsie]

"And right after that, we'll show you how to use a condom correctly.

And, if there is time left, I'll need a volunteer with a small fist."

[Elsie]

Ecclesiastes: 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.] OH?

Clear to WHOM??