Weekly Poll: Teaching Intelligent Design Alongside Evolution
Some argue that if a public school teaches about evolution, then students should also be taught about Intelligent Design. This is called 'Balanced Treatment' — the ideas is, schools should be fair and present 'both sides' of the debate. Is this a valid argument? Should Intelligent Design be taught? It's no surprise that creationists would use this argument because "fairness" is something many Americans consider an important public virtue. This means that framing your own position as fair and your opponent's position as unfair can help move an agenda a lot further than it would go otherwise. This is especially true when such labels are false, as is the case with Intelligent Design.
Calls to "teach the controversy" sound reasonable if there is a genuine controversy to teach; calls to "teach both sides" sound reasonable when there really are two legitimate sides to a disagreement. When the only "controversy" is one created and promoted by the groups making the call, however, we realize that it's a completely self-serving agenda that is being masked as something reasonable. What they really mean by "teach the controversy" is "teach the religious criticisms we have."
Perhaps the most basic problem with the whole "Teach Both Sides" movement is how dishonestly hypocritical it is. We can't ignore the fact that these same people don't advocate teaching similar trumped-up controversies in other subjects. Do we teach the "debates" about whether the Holocaust occurred, whether slavery in America was really benevolent, whether the Civil War was justified, or whether astrology is genuine? Of course not. Anyone who suggested such a thing would be laughed at — or worse.
The reason why schools shouldn't teach creationist complaints about evolution as if they were part of a legitimate debate is much the same as why schools shouldn't teach complaints about the Holocaust or the Civil War as if they were also part of a legitimate debate. The simple fact is, they aren't part of a legitimate debate because there is no disagreement about scholars in the respective fields about the truth of these things.
Comments
ok this is my first post ever… and i am the first to say … i REALLY hope the 24% are jusst kidding, this is sad if it this is what they really think
Austin, you’re a smart guy. That said, my early impression of you is that despite your asking, you have no ambition for debate; this makes you less smart in my view. My take is that when education is public, it is incumbant to inform students on both sides-or don’t bother with it at all. Besides, what’s the threat?! Government school already teaches theory(evolution)why not the theory of creation as well?? Again, what’s the THREAT? I would contend you see creation as threat because belief in creation requires faith…and that is something that needs to be taught OUT of a child-not taught to a child. I’ll add that the government schools are succeeding–and I’d bet you are proof. Good day.
The so called religious folks just can’t quite.
The programing is too strong for them to break.
They will do whatever it takes to get the people of the world to except their beliefs because they are right and everyone else is wrong. They are right because they read it in a book.
Perhaps this is a systemic problem with schools - that they have to decide such matters. What we’re talking about here is an ideological difference that enjoys prominence on two sides. There are other factions as well, but essentially there are two sides that enjoy prominence in our society. There are other factions as well, but I’m not going into that here and don’t expect to be defending any particular perspective.
My point is that there are people who have different ideas, and because the schools are public and because we live in a democratic republic, a decision has to be made about whose ideas make it to the classroom. If the schools are private, then the owners can make the decision about what is taught and let the customers react accordingly (some might leave, some parents might supplement their learning, etc). However, because the institution of education is owned by society at-large, each faction feels a degree of ownership and you end up with friction when certain views are not represented.
Friction is only good if it leads to meaningful and intelligent discussion and debate. Here there is no better exponent than J.S. Mill in On Liberty. How are our ideas to evolve if we all shut out the opposition? It is my opinion (clearly expressed as opinion) that competition among schools would bring about institutions that recognize the value of meaningful debate. At that point, it’s a matter of “may the best ideas win”. Any person who is convinced that his or her own theory is best, should not hesitate to endorse such a system.
Hence the church, if they are convinced of the superiority of their own ideas, should not seek to push against ideas that don’t agree with them using force (here I include the state as an inherently coercive entity), but only argument.
As for the more ridiculous controversies you list, I think it is a matter of their prominence. The idea that the holocaust never occurred is generally not a view held by students. If an atmosphere existed where some significant (I admit the subjectivity here) proportion of them denied the occurrence of the holocaust, then a recognition of the opposite point of view and an open debate where evidence is weighed and compared should serve to sway most of the participants to the more convincing argument.
Taking this example, one can understand why I would call on the atheist to endorse the allowance of intelligent design discussions in the classroom, and would, on the other hand, encourage Christian schools to explore evolution with full enthusiasm in a quest for truth (here I also want to say that they should not be forced to do so, but should embrace it for their own good, particularly if they seek to debunk the theory).
I am enjoying the reading on this site. I love debate, although I’m not great at it-or writing. But, I am having some good laughs.
What Austin finds not to be “legitimate debate” is a hoot. Seems Austin, you only see legitimate debate are ones you believe you can win-all others-not legitimate.
If one were to believe that anything that cannot be proven, should not be taught, is an a**, simply put. Even world history being taught must require FAITH. History can be taught just as subjectively as science-do you doubt it?… Study Howard Zinn and Paul M. Johnson as to my point. Facts are stubborn things.
Intriguing to me most of all regarding the faithless(although I know some atheists that believe in concept of faith)people is that they’ll deny it to the core regarding a creator of the universe, but they rely on it going through a green light in an intersection.
Please pardon the typos - I guess I should proofread my comments.
Sean, that is really what I think, and you’re free to find it sad if you like.
1. I don’t remember asking you to debate me.
2. I spend my time debating people when I find it’s worth my time and effort.
What “both sides”?
When there is a scientific theory of creation, it should be taught in science classes.
Where’s the theory?
“Contend” all you want, but it’s worthless unless you can construct an argument on behalf of your position. Not merely an assertion, but an argument.
Debate requires the ability to construct a coherent, valid, sound argument.
Feel free to show how. That will require an ability to construct an argument, though.
Can you point to anyone making this claim?
That’s not entirely true. What qualifies as science isn’t subject to democratic votes and only genuine science has a place in science classes.
Now, creationism can be taught in other classes, like history or religion, but creationists haven’t shown much interest in that.
That’s irrelevant to the point in question. If we are supposed to teach “both sides” of a controversy, then teaching Holocaust Denial in history class is as legitimate as teaching creationism in science class. The principle of teaching “both sides” has nothing to do with the number of students who happen to believe some particular side.
In class about American history or American religion? Sure. But it has no more place in a science class than does astrology.
And, yes, it is sad when a person believes that Intelligent Design qualifies as a “scientific theory.” That belief represents a great deal of ignorance about both science and Intelligent Design ideology.
Eric, excellent reply!
Donald, my response to you would be that you don’t know enough, or spend enough time with believers. You don’t know your “enemy” very well. I think this is important in these dialogs. The first thing you would understand about a Christian if you cared to understand enough…would be that one of the tenets of Christians is free will. Force does not, and should not enter into the lexicon of the Christian. I know secularists like to use the term “programmed” when speaking about Christians - We get the jab and its really not the most insulting-it could actually be a compliment. Did you not get any programming of your own growing up-can’t be ALL bad.
Austin,
You caught me. I am a believer in an integrated liberal arts education. I see all subject matters as either harmonious or not thought out to the point where they are found to be harmonious. Thus, I would see a need for the dichotomy to be resolved in both science and humanities classes.
Austin, So, breaking it down…
“it is monumentally sad when a person believes that Intelligent Design qualifies as a “scientific theory.”
I believe it to be sad that one cannot have faith.
What dichotomy needs to be “resolved” in science classes? Science classes are where science is taught; this does not indicate a lack of “harmony” with non-science classes, it merely reflects the fact that the subject matter in question is science rather than religion, pseudoscience, or something else.
Faith in Odin? Faith in Apollo? Faith in Krishna?
No, I doubt it. You’re only thinking of what you happen to believe — so what you find “sad” is that not everyone happens to agree with you. If what you believe is not obviously true, then you can’t expect everyone to agree with you. If what you believe is obviously true, then you shouldn’t have a problem demonstrating that — and, more importantly, it wouldn’t be “faith” anymore.
So either you have no good reason to find other’s lack of your faith sad, or you have no good reason to regard it as “faith”
Austin,
Believe it or not, I don’t care what you believe. I do frankly, care if you have faith or not. Do you believe in FAITH?
Warning: this is a trap
You are once again setting up a ridiculous straw man argument. This is a logical fallacy and you aren’t actually interested in making this a reasonable poll. Especially because I can’t agree with everything in the Yes answer, but can’t agree with everything in the No answer, but I still care.
Saying not believing in Evolution (which is a very broad term, especially for atheists) is the same as not thinking the holocaust happened is preposterous and is the very thing that makes me think you are the one with agenda since you make such fallacious arguments.
There are pictures of the holocaust, there is recorded written history of it. Show me the controlled scientific experiment that shows non life can turn into life, show me the experiment that shows a single cell turning into a creature, show me the experiment that shows a lizard turning into a bird.
What you don’t need to show me is the process of natural selection because even creationists believe that occurs. The one thing that can be scientifically proven via a controlled experiment, is natural selection, and creationists and atheists believe that alike.
If I believe there are many different types of dogs, do I believe they all were created that way, NO, I believe that there was created a single type of dog, and through natural selection and time, has led to poodles, wolves, and great danes.
You need to examine your presuppositions if you truly want to understand how you arrived at the conclusions which encompass all of evolutionary belief.
If atheism spread, it would become a religion as intolerable as the ancient ones. –Gustave le Bon
Stop trying to enforce your religion upon the world.
creationism, the bible and religion in general should be taught in a RELIGION class.
science is defined as:
- on wikipedia
“Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.”
- merriam-webster
“1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science.”
The bible’s concept of creation does NOT fall under those definitions.
The number of people who believe it should not affect whether it is added to a science class.
Notably, science has been at odds with religion in the past. Often to the cries of “heresy” and even death. In these cases, science was proven to be correct in the end.
Does this mean that science is always right and we should always trust it 100%?
Not necessarily. But what it does show is that there is a reason that science must be hypothesized and tested in controlled environments. That’s how we find out the truth of a matter, by systematically questioning and testing. NOT by taking a thousand++ year idea from the past and refusing to question it.
If you appreciate the technology around you that has led to better health, and easier lifestyles, you should not try to mess with what science stands for.
I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean by “believe in faith.”
In other words, you’re less interested in substantive, productive conversation than you are in cheap shots.
Feel free to show how, instead of simply flinging around unsupported accusations.
Since evolutionary theory doesn’t encompass abiogenesis, I have to conclude that you don’t understand the topic very well. Unless you actually know what evolution is, you aren’t in a very good position to object to the poll or anything I’ve said about evolution.
Feel free to show how I have done so (hint: this is another example of an unsupported accusation).
Austin,
I’m the first to admit that I type about 4 words per minute, I’m not as smart as you. I’m a Carpenter, I troubleshoot well. So, in asking you a bedrock,philosophical,simple question that you don’t/can’t answer can make my day(appears that’s happened)
I like to think that asking more questions than answering, is a good thing, it helps me. I’m not here to preach, that’s your job. you’re here to be challenged - accept that or go back to lecturing play-doe headed college students. The fact that you see a simple,short sentenced question as a “cheap shot” says much more about you than me.
Asking an ambiguous question with concepts that can mean many different things isn’t the same as asking a question that is too tough to answer. Ask an intelligible question and I’ll answer it. Ask an ambiguous question where you don’t bother to explain what you mean, and I’ll be forced to ask you to explain what you mean.
Only if they are intelligible questions.
Uh, no, sorry, I’m not here to preach either.
You’re welcome to try to do so, if you want.
I didn’t say that the question was a cheap shot, I said it wasn’t intelligible. It’s the desire to “trap” people, as distinct from having a desire for productive, substantive conversation, which means that one is looking for cheap shots.
That’s really no excuse to not try to be clear, to not try to construct real arguments, and to not care so much about substantive discussion. You can do all those things while typing slowly. Indeed, slow typing should give you time to think about how to clearly phrase things and how to construct a sound argument.
And, if you aren’t certain how to be clear about something or how to construct an argument, then stop, take a step back, and ask questions instead of just pushing ahead with unsupported claims, unsupported accusations, and ambiguous questions.
Ok, you need un-ambiguous questions.
Do you believe in dreams?
Only if you want un-ambiguous, serious answers.
And only if you want to be taken seriously.
What do you mean by “believe in”?
Do I simply believe that dreams exist? Sure. If you mean something else, well… you’re going to have to work some more on clarity.
My apologies, I actually anticipated this response after walking away and reflecting on my poor choice of wording. The ‘resolution’ I had in mind was toward an individual resolution, not a consensus. That is, it should be discussed how facts can or cannot fit into the individual’s world view. In the event that ideas are incompatible, the world view of the individual must be altered or the facts refuted. Hope that clarifies it.
Uh, no. Perhaps if you stepped back to explain what this has to do with the question of whether Intelligent Design, which is a religious/political ideology/tactic, should be taught in science classes alongside legitimate, serious scientific theories.
tamar, I wish you would apply those same definitions to the broad theory of Evolution.
Please show me how the “fact” of common descent is proven using “The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions”
Now I understand how natural selection occurs, but even though I believe that animals change over time and that through natural selection we get wide varieties of dog, and even how that can be scientifically verified, I don’t understand how you can prove this means we all came from one single animal which came from one single cell.
Stop with the straw man arguments. Remember this at least, creationists truly believe the world was created, just as Evolutionist truly believe we came from cells, don’t you think it would be good to investigate why they believe this.
I don’t even believe in Evolution (in the broadest sense of the term) but I still have read Origin of species and other books because I like to learn about it. Why don’t any of you do the same. There must be a reason that there are intelligent scientists out there who believe in creation.
And you can’t discredit them for being the minority because there was a point when it was a minority of scientists that started saying the world wasn’t flat and the majority (akin to today’s evolutionists) wouldn’t even listen to them.
Very well, but this has to stop consuming my day; I’m not being paid to debate.
My point is that an integral liberal arts education must teach students information, but more importantly, it needs to teach them critical thinking. Information is cheap in our age, only its processing is a skill with some underlying scarcity. Thus, there is a need to stop and examine how facts must be dealt with in the context of a world view, and in a religion class, it is not enough to lean on the world view without confronting facts. That would require science discussion in a religion class and religion in a science class, but only in a way that is pertinent to the students and moderated by the facilitator. The point is that each student must confront and resolve dichotomies within their world view if they exist, and it is the duty of an educator to get them to think about the consequences of facts and ideas as appropriate.
This is a very hard, if not impossible, concept to implement in a public school where world views are intentionally sequestered to their own classes, and brings us back to the idea behind my initial post.
Of course it does. You could do that with Intelligent Design. You could do that with astrology. You could do that with Bigfoot.
Science is not a “worldview,” it is ultimately a methodology. Worldviews may be more or less scientific and may incorporate more or less science, but the methodology of science itself is not a worldview on its own.
So it’s still not clear to me why you would this particular religious/political ideology taught in science classes alongside actual scientific theories.
Multiple lines of evidence from geology, fossils, DNA, biology, chemistry, etc. Would you like the titles of some good texts that provide the basics of evolutionary theory?
If you’re going to accuse others of using straw man arguments, you should at least identify where they are being used and why they are straw men.
Neither do I.
I simply accept evolutionary theory in the same way that I accept plate tectonics.
Are we to take it that this is the extent of original reading you have done on the subject?
Austin, this is becoming a real like/hate relationship - LOL
“It’s the desire to “trap” people, as distinct from having a desire for productive, substantive conversation”
Interesting, I really see it as - and I think others would see this as - you got trapped. Some would say getting trapped would be a perfect launching point for a “productive,substantive conversation –but not you; because debate is defined by you,as you want it- on your terms.
I can’t wait to learn the methodology of evolution then - my point being that the methodology has logical outcomes that must be dealt with in the context of a world view if one is to become a critical thinker.
Unlike ‘religion’, I believe the words ‘integral’ and ‘integrated’ speak for themselves.
A person who doesn’t answer an ambiguous question is “trapped”? Curious.
Only with someone who can be trusted to be interested in that.
If by that you mean that I want someone to be clear, to support the claims or accusations, and to know what they are talking about… then yes.
Otherwise, that’s just another ad hominem being used in place of anything substantive.
“Do I simply believe that dreams exist? Sure.”
Austin,do you believe faith exists?
Evolution is a theory that is arrived at through the methodology of science.
That’s true, but it doesn’t seem to address what I wrote: it’s still not clear to me why you would this particular religious/political ideology taught in science classes alongside actual scientific theories.
They can, but since no class can cover everything under the sun, choices must be made. You have yet to explain and defend this particular choice out of all the options that you might have suggested.
The only hint in that direction is your mistaken belief that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, but then I thought we were talking about teaching things other than science in a science class so that can’t actually be the reason. So, back to where I started: no clear explanation from you.
Aside from the fact that Bigfoot isn’t a world view, yes, you could. And that is the point of my initial post - that competition among integrated liberal arts schools would eventually drive out of prominence the more obscure world views.
Do I believe that people have faith in this or that, for this or that, etc.? Sure.
Now, before I answer any more questions, here is one for you: how is any of this on topic for this post? If it’s not, you’re going to have to move it to the forum. If it’s not, and you refuse to move it to the forum, your posting privileges will be revoked.
“Multiple lines of evidence from geology, fossils, DNA, biology, chemistry, etc. Would you like the titles of some good texts that provide the basics of evolutionary theory?”
Yeah but how is the scientific method using a controlled experiment used in any of these cases to prove monkeys and man had a common ancestor. The evidence you have from DNA for instance is many of the same DNA sequences and genomes are seen in monkeys and in people. But that doesn’t say we evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys it only says we share common DNA. And alternate explanations that equally can’t be proven is we were created with the same building blocks. But I admit this is not a scientifically testable fact as you seem to think it because we share DNA with monkeys so we must have had a common ancestor.
” Stop with the straw man arguments.
If you’re going to accuse others of using straw man arguments, you should at least identify where they are being used and why they are straw men.”
This was more pointed towards evolutionists general attitude towards creationists. Creationists are often told they are just trying to force their religion on others, and therefore their conclusions must not be rooted in logical and rational reasoning. Another straw man argument is used when a creationist says he doesn’t believe in Evolution because he doesn’t believe in moelecules to man or common descent and neither can be proven in a controlled experiment so the evolutionist then says evolution is true, and goes to show how a scientific experiment can prove natural selection (the backbone for the theory of evolution) and call the creationist an idiot for not believing evolution because of the experiment proving natural selection. When in truth creationist believe in natural selection and understand that their is change over time due to survival of the fittest (i.e. why lighter skin people live in areas with less sun, and darker skin people lived in areas with more sun) But proving the process of natural selection occurs doesn’t prove that we came from a single species and ultimately from a single cell.
Austin - what presuppositions do you make when you assume evolution to be true. Or maybe I should ask what aspects of evolution do you believe to be true and why.
What research into conclusions reached by creationists based on the same things you see have you done. have you truly tried to find out why creationists believe what they do?
For instance I like to go on talkorigins and read and learn about the beliefs there, I’ve read things by atheists like God Delusion, I’ve tried to learn about the origin of Evolution theory by reading Darwin’s OOS, I’ve tried to learn how Evolution theory has developed over time by looking at newer biology books as well as older ones.
Thanks, Austin. All I wanted was an answer.
My first and immediately preceding (which I submitted before seeing the above quote) posts address this. It is the central theme, which I have been trying to communicate from the start, and which you have not recognized or addressed at all. And which, by the way, I expected to be common ground between a theist and an atheist, which brings me to…
That’s clearly a non sequitor…and a fabrication at that. I suggest you quit trying so hard to attack me and examine my argument.
Anyways Austin, I enjoy the blog, although I think it isn’t meant to persuade people who have differing opinions as much as it is to encourage those who already agree with you.
The funny thing about me is I use to believe in Evolution because it was taught as true in school. Then since I accepted it as true without wondering otherwise all the explanations and theories from the evidence seemed to fit, but when I examined my presuppositions and actually studied it for myself and said “well what if isn’t true” how would I answer it then, I find other explanations and theories that also seemed to make sense.
Anyways I’ll keep reading your blog and commenting and will try to not be one of those typical Christians that seemed to be so hated. If it means anything I never voted for George Bush and I didn’t vote for McCain = ) (although i didn’t vote for Obama either)
Who ever said I was trying to convert anyone to atheism?
Feel free to show how.
You’re right, I don’t recognize it anywhere in what you wrote.
1. It’s not a non sequitur because believing that Intelligent Design is obviously a possible reason why one might think that it should be taught in science classes.
2. It’s not a fabrication because you admitted to being among those who voted that “All scientific theories about life should be taught, not just the orthodox beliefs of godless Darwinians” to the question “If a public school teaches evolution, should they also teach Intelligent Design as well?” That means you place “Intelligent Design” in the category of “all scientific theories about life.”
It wasn’t an attack, it was an observation. And I’ve yet to recognize where you’re making the argument that I’ve asked about.
Maybe if you first learn how to ask clear, on-topic questions, you’ll be able to get answers.
But as already noted, that requires that you be interested in serious, substantive discussion rather than “trapping” people.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that “controlled experiment” is always necessary for science.
That is the case when trying to get their religious ideology taught in classes.
Feel free to cite where this specific conclusion is deduced from the premise in question. I mean, cite where anyone has made this actual argument. If you can’t, then you are the one guilty of using a straw man.
Kind of like how proving that you have the same DNA as that left at the crime scene by the killer doesn’t prove that you are the killer, right?
I don’t assume evolution to be true; I conclude that it is.
I’ve read a great deal of creationist material over the years. Too much to point to any one thing anymore, especially since it’s been a while — it’s not as though anything new has been produced in a long time.
Now that, clearly, is an implication that is not really justified given the confines of the poll. Nice bear trap; was that intentional? While technically you are correct that it’s not a fabrication, you still never addressed my point, which I refuse to restate.
It is a non sequitur because it doesn’t have anything to do with the logic of my argument. And the way you defended it above makes it appear to be an ad hominem argument as well.
My comment was regarding the nature of educational institutions.
Why not? The question was clear; the answer was clear. Your answer, reiterated in a comment you wrote, is that you believe Intelligent Design is scientific. There’s hardly any implication to make, given how clear-cut it all is and how unambiguous you were in asserting that you are among those who assert the truth of the first answer.
There is no trap, intentional or otherwise.
I already explained why I did not address your “point”: I see no argument or “point” which you claim exists. I see no answer to my question. I see no explanation for why you would single out Intelligent Design, out of all the possible things under the sun, for inclusion in science classes.
Maybe you just haven’t been as clear as you seem to think you’ve been.
Since the question which your argument is supposed to address is why teach Intelligent Design in science class, I have trouble seeing why a possible reason for teaching Intelligent Design in science class is a non sequitur.
My question is why teach Intelligent Design in science classes. So, maybe your comment/argument isn’t really addressing that and this is why I’m not recognizing it?
I reread my arguments and I think they are sound. At this point I’ll let you and your readers take it or leave it.
“Sound” isn’t the same as “clear.”
OK Austin what about this. You said to me
“You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that “controlled experiment” is always necessary for science.”
If I am mistaken then tell me how else you prove anything. Like I said before monkeys and humans having similar DNA ONLY means that. You can infer all you want that means we came from a common ancestor but I can equally infer that means God made us using the same building blocks. So yes, you don’t need a controlled experiment to state that, but you do need it to prove it.
And you quote to many people mid paragraph and take things out of context.
How did you ever come to the conclusion that Creationism is false, since to me if a valid argument is made you dismiss it by saying Creationism is stupid, but then you say Creationism is stupid because everyone dismisses their arguments.
The one thing I can infer from your responses to others is, you truly have never tried to learn what Creationists believe nor why they arrive at completely different conclusions based upon the same evidence. Spend some time tonight on answersingenesis.org and find the three most difficult arguments to argue against, and then tell me what they are and why they are still wrong. I’ll be back tomorrow to see what you found.
By examining the evidence at hand.
So, do you admit that you’re taking the position that without controlled experiments, it’s not science?
Feel free to show how that it is a legitimate inference.
Feel free to show how.
Claims are inconsistent with the evidence.
Do provide citations of where I have made these statements. No, don’t respond unless you do — those are serious claims/accusations and you really do have to support them.
Feel free to support this accusation through references to the many things I have written about creationism.
I haven’t found any difficult creationist arguments.
Why don’t you present the three creationist arguments you find most credible — arguments so important that, if found to be false, would cause you to reconsider your position. If no such arguments exist, your position is necessarily not reasonable.
I can tell you that already: you make a lot of claims and accusations but spend absolutely no time trying to support them. That disingenuous, to put it mildly. There’s absolutely no place here in these comments for a person who does that; unless you change and begin to support your accusations, you will lost your posting privileges.
In response to SC, at post 26:
“Now I understand how natural selection occurs, but even though I believe that animals change over time and that through natural selection we get wide varieties of dog, and even how that can be scientifically verified, I don’t understand how you can prove this means we all came from one single animal which came from one single cell.”
Okay, that’s a good start. Now take a look at related large mammals, like dogs, cats, and bears. These fur-bearing, quadriped, carnivores all came from the same ancestor. We can use the same processes to show this that we use to show the common ancestry of all dogs - DNA, fossil records, embryology, etc. There’s no “magic line” at which natural selection stops. The line between species can only be seen once it has been passed, and two animals with common ancestry can no longer interbreed.
It’s really just a step by step process backwards, as we move from the disparate “branches” of the tree of all life back to the trunk, and down to the base. As you do so, the differences become greater.
Once single celled life existed, the difficult part was done. By comparison, multi-celled life forms evolving from that start point is a relatively simple process, and certainly one that is now pretty much fully explained and documented. So, if all people understood that evolution and abiogenesis were NOT the same thing, there would be no need for people to “deny” the reality of evolution.
Your analogy at the end is flawed. It was the same people - the religious dogmatists - who insisted the world was flat, that are now denying evolution. In both cases, those using science were correct, and those using religion were wrong.
From further down, the scientific method does not consist only of controlled lab experiments. We can do those for some of the scientific disciplines - some of the physical sciences which live in the “Science” faculty. But for the Social Sciences - the “Arts” faculty which studies humanity - and for some of the physical sciences, we have to use different means for utilising the scientific method. We can’t just use lab tests, because some things would take too long in a lab, or no lab is big enough to contain them. Fortunately, the world is one big lab, and we can study the past. We just can’t do this work as quickly and easily.
Austin, this is why Dawkins refuses to “debate” Creationists. Because they are not interested in an actual debate.
Notice how you break down their flimsy or non-existent “arguments” and point by point directly refute each one. The Creationists response? To ignore your points and follow-up questions. Then they proceed to regurgitate logical fallacy after fallacy (all of which have been deconstructed and shown for what they are almost as many times as they have been mindlessly repeated) all the while accusing you of not addressing their “issues”.
While you’re debating (quite well, might I add) they are simply trying to muddle the waters. Anytime they can even get ID into a debate with science they take it as a win, regardless of how the “theory of ID” held up in that debate. It’s the act of getting ID and science the appearance of equal footing that’s important to the Creationist. They could care less if that appearance is false in the deeper examining, since the Media, Government and people who don’t understand the deeper issues who are the primary audience whom they hope will view supposed equality. And those groups are rather likely not to look into the debate much deeper than the surface appearance.
I’ve taken to using a different approach . There are many websites that already deal with presenting research and thoroughly debunking the tired old ID claims. They always use the same tripe so a simple link to the relevant article that addresses whichever false dilemma/straw man/whatever with the request to please respond with a rebuttal citing source(s) in a point by point format is the best way to deal with them. Warn them that you expect a timely response to this or you will assume they are trolling (which they are) and therefore ignore them.
If they continue ignoring the requests for the type of honest and open debate they pretend to so desperately want, ban them from making comments (the same way you would any other blatant troll). Make sure to warn and explain previous to banning so they cannot try and use the ban to make themselves into some sort of (’Expelled’ style) digital martyr without it being painfully obvious to anyone who reviews the ban that the IDers in question richly deserve it.
This prevents the Creationist movement from simply using proximity as proof of controversy (”Look, look! ID is legitimate! We debated DAWKINS!” Forget that fact that Dawkins utterly thrashed their arguments back to the bronze age).
Kudos to you though, sir, for so thoroughly refuting the Creationist argument (once again). As I’m sure you can attest, it becomes tedious doing so over and over again. The least these folks could do is come up with some new fallacies for us to point out and debunk, but considering the utter lack of logic and evidential/experimental support their “theories” hold, it’s little wonder that they robotically recycle the same routines repeatedly, ad nauseum.
In response to MattB. I couldn’t agree more. I absolutely “believe” that my version of the creation, which is the One True one,should definetly be taught in public, and private, schools…WORLDWIDE!!! Here it is: In the beginning, MOTHER NATURE created the universe, and She also created something we now know as EVOLUTION and set it in motion. Unfortunately, after humans evolved, they rebelled against Mother and “created” their own dieties they called, god, which, as you well know is Dog spelled backwards. Thus was born our concepts of evil, and sin, and satin, and hell, and all other “believer” falsehoods. That’s why Mom gets pissed off every once in a while and sends us all those nasty NATURAL desasters. So, by all means,let us teach our young the wonders of Mother’s Nature’s CREATION! Amen. Hi, Mom.love ya’.
I’ve thought a lot about this. It’s similar in some respects to the global warming debate. Proponents of the global warming theory insist that “there is no disagreement about scholars”. The problem is that the “fact” that there is no debate among scholars is itself a debatable fact.
This is the problem with public schools. You teach the same orthodoxy to all people, who then bicker about it. Abolishing public schools would and moving to fully private education would solve the bickering, although I can’t say whether this is what we ought to do.
I would prefer to skip the whole creationism argument because I find it intellectually lazy. Simply to say “God musta done it–the end,” whenever you confront a challenging mystery is unsatisfying at best. At worst it snuffs curiosity. If ID must be brought up, it should be as an example of what not to do.
But this is my opinion. And because I demand that my opinion be respected, I feel a duty to respect the opinions of others no matter how idiotic they are. So if the sense of the community is that ID ought to be taught in public schools, then let them teach it. Yes, it would be be a bother for me to have to unteach my kids, but when you live in a free pluralistic society, sometimes you gotta deal with that sort of thing.
I vote “nay” emphatically, but I will respect the outcome of the vote.
So, is teaching that the Holocaust occurred just teaching “orthodoxy”? Is teaching that the earth is round just teaching “orthodoxy”?
First, no opinions deserve inherent respect. Any respect has to be earned, not given automatically.
Second, respecting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean honoring what that opinion demands. So if you want to respect someone’s opinion that the earth is flat or is only 6,000 year old, go ahead, but that doesn’t require that these views be taught as fact or science in schools.
The problem is that the “fact” that there is no debate among scholars is itself a debatable fact.
With respect to science education, there is no debate among the vast majority scientists that evolution is a fact.
The few scientists who disagree fall into one of three categories:
1) Those whose words were distorted or misrepresented by Creationists to indicate support for intelligent design and/or creationism;
2) Scientists who are not biologists (usually, engineers, dentists, and doctors);
3) Scientists who argue from religious opinion, not scientific fact.
Both ID and Creationism fail as scientific explanations. Whether these notions should be taught (and how they should be taught) in the public schools at all is a separate matter from whether or not they should be taught in a science classroom.
Great debate, back and forth, and back and forth… The debate is not the validity of ID or otherwise. ID is a religious belief, period! Science is not! Religious beliefs are to be taught at whichever church you choose to attend (or not) or at home. Separation of church and state demands that my tax dollars not be spent to teach or promote a “religious theory”. Period!
Mark, please don’t dignify religious claims as “theory”. This merely perpetuates the problem. A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been found to successfully explain, and successfully predict, how the world works. ID is dogma, not theory.
in response to Rich’s post (55)
I BELEIVE!!!!