Countering Creationists in Public Schools
Karley wrote the following in a comment to an earlier post, and I just had to bring it out to the front page because I want everyone to read it and reflect on what she did:
I remember when I was in middle school (about 6 years ago), Dr. Thomas Sharp of Creation Truth Ministries came to our town to give some church presentations. My school thought it’d be a good thing to have the students take a field trip to one of his lectures. I went to one of his presentations the night before and had already declared him my Unknowing Sworn Enemy. Me being dubbed “Dinosaur Girl” by my classmates, it pained me to hear him spout such awful nonsense and lies about a subject I loved.
When everyone else loaded up on buses, I rode with the principal. I voiced my concerns, but he told Dr. Sharp to dumb down the creationism and evolution aspects.
The show was crap (at least it was more tolerable without all the “church crap”). He talked about a lot of hoaxes and mistakes, and went through his fossil replicas and talked about each animal. There were many errors that I, a mere teenage girl with a dinosaur fetish, spotted (like mentioning that there was no evidence of dinosaurs with feathers; which there had been for at least two years). He even plagiarized a dinosaur PC game for one of his demonstrations! The best thing I could say about it was that the students couldn’t care less. Sort of…
Not long after we had to give a science report on a branch of science; naturally I chose paleontology. Not many reports prompted questions from the class, mine did. One of them: “I thought the dinosaur guy said there were no feathered dinosaurs?”
My response? “He lied.”
So that’s my story.
Personally, I find this story to be inspiring. Not every school student is willing to stand up for what they believe in, not to mention willing to stand up and make it clear when an adult is flat-out wrong like this. That’s a shame, I think — I wish more students were willing to do this, but that would require encouraging students to stand up more often rather than sit meekly and simply accept what they are given. That’s just not standard school policy in most places.
I assume that Sharp’s presentation didn’t include a question & answer portion, for that would have been an especially good time to stand up and call him on his deceptions. Doing it later during a class presentation may have ultimately been better, though, for it gave this student the opportunity to present an uninterrupted case on behalf of science — something that wouldn’t have been possible at the Sharp lecture.
Read More:
Comments
I wasn’t expecting to make the front page- thanks!
Unfortunatly, it seems that around here Young Earth Creationism has only grown in popularity. In my first years of high school some kids changed my status to “Darwin Girl”, and I was occassionaly heckled or proseltyzed by other students.
Still, whenever the Creation Truth Foundation (or their cohorts AiG) rolls into the county with their expensive fossil replicas and cribbed science, I make it a point to attend. Last time I went to an AiG show, I filled both bathrooms and some merchandise with printouts exposing their charade. I doubt those prinouts convinced anyone, but you never know…
Cool, deja vu… or perhaps I replied to this when it was just a reply and not its own article or something… and yes, good there.
Creationism is not science, it is religion. I have yet to hear a creationist defend their position with sound science. What sounds “scientific” is nonsense aimed at people with little or no scientific training. The fact that people actually fall for this is proof that we need more science in our schools, not less.
I would like to offer a contrarian opinion:
Darwinism is not science, it is a materialist, secular religion, designed to support atheism.
Darwinism is not science because it cannot be disproved.
For example, the fossils fail to show any meaningful transitions at the level of class or phyla but this is not deemed a disproof. In fact, nothing would be considered a disproof to Darwinian pseudo-scientists.
For evolution to be true, Darwinists must prove macro-evolution (that actual mutations have led to a NEW SPECIES). There is NO EVIDENCE for macro-evolution.
Instead of evidence for macro-evolution, Darwinists fraudulently use evidence for micro-evolution (change within species)to prove macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is obviously true.
Darwinists fraudulently pretend that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same thing, but THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Darwinists have no evidence for macro-evolution. Instead they have invented clever stories which they support with fake drawings in science textbooks of embryos, horse transitions for which there are no supporting fossils, and much, much other fake evidence.
Unfortunately, fake evidence and clever stories are not science.
Asher Norman
Author of Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe In Jesus @ www.26reasons.com.
That’s not true. Any of the many predictions made by evolutionary theory could turn out wrong, thus showing that there is something wrong with evolution. You demonstrate here that you don’t really understand evolution.
Of course, you revealed that as soon as you started referring to it as “Darwinism” rather than evolution. It’s a sign that your driven by ideology, not reality.
Do you understand what it takes for any fossils to occur?
Actually, there are quite a few examples of observed speciation.
Point to any logical or biological barriers preventing micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution over time.
That is true, but it’s not a description of evolution. It is closer to a description of creationism and the pseudo-science peddled by religious believers who are driven by ideology rather than by science and reality.
Constitution so deliberately acknowledges the supremacy of Jesus Christ
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the
opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power
of the government is derived from the GOD Up until that time, it was
claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The
Declaration was from the idea of divine authority.
Constitution so deliberately acknowledges the supremacy of Jesus
Christ
our Lord over America
These people are invincibly ignorant [ as Sydney Hook would say] and want us to share that ignorance. Their brain shield of faith ,that circular argument , the I just say guides them . They have such a need for a god as do all theists,to give them ultimate meaning, eternal love and a furture state; we find our transitory meanings and human love sufficient and have no need for that state.
No, it doesn’t.
No, he didn’t.
#4
You are a demented half-wit. Please do us a favor and recycle yourself as compost.
It is contended by many that ours is a Christian government, founded
upon the Bible, and that all who look upon the book as false or foolish
are destroying the foundation of our country
Our Constitution was framed, to declare and uphold the deity of Christ .
Prove it.
The government of the United States is , in sense, founded on the Christian religion.” George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1791
1. George Washington didn’t write this.
2. You are lying by failing to include the “not” in that sentence: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity …”
Science has a method which throws out a lot of crap. Religion has a huge closet which saves it all, but only uses the stuff that gives it an advantage.
Many Christian’s who of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as proof of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. Constitution does not include the phrase “Separation of Church & State,” neither does it say “Freedom of religion.” Please note that the Declaration says about our rights secured by Christianity.The Constitution also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god, Janus), and Sunday (from the word Sunne, which refers to the Saxon Sun god). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the justification of a pagan god based Constitution?same goes to any ATHEIST who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the Constitution’s CHRISTIAN nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as dishonest and deceiving.
The name of the Christian God doesn’t appear in the DoI.
It also doesn’t mention “right to a fair trial” or “separation of powers.” The Bible doesn’t mention the word “trinity.”
No, it doesn’t.
Prove it.
And so we come to the crossroad where once again Christianty and Islam both promulgate the absoluteness of their religions. Americans are mostly on their own in this confrontation because their president holds the Christian god is enlightening and guiding him. Why are Americans unable to see this? We have become “God’s enforcer” but so has the Middle East.
Worshiping the Bible or the Constitution is ridiculous. Anyone who has experienced the presence of “God” (Not some skygod), knows that it does not have to be sovereign over anything. Crook religion and crook patriotism always reveal themselves in their endless bogus idolatries.
“I have examined all known supertitions of the world, and i do not find in our particular superstition of christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisioned.” Thomas Jefferson, third President of the USA, in a letter to William Short.
This whole article is about some person who thinks everything that comes out of his mouth or his head is correct. We’re not forcing our beliefs on you so what is your beef with us? There’s no need whatsoever to do/say such things, we have to sit and listen to your ideals of Earth and natural selection but you don’t see me voicing my opinion in a rude manner do you? That story is about somebody who isnt tolerant at all, that proves your narrow-mindedness and intolerant views it only makes you look bad. That person feels she should be treated with special specifications to suit her opinion. As I see it if she can voice her opinion in such a way as she did so can that profesor so this whole article and “story” makes not only you but those who believe what you do and who express it in such a manner as you, look ridiculous.
Creationism is religion and shouldn’t be taught in school science classes.
There is nothing rude in this piece; that aside, people have to learn about natural selection in science classes because it’s a part of science - just like gravity.
There is nothing intolerant about rejecting falsehoods and preferring truth.
No, she thinks that students should be taught the truth and that schools should not promote falsehoods.
First, there are no “professors” involved here. Second, no one has been told that they cannot voice their opinion. Third, no one has a right to present absolutely any opinion to students in public schools.
The only thing that is “ridiculous” here is the claim that there were no feathered dinosaurs.
Evolution is a religion - it is something you are putting your faith in. You put your faith in the idea that someday - maybe they will find all the pieces of the puzzle. How is that different than someone else putting their faith in God - that He created us? Creationists are not really saying that evolution can’t be taught - we just want the same amount of attention as other theories. There is not enough evidence to prove evolution - or it would not be a theory, it would be a law. Why should yours be the only theory on the table? If there is no proof for it - the other theories should not be excluded - just because you feel they are less credible.
How can you call evolution truth and creationism falsehood? Evolution is no more true than creationism is false! Why not allow children to be presented with other theories? It sounds a little like discrimination to me….
You should be able to support that claim. Then again, you haven’t even tried to support any of the other claims you’ve made — despite being asked to do so.
The difference is that I’m not putting “faith” in anything in the manner Paul described having “faith.” You are simply ascribing to me an aspect of own life and personality — perhaps because you can’t imagine how anyone can life without it, I don’t know. What matters, though, is the fact that rather than ask questions, make inquiries, express a genuine desire to learn and demonstrate an understanding that other people are different, you choose instead to just make assumptions which fit neatly in pre-determined spaces in your own worldview.
If creationism is a scientific theory on par with evolution and plate tectonics, you should be able to demonstrate how.
You lack of understanding of what a “theory” is in science is quite clear. Unfortunately, this basically invalidates any opinion you might have on the matter.
There is no “should” here — evolution is the only scientific theory about the development of life because it’s the only explanation thus far developed by the scientific method.
Because evolution is a fact as well as a theory; creationism, however, has no connection either with facts or with scientific theory.
No one is preventing churches or parents from presenting children with creationist beliefs. It’s only science classes where creationism isn’t presented, and that’s because creationism isn’t scientific. If you believe otherwise, then show how creationism is indeed scientific. Or is complaining about the situation all you can manage?
You mean, like how astrology isn’t presented alongside astronomy?
There is one “theory” that continues to have science prove it’s basic contention, issued in 1905, and that is Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity ie. E=MC 2. I suppose if one doesn’t believe theories have the weight of “law”,as Angela would have it, then how could anyone believe in nuclear weapons? Apparently all those billions spent on the Manhattan Project were wasted on weapons which didn’t devastate Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And then what part of the Iraq WMD argument doesn’t include the imaginary nuclear device Saddam was supposed to drop on NY City?
The Theory of Evolution is thoroughly robust and backed with enough evidence in order for it to be able to make predictions such as the recently found and explained deer like (or dog like as some would have it) animal which was the land based precursor to the whales. It was predicted that in the teeth of that animal there would be found the chemical signatures of an animal feeding on ocean derived food. It was predicted and it was found.
If Creationism is a science what does it predict?
You misunderstand the scientific method. If Creationism was put through all the rigorous scientific peer review that any other theory goes trough and came out the other end and gained scientific backing(convincing scientists who didn’t believe it before, etc), then it would. But creationists don’t want this. They want to skip the cue.
The amount of scientific criticism any theory has to go through before it is accepted is huge! That is how, if you learn about any theory, most are thrown out before they are given a chance. Even the “best” theories have been thrown out after peer review. It is only after a tremendous amount of work and after many changes have been made, that it can be accepted for another chance.
Again you misunderstand the scientific method. Theories never become laws. A theory explains a law.
Look at it this way: Did you ever learn music theory at school. You get theory and practice. The theory explains how to make music, and practice is the process of playing music. It is never called music law, because it isn’t a law. And just because it’s called theory, doesn’t mean there is no proof for it, or that it can be wrong.
Science is made of theories. There is a theory of gravity. There is even a theory of electricity. These are just explanations of what each are.
Now, explanations can be wrong, and every scientist accepts this(sun going round the earth etc), but the scientific method is constantly evolving and eradicating errors. This is even being done on evolution. They used to believe we evolved from neanderthals, but we have found evidence which shows otherwise. This has been tested again and again, like everything in science, and proven to be correct. We have a common ancestor with neanderthals, and are not directly descended from them.
The theory of evolution has so much evidence, that almost all practicing scientists accept it as proven. This does not mean that it is considered a scientific law, because it isn’t a law, and no matter how much proof there is for it, it will never be a law(that’s not how science works). It is, and always will be a scientific theory, unless it is proven wrong.
It takes a hell of a lot of work for anything to become a scientific theory, so the creationists have their works cut-out if they want to seriously be considered. They may be able to convince the courts that they should be allowed, and they may make it into schools, but this is in no way scientific. No scientific theory goes to court to be allowed to skip the scientific method and be forced into school science textbooks. If this happens, it will be a very sad day for science.
Now, for creationism to make it through scientific peer review, then they have to come up with hypothesis’ and theories which can be reviewed. No scientific theory is based on rebuttals or refutation of any other scientific theory.
Only after the theories of creationism(if they come up with any) have made it through a scientific peer review(of which, the theorist has no choice of who reviews it) then it can be considered for scientific weighing up against any other theory, including evolution or big bang theories. This is the only time that creationists should attempt to disprove evolution.
Anyway, hope this helps…
Lee
I need to add to avoid confusion:
Saying “God did it” is not a scientific theory or hypothesis.
You need to have explanations of each part, including how it was done, and this needs to stand up against every other area of science(Geology, Astronomy, Biology, etc.). This also needs to be backed with some sort of evidence. Not “This is so amazing! Only God could have done it!”, or “It says in the Bible…”
Hope this clears things up.
Lee
Theists consistently — perhaps deliberately — mistake atheism for some sort of inverted analog of theism. In that scheme, evolution is held up as a dogma to which atheists are obliged to adhere. But there were plenty of atheists before Darwin ever boarded the Beagle.
Please support your claim that creationism is a religion and not science? Make it clear and concise so all of us hillbillies can understand it. Good luck!
1. It has none of the standard characteristics of science.
2. It is believed solely for religious reasons.
I don’t know if that is simple enough for you to understand, but it’s as simple as he argument can be made.