New Tactic In Evolution Debate (10 ?'s to Ask Your Biology Teacher)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/03/tech/main692524.shtml

Nearly 30 years of teaching evolution in Kansas has taught Brad Williamson to expect resistance, but even this veteran of the trenches now has his work cut out for him when students raise their hands.

That's because critics of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection are equipping families with books, DVDs, and a list of "10 questions to ask your biology teacher."

The intent is to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of students as to the veracity of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The result is a climate that makes biology class tougher to teach. Some teachers say class time is now wasted on questions that are not science-based. Others say the increasingly charged atmosphere has simply forced them to work harder to find ways to skirt controversy.

[Barrett808]

1. A good teacher would use this as an opportunity

To demolish the argument from design in front of the whole class.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. I agree

It's especially funny that they publicize the Ten Questions so that every teacher worth his or her salt can prepare the best demolition in advance.

It's the questions that come out of left field that may leave you stammering as a teacher, but if you know what questions will challenge a point in advance, it's of course much easier to examine its logic.

[Eloriel]

11. And if I were a teacher, I'd write these out,

hand them out the first time one of those questions arose -- if not pre-emtively -- and warn students NOT to waste further valuable clss time with this organized effort to disrupt, else face penalties (whatever penalties I could devise from more homework to detention to ... whatever).

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. There I disagree strongly

It is not a waste of class time for students to engage the material, even at fundamental levels, and threatening punishment for such questions is backwards in the extreme. There is no pedagogical value in shutting down that kind of debate.

[wryter2000]

51. I tend to agree

The Christo-fascist zombie brigade is about pushing dogma. We aren't. It's much better to answer the question and demolish the illogic, not the kid. Of course, if kids continue to ask questions that have already been answered, you could say, "What was my answer the last time this question came up?"

[Arkansas Granny]

64. I agree with you.

Any question that is asked in a serious quest for knowledge should be answered. If we didn't question, we wouldn't learn.

[reprobate]

241. But this isn't a serious quest for knowledge, it's an attempt to

show up the teacher as a fool, to disrupt the class, and that cannot be permitted.

Reasonableness in the aid of idiocy is not an aid to learning, it is an attempt at indoctrinaiton.

[The White Tree]

84. I likewise agree with you

If I were a teacher where I expected this to be a possible issue, I might spend the first day of Biology class that deals with evolution, discussing these questions. If done properly, it would likely raise doubts in the minds of those same students about the talking points they are being force fed and may open their eyes.

[rodeodance]

103. yes, I agree--the students need discussion--not punishment

[Occulus]

110. You're assuming the source of the questions has no bias,

that this source wants debate.

It does not. The ultimate goal of those providing these questions is to have creationism, and only creationism, taught in class.

Let's get something clear: these are people with whom debate is impossible, pointless, and a complete waste of time. You can't debate awqay someone's religious beliefs no matter how hard you try- and these providers of these questions don't want anything taught but their religion.

These questions are pointless and are only intended to get God's creation taught as science. We should not have to tolerate that.

There's a place for religion, and it's called church.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. Wrong

I'm assuming no such thing.

And whether the questioner wants debate or not - or is biased or not - is immaterial in actual classroom practice. The classroom is the place for that debate, not the place for shutting it down. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any classroom management: good teachers (and I consider myself one) know when to move topics, and how to move topics.

I see some posts downthread that say stuff like "These people should be dismissed like flat-earthers, etc." I would never dismiss out of hand a flat-earther in my classroom. I would, rather, put specific evidence on display and ask that person to defend him or herself publically with reasons. The same applies here. You follow out the logic of the question, regardless of the bias of the questioner (everyone has some bias), or the questioners intentions.

That way, you end up practicing an ethical pedagogy at the same time that students learn how to tackle difficult questions in a public forum with well-reasoned arguments. If the student refuses to be reasonable, then the student's point won't get any traction. The problem with dismissing them out of hand is that you as a teacher appear to have no good arguments, so your interlocutor's vapid points begin to take on the breath of life. That's a mistake, both politically and pedagogically.

[Occulus]

126. I think you might have misunderstood my statement

These people providing these questions aren't interested in honest debate, because they have no interest in seeing "their" religion's doctrines being debated. As far as they're concerned, there's no debate, only an erroneous conclusion reached by a bunch of unenlightened, secular scientists who have abandoned God's word of truth for modern, faithless beliefs.

They see no proof in evolution, not because they're too stupid to see it, but because in their mind there is nothing to debate. To them, the teachers are teaching the wrong things.

"If the student refuses to be reasonable, then the student's point won't get any traction."

This is exactly the opposite of what the people who are pushing these questions into students' hands know is true. They know if enough students in enough classes push, and push, and push for creationism discussions in a science class, and gain no traction from their questions, those students will run home and say that "a whole bunch of us want to talk about how God created everything in science class and the teacher won't let us." Next, a bunch of angry parents who feel their students' beliefs are getting short shrift go to the school board and demand "equal time" for religion in science class. You'll probably see a priest or two decrying secularism in the schools for good measure. The parents will then force the school board to teach it, and that will be that.

This fulfills one of the Dominionist/Reconstructionist goals completely: insertion of God into public school. Any classes will do, even math, because- since math is always true when proven true- it's a special symbol of God's perfection. And yes, that statement is consistent with Dominionist/Reconstructionist beliefs.

Do not give these people the benefit of being reasonable, because they are all too willing to use your reasonableness against you in order to destroy you. They have no moral compunctions whatever in using kids to do so. They want America as an officially Christian nation in all regards, and this is how they get their foot in the door- by finding some poor schlep willing to be reasonable with regard to their unreasonable beliefs and goals.

They aren't Christians, but they use that religion religiously. Their plans have no place in a free and civil society, and in fact if enacted would bring both those concepts- freedom and civility- to a swift and brutal end.

[SemperEadem]

197. however, science class is not the place for religious debate

and if the parents want creationism taught so badly to their children, they should enroll them in a private school which teaches it and pay tuition to send their child there, not use taxpayer money in public schools to forward a set religious agenda.

If they teach christian creationism, they should also teach the origins from all religions in that science class, too.

[alcibiades_mystery]

198. Never said it was

In fact, I say quite explicitly in a post below that I draw the line at broad theological discussion. But that doesn't mean that you avoid answering questions that go to the evidence of the scientific theory. Any scientist worth his or her salt should WANT to answer those questions.

[knitter4democracy]

137. But the teachers are dealing with kids--not the parents, yet.

Debating a teenager is almost always a good idea in a class. It has to be done respectfully and carefully, of course, but anything that makes a student think is good.

I taught high school for three years, and I loved having debates in my classes. Since I taught English, anything and everything came up, and even though I was in Catholic schools, I was always encouraged by my admins to have debates and encourage critical thinking. Even if a parent gets mad, you might still get through to the kid.

[Occulus]

159. I understand why it *might* be a seemingly good idea,

but think on this:

Lit class. Let's say AP Lit, just to make things more fun. One student, whilst class is discussing poetry by Langston Hughes, raises their hand and questions poetry's legitimacy:

"I don't think this is legitimate poetry, Mrs. X., because he's having all these problems and questions, but he's not asking God for help."

"Well, what do you think it is, then?"

"I think it's a bunch of sinful complaining, actually. The Bible has lots and lots of references to people praying to God when things get bad, but he's not doing that."

"Well, we're not here to talk about God, are we? But I'll address that. Did God come down and help the writer?"

"God helped the writer write the poem so the writer could see his problems on paper and ask God for help."

"Well, we'll discuss that later, maybe in another class..."

"I think I'm going to ask my parents to tell the school board to cover the Bible in this class. After all, the Bible is literature, too, and we've been coving enough secular materials this year already."

And so it goes, maybe not anything like this, but that would be the end result. Note: these are not Christians pushing these questions, even though the kids themselves are very likely the ones who piously go to church every Sunday with their families and do no harm to anyone.

They be used, and they be not knowing it. Which is exactly how the Dommies/Recons want things to be.

edit: you taught Catholic school, so that likely would never have happened in your class. Not because it would be simply pre-accepted truth, but because students in Catholic schools just aren't that obnoxious about it; they're in "the group" already, as it were. In public schools, some students, parents, and groups definitely feel there's not enough God in school, and these questions they're asking regarding evolution are their attempt to "remedy" this.

You are already prepared to deal with these questions, but a public schoolteacher isn't as likely to be able to effectively deal with them on the spot, and the Dommies/Recons are counting on that, to perpetuate the discussion as they see it and force their way through the door.

[knitter4democracy]

192. A couple of incorrect assumptions in there.

First of all, not every student at a Catholic school is Catholic. In fact, in the schools I taught in, about one-third of the student body was not Catholic. The vast majority of those students were evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Pentecostals--Dominionists whose parents felt that the Catholic school was the best choice from a bad list of choices. Those students often tried exactly what you are concerned about, especially in the religion classes, even going so far occasionally as to say that Catholics aren't real Christians. Yeah, that went over well.

Secondly, I did my teacher training at an evangelical college (I used to be one) with all of my observations at public schools. I was a public school kid, as well, and the only reason I didn't teach in the publics was because I couldn't find a job there at all. There had been thousands of teacher lay-offs the year before, and the few open positions were quickly filled. I was lucky to get in at any school, and I was very thankful that I got in at the schools I did.

Thirdly, I taught AP English (although, in my schools it was Brit Lit, not American), and that kind of conversation did come up. I usually was able to turn it to the many ways people can pray and ask for help. We would talk about how some people journal, some talk with friends, some go to pastors and priests, some only pray in a solitary way, and some use action, trying one thing after another until they hit on what works. I remember that conversation coming up during Hamlet, actually, with one student asking why Hamlet didn't just pray for forgiveness and the power to forgive. That started a very good discussion.

Remember: there is never just one kid in a classroom. One student can try to derail a class discussion, but the other students rarely allow that, let alone the teacher. If a student tried, I usually would quietly ask him or her to write down his or her main points and concerns, and we would discuss them privately after class.

Interestingly enough, I learned that at my college--we Christian college kids were actually taught how to help students think and clarify their positions, even in issues of faith. I know that seems odd, but it's true. We were trained on how to deal with issues of faith that came up, how to redirect the conversation, and then talk with the student one-on-one in order to preserve the rights of the other students. Maybe I was lucky in the college I went to, but it is something I've heard from others from other colleges.

[Occulus]

229. Thanks for the detailed reply

I had a feeling my scenario may have applied to courses you specifically taught, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. When I said it wasn't likely it happened where you taught, I was speaking to the whole 'conversion' of a class through groupthink perpetuated by one or several students; 'making' the class think it's a good idea, and so on.

Wouldn't that actually be more likely to happen in a public school rather than a private Catholic school? That was the question I was trying to ask; sorry if it was garbled.

I think, perhaps, things may be more extreme now than they may have been while you were teaching. The piont I've been trying to make is that the groups behind this latest push aren't interested in any views but their own, and they're totally willing to hund teachers into bending to their will.

If they had their way, every school day would begin with a Christian prayer (their endorsed version, of course), every school function would begin with the same, God would touch all aspects of education, etc., etc.

This is the Dommie/Recon goal. One of several.

[knitter4democracy]

238. That's one of their goals, true, but not everyone's on board.

Remember, there are always more students in the room than the Dominionists. The other students won't allow that kind of stuff to go on for long, usually arguing that it's going to hurt whatever they need to know for tests and grades.

When I was a teenager, I was an evangelical--a pretty serious Nazarene, in fact (in case you're wondering, that's James Dobson's church). I went to a public high school, and there was no way my other classmates would've allowed me to hijack class discussion like that. Granted, I graduated in 1992, but things haven't changed that much. In fact, even though school policy was that I could not be forced to watch movies, I had a teacher who did and, after I reported it (it was Roman Polanski's "Macbeth"--funded by Playboy and not appropriate for high school students, period) who had the entire class of 25 debate me (and only me, not even the other two evangelicals in the class) on why I should've been forced to watch the movie. Boy, was that fun. :eyes:

I understand your point, but I'm arguing that it's harder for them to do than you think. You're giving them too much power. Even one kid shouting out from the back of the class for them to shut up or get on with it or whatever usually works. A good teacher (and many, many are) will see it coming, derail it, and keep on going.

[trogdor]

213. If I were a school administrator.

I would devise a Bible As Lit class. I would even let the holy rollers take it instead of the regular lit class. I would teach it myself, and make the class so incredibly demanding that the top student would be happy to walk away with a B-.

There would be term papers out the wazoo, handwritten or typed (no word processors) and they'd better be gramatically correct with no spelling mistakes. Need a typewriter? Sure thing, bub. I got a 1970's vintage Selectric for ya. It's a bit heavy; need help carrying it to the bus?

Comparative study of KJV vs. NIV would be part of the class, as would extensive study of the brand of English in which the KJV was written, as well as the culture of England during the reign of King James I. They'll wish they were taking the secular English Lit by Christmas.

The next year, when the next class avoids my new class like the Plague, I would argue for either a property tax increase or elimination of the Bible As Lit course due to lack of interest.

[Occulus]

228. That IS an acceptable solution, but

that's not what these people want. I'm not talking about the students per se here; rather, I'm talking about the people spoonfeeding them these questions and the "acceptable answers".

[UCLA Dem]

122. but it is a science class, not a religion class.

religion should have nothing to do with it. they should be discussing cells and changing populations not who made the universe.

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. Go read the specific questions we're discussing here

At the link.

Any class in evolution should be able to dispatch these questions easily. And they are questions that go to scientific evidence.

I am not talking about entertaining broad theological debate in the biology class. But if a student asks a particular question about why science textbooks rely on a particular scientific experiment, I think those students deserve an answer, and that any scientist or science lover worthy of the name would feel obliged to answer such critiques, since they go to the scientific theory.

[UCLA Dem]

131. I agree. Those should be easy to dismiss and move on from.

I'm actually surprised the fundies are making it so easy to slam down their complaints. It sounds like they're more tying to "poke holes" so to speak than push religion directly.

I'm sure when this technique doesn't work then they'll go back to out and out shoving religion down the collective throats of the public school system.

I really can't believe they think these silly questions would actually work.

[Occulus]

155. I don't think that's the point at all

the point is the attempt to grind the actual education to a halt.

Kids won't understand the importance of the wall between church and state- that that wall exists so both can thrive- because they are not being taught about that seperation adequately. When a school does try, it's likely as not to be met with cries of religious persecution or intolerance, and so often goes only barely mentioned in a civics course. (We spent far more time in our civics class memorizing names and dates than we ever did discussing the whys of our Constitution, and I can't imagine that has changed too terribly much in the intervening years.)

Lacking that understanding, they'll not realize that what they're doing by asking those questions is akin to what the Recons/Dommies are doing (or would like to do) in general; i.e., introducing God into discussions in which the concept has no current place. That is part and parcel of the religious takeover the Recons/Dommies want.

Why do we think the public school system has been defunded so badly? I assure you, it's not because teachers don't do a good job, or because schools aren't important... it's because the Recons/Dommies don't want free public schools, period.

They want public schools which teach Biblical principles and views, or better yet, no truly public schools at all (they've already been saying for years that schools are 'too secular'). Science which questions the Bible, therefore, is verboten, and the questions these students are being told to ask (and I think I do mean 'told') are one means to that end. The push to discuss abstinence only as part (or the whole) of a sex ed class is another very big target to these ends.

All these things that are going on- first the defunding of public schools (so resources are strained to begin with), NCLB (test test test, teach to the test, no real learning required), abstinence-only 'education', and now these "science" questions- these are all part of one single, big plan: get the students used to God in school so they will be used to, nay, eager to accept God in public life.

It's all advancing because they're already used to it to a great extent. Trust me, these people don't think in terms of four year increments for their religious takeover of America; they've been working on this explicit goal for more than thirty years. They thought and planned at least an entire generation in advance, and very brilliantly (from their standpoint) decided to get the kids on their side.

Not being taught otherwise, the kids will do just that, because they're not being taught the truth about our Constitution and our system of government. Surprise! The theocrats did that, by defunding schools and putting in place all those programs I mentioned above.

Someday, we'll have people in power who are kids now who were intentionally not taught about the seperation between church and state. Their ignorance was (and is) forced upon them by the people who want to see America officially a Judeo-Christian nation.

All these people want is power and control in the name of God, and they're using our public schools to set it up for the future. Why am I the only one who seems to be able to see this? It's really obvious, once one puts all the pieces together with the Recons/Dommies stated goals.

[alcibiades_mystery]

200. That's all very well and nice

As a grand theory, and I even think you're right about overall strategy of the neocons.

But that is a useless position for classroom practice. If a student asks a specific question related to the evidence provided in a textbook, the teacher should answer that question. Period. Any other classroom praxis is self-defeating and reactionary.

Let me emphasize (once again) that I'm talking about SPECIFIC QUESTIONS that go to the evidence supporting principles and theories that they are learning. I'm not talking about theological debates between evolution and creationism (is it a or b, or some other such nonsense). The 10 questions that this thread is about are specific and go to support. Any science teacher should be able to defend a position at the level of its scientific support. In fact, doing so will enrich the learning process, since students will be able to sketch out the underlying assumptions and logic of the theory rather than merely accepting it by rote (a process that science rejects as a founding principle).

[Ms_Mary]

207. I strongly agree. If the students are seeing the subject from a faulty

angle, it needs to be addressed up front. They may not all be receptive but it needs to be done.

[Canadian Socialist]

175. If they wish to discuss religion

in a science class, then they must discuss ALL religions in science class. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. Be it Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, or Wiccan theories of human/earth development, those are RELIGIOUS viewpoints. I'm just pulling these particular organised religions off the top of my head. I have not particular knowledge of their beliefs <disclaimer>. If they want a religious discussion, go to religious class. <end of rant>

[trogdor]

214. Ooh, making EVERY faith's creation story part of the curriculum...

...would be nasty indeed. I'd be sure to put that stuff on my exams, too.

"How to the Navahos believe the world was created?"

"What was Buddha's take on the origin of man?"

Make the sorry bastards wish they never brought the subject up.

[CO Liberal]

130. There's No Value To Starting The Debate in the First Place

Darwin's Theory is much more plausible than the theory outlined in the Book of Genesis. And religious instruction has no place in public schools.

[pokercat999]

149. I agree when I was a student it would have

confirmed in my mind that the questions were valid. A better response might be to prepare 10 questions regarding the alternatives like creationism. Now that would stir the hornets nest!!!!!!

[Massacure]

168. As a 16 year old, I wouldn't advise you to do that.

That would be real tacky. It is 10 questions. It can't take more than two or three minutes to answer them all, and most kids don't want to debate the teacher. I don't debate my teachers unless I have a damn good reason to.

Don't punish them unless they are obviousy grasping at straws just to waste time.

[shugah]

190. if i were a teacher

i'd hand them out the first time one of the questions came up and make that the homework.

[trogdor]

212. Loss of a letter grade usually works.

Seriously, I'd compose carefully crafted responses to all ten questions, assign the result as reading, and make it part of my mid-term exam.

[wtmusic]

50. Devoting that much attention to it is counterproductive

It should be simply dismissed like flat-earth theories. Engaging in debate gives it credence it doesn't deserve.

[XemaSab]

66. Avoiding it

looks suspicious, like you have Something to Hide or you're afraid that evolution really IS a weak idea.

[wtmusic]

71. Well we should address flat-earthers then too

and Ptolemy's earth-centered solar system. None have been "proven", you know...

[XemaSab]

77. Other than by the moon landings

which were faked.

[txaslftist]

227. Heh. Good one.

[JackRiddler]

148. A good science class...

Will indeed go through the paradigm history and explain why people thought as they did in the past based largely on the evidence to them (the Ptolemaic system was a scientific theory, and like most science it was proven wrong as more evidence turned up), and how paradigms shift and scientific revolutions occur.

[wtmusic]

151. Making it clear, of course

that these issues are no longer "open". The matter is settled.

Kansas teachers are not able to do this.

[JackRiddler]

152. well, that's a problem for Kansas...

unrelated to the general principle of how science should be taught.

The matter is not "settled." Copernican systems have also given way. The Big Bang, relativity and quantum theory are themselves all in ferment and dispute. Watch for more paradigm revolutions.

Science is the process of creating new models with each generation of scientists, all of whom get it wrong. Over and over. Each new model has fit what is known better, and allowed for ever-more amazing applications, but so far each was inevitably doomed to be knocked down by new discoveries and insights and yet another, superior (wrong) model, just like the last. To think this ends any century soon is the usual act of hubris on the part of living scientists.

Many know that who nevertheless don't want to be too loud about it, because of the assault of the absolutist theologists who would like to create a new dark age; but to deny that is to deny the essence of what science has been.

I am confident that science will beat out the theocrats within another 30 years.

And everyone here should finally be aware that biological evolution is a historical fact, established by the means of historical inquiry (the fossil record, dating methodology, anatomical comparison).

Neo-darwinian synthesis (basically adding Mendel to Darwin), the currently dominant THEORY of evolution, proposes a model to explain the fossil record and has received confirmation insofar as the same mechanics is observable in artificial selection (i.e., our own breeding of species by selection); and it has survived various plausibility tests and adapted well to new discoveries and insights; but it is unlikely to be the last, complete word on how evolution happened. There are opposing and contradictory currents within the Darwinian tradition, and we may yet discover other mechanisms in evolution.

That all being said: Go Scopes, give the theocrats hell!

[wtmusic]

158. Evolution is "settled"

inasmuch as it gives a far more complete and accurate accounting of the available evidence than so-called "intelligent design", which an active imagination can make into anything it wants. Though various mechanisms within evolution are still in question, the basic principle is as much a fact as "the earth is not flat".

Evolution is not only historical fact. Real-time adaptation of microbe strains to surrounding conditions has been observed countless times in the laboratory and in studies of infectious diseases.

[JackRiddler]

169. Oh, relax

No need to repeat your talking points - you're fighting the theocrats, not me. Just don't let yourself fall into an opposite dogma, superior though it may be; it can still be dogma.

Read what I said again about the historical fact of evolution.

Science will be more robust if we admit that it is an art of constantly getting closer to the truth by trial and error - emphasis on the error as the majority of what comes out (and is weeded out) in the process. It is always an open process, and cannot live without its own heretics, from whose ranks the next paradigms generally arise (along with something like 99% error).

Evolutionary theory (i.e., the model used to explain the fact of evolution) is so far great at explaining the fact of adaptation over generations, but has yet to entirely settle speciesation and major evolutionary leaps occuring within short timespans (on the scale of anaerobic to aerobic).

Who's to say we won't determine possible mechanisms other than environmental selection acting on random variation? Great scientists like Margulis are off theorizing in this direction. (The "intelligence" that guides the process is likely not coming from an outside creator, but inhabiting the molecular level.)

None of this obligates us to teach Genesis in science class!

ID in a more intellectual variant, (e.g., the deist idea of a God who only occasionally if at all tinkers in a universe that evolved over billions of years) is for now unfalsifiable, also unprovable - and therefore not (yet) in the realm of science.

Science classes need deal with ID only that far: to point out its continuing irrelevance to scientific method due to its unfalsifiability. ID can therefore be left to faith and Sunday School.

This is the stronger way to defend (and teach) the scientific method and its legacy: to say it's not set religious doctrine, its body of knowledge itself evolves.

[wtmusic]

179. God in the realm of science?

As God has always been the mortar that fills the cracks that current science can't, there's no reason to think a scientific explanation of God will ever be possible. God is not only unfalsifiable, he/she/it *must* be unfalsifiable, or it ceases to be God. God is the anti-Science. Therefore it's pointless (and counterproductive) to even suggest that there is an "intellectual variant" of ID which might one day show signs of validity.

ID purports to have its basis in scientific method to lend a veneer of legitimacy and logic to religion (for fundies who care a whit about legitimacy or logic). Their "science" is as valid to them as yours is to you. So if you want to lecture the Topeka school board on how ID is unfalsifiable, good luck.

Let's cut to the chase here. The explanation of why ID and all the other fundie nonsense started coming out of the woodwork after 9/11 can be summed up in one word: fear. If science and scientific method can placate people's fear it will regain their devotion, as it did with the invention of penicillin, the atomic bomb, etc. In the meantime that task is one that only God can handle.

btw I'm quite relaxed, thank you ;-)

[JackRiddler]

180. you are having trouble reading what I actually write

So never mind. You mean well.

For once 9/11 is not the culprit here - the yahoos have been out to burn Darwin's books for more than a century.

I do love your butter graphic, sent it to a friend earlier today.

Peace.

[callous taoboy]

82. As I teach science I constantly refer back to

how old the earth is, how we have the fossil record and carbon-dating to prove it. This dispels the myth that the earth is thousands of years old right out of the gate.

[wtmusic]

90. There ya go

Sorry but if we open a debate on Evolution vs. "Intelligent Design", it creates a de facto assumption that debate is warranted.

ID is best ignored in the classroom and fought tooth and nail at the school board.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

244. Debate is always warranted.

It's one or both of the arguments involved that may or may not be warranted, and debating is a way to determine that. Just because you're willing to listen to an idea doesn't mean you accept it.

Intelligent design may be a faulty notion, but that doesn't mean you should just dismiss it with no argument. An idea - any idea - deserves better than that. Hear it out. Listen to the arguments supporting it. Present your own evidence about why it's a bad idea, and please remember to show your work. Then, and only then, will you be justified in dismissing an idea you disagree with, even if you knew from the start it was BS.

[jwcomer]

99. With all due respect

Carbon dating and the fossil record should rarely be used in the same sentence. You need to look up fossil dating techniques; particularly if you are a pedagogue.

[Terran]

105. In the interest of knowledge,

could you elaborate? You're saying carbon dating is not used to determine the age of fossils? What other method is there? Fossils are laid down in layers of ground that can themselves be dated, but I'm not sure sure how that is done.

[callous taoboy]

124. Here ya go, and for jwcomer too:

How do “they” know the age of fossils? Of bones discovered in an archaeological dig? How can “they” be sure that the numbers are accurate? The answer is, of course, through carbon dating. But just what is carbon dating? How does it work? Carbon dating is related to exponential functions and natural logarithms. Through this activity, you and a group of 3 or 4 classmates will apply what you have learned about exponential functions to determine the age of some ancient objects. Hopefully, you will gain a better understanding of both exponential functions and carbon dating.

More:
http://gouchercenter.edu/bdelcastillo/carbon_dating.htm

[Terran]

135. Thanks, and I sorta knew that already

I knew that carbon dating can be fairly inaccurate; I guess the point is that it's never so inaccurate by a factor that confuses billions of years with a few thousand, therefore still proving that the earth is not 6000 years old.

By the way, I think your screenname is probably in the top three cleverest names I've ever seen here!

[n2doc]

146. Depends on the time scale of the "fossils"

For things of recent vintage, (mammoth bones, human remains) 14C dating is just fine. However, it is useless for items older than about 100K years. Nearly all of the 14C has decayed away by then. For those older items there are a variety of other radioisotope decay series (Uranium-Thorium, for example) one can use. One of the most powerful arguments that these are not artifacts and can be trusted is the fact that one can go from short-lived decaying isotopes to longer lived ones, and the dates you get using differing methods all agree within the errors of the measurements. So for example scientists have used both carbon 14 dating and Uranium Thorium dating to establish the ages of fossils.
See:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/dating/index.html

[JackRiddler]

153. correct

C14 for up to 100,000 years; heavier isotopes for the older stuff.

[Terran]

167. Thanks

This is new information to me. :thumbsup:

[callous taoboy]

107. Where do I state that fossil record and carbon-dating are

mentioned in the same sentence? "You need to look up fossil dating techniques; particularly if you are a pedagogue." Where do you get off?

[chaumont58]

112. I've seen on the Creation Network a psuedo scientist try to debunk

Carbon 14 dating. He just said it was a mistake, it wasn't true.

[callous taoboy]

114. And you know, these are the same assholes

who've had loved ones benefit from, or maybe they themselves have benefitted from, the remarkable medical advantages to living in the 21st century thanks to scientists.

[Occulus]

160. Not if they believe that information to be untrue out of the gate.

"The Bible says so" trumps many things for many people.

Are we seriously trying to claim here that they'll discard what they're being taught at home, in Church, and "from the Bible" in favor of some secular science text that they believe in the first place is wrong to begin with?

[RobinA]

188. Engaging in Debate

doesn't lend credence to nonsense, it's a opportunity to teach. Every one of those questions can be an opportunity to teach something about evolution, scientific method, etc. To not take the questions seriously tells the student, "Ummmm, teacher can't answer these questions, there must be something to the,." You give them a answer and maybe the next time Pa starts preaching about dirty libruls who think we came from apes, the kid has some answer to the dogma.

The LAST thing any fundie wants is actual answers to scientific questions. Knowledge is a nuclear bomb to fundamentalism.

[modrepub]

54. It is a "waste of time"

I generally agree with answering all student's questions. But with all the testing going on these days to demonstrate proficiency (and the loss of funds for those who don't meet these standards) I don't see how any district can take the time to answer these questions. These people have nothing better to do than be a stick in the mud.

[Zerex71]

142. I think the Wrong is not really interested in the answers.

Here's why: In today's society, "debate" simply becomes inarticulate yammering and yelling, and to a conservative (who already, as most of them have shown, are impossibly ill-equipped to deal with linguistics and forensics), all that matters is just turning the situation into a yammering, stumbling, yelling mess. So they figure in their minds that they are "right" and "correct" if they can catch a teacher ill-prepared or off-guard (which any smart teacher might be if they didn't have a heads-up about this tactic -- I mean, wouldn't you be if some ludicrious nutjob idiot kid started in with the wacko theories that everyone i.e. most sane/educated people know to be false?).

So, I think that their purpose is to feel like if they can even get their points brought up in class, then they've "won" (nevermind the simple fact that science, time and progress march on while the cute little fables and sanguine admonishments of the Bible are little more than nice allegories that somehow these subhumans have latched onto in some show of allegiance to the larger class of ill-educated sheeple these days). And, being too stupid to know otherwise, they won't realize they didn't actually "win" anything except the shame and reprobation of their teachers and fellow schoolkids.

If they were kids in my class, I'm shame them so bad they'd never show their faces in class again. I do not suffer ignorance lightly, and I would not allow crackpots to take up class time.

[valis]

171. YES!

[Hobarticus]

3. Sample question:

Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Sounds like Fox News...ask the question, state it as a fact, don't back it up with any of your own facts, just get it out there.

[fob]

9. If I were a biology teacher I would say, "That's a great question! Your

assignment is to prepare a report of all the facts that support Darwin's theory and all the "facts" that support creationism and present them to the entire class next week."

Of course I would be prepared for that student to have their parents pull them out of my class, but that would be a benefit to the rest of the class for sure.

[Eloriel]

12. Hah! That's even better than my idea. n/t

[Demit]

28. Haha! that's always been a great teacher secret weapon, and rightfully so

[Protagoras]

49. Or perhaps a paper that requires them to

Define a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Scientific Law. Then describe how we assess each in order to determine their relative strength and weakness when contrasted with others.

Perhaps this is why we don't want our children to learn logic in school.

[Don Claybrook]

115. Then give the student an F for plagarism

Because you would likely find that they have copied some fundagelical FAQ in its entirety.

Your idea holds much promise.

[Kenneth ken]

117. exactly

treat the question as though the student has a real interest in learning the answer, and send them searching for it. As far as I'm concerned the real purpose of education is to teach a person to think, ask questions, and find answers.

If the student brings back answers that point out that evolution does not have all the answers, well and good.

If the student brings back answers that simply dismiss evolution as fraud because it doesn't square with a bible, fail the student for shoddy research.

[Barrett808]

29. Immediately challenge: which claims are based on misrepresentations? n/t

[monobrau]

106. When did Darwin stop beating his wife?

But really, this is an excellent opportunity to not only rebut these questions, but more importantly, teach the kids the critical thinking skills needed to fight this garbage. Oh wait, did I say critical thinking? Nevermind, I forgot that we need to produce non-reflective, obedient soldiers for the lord to fight the minions of satan.

[UCLA Dem]

128. Its a theory thats still evolving. Nothing has been "proven," there is

just strong evidence through years of observation to support the theory. Once there is enough contradicting evidence, then you must revise the theory. Furthermore, you can't technically "prove" anything. There is always a shadow of a doubt and a chance that something might come along that makes you revise your thoughts.

No one is saying the theory of evolution is infallible or absolutely correct. the people who are trying to distort are those ignorant fundies who only want to hear one thing: they are correct.

[valis]

172. Easy:The teacher should challange any students who ask this question

to come up with a list of misrepresentations by evolution theory. And the he/she can proceed to destroy the list, in front of the class.

[Lerkfish]

4. I wish this species could get back all the time wasted

by fundies trying to disprove evolution. If they spent that much time helping the poor or arriving at solutions to spread Christ's compassion and benevolence...what a world this would be!

instead, all these years and man hours rumbling down the same rats nest.
meh!

[daleo]

5. Let's play "Ten questions to ask your Sunday School Teacher" too.

I would start with "If God is Love, then why is the world so cruel?". I am sure that we could could all come up with another 9 stumpers easily enough.

[Salviati]

6. Good god (no irony intended), can you imagine how villified...

a group of atheists compiling a list of "10 questions to ask your sunday school teacher" would be? Liberal media my ass...

[Orrex]

25. No different from now

How much more villified can you get than to be endlessly declared arrogant, blind, unpatriotic, insane, nihilistic, selfish, un-American, and stupid, not to mention being thrown onto the pyre of blame for every ill to befall the United States which is, of course, one nation under God.

Of course, it's not yet technically illegal to be atheist, so I guess it could get worse...

[jwcomer]

102. you say that like it is a bad thing.

"arrogant, blind, unpatriotic, insane, nihilistic, selfish, un-American, and stupid, not to mention being thrown onto the pyre of blame for every ill to befall the United States" Generally just the set of adjectives for the people you ought to know and emulate.

[Lisa]

89. what a perfect segue into "informal logic" -- e.g. "the straw man"

Actually, in our department's philosophy of science course, we spend a unit examining how admitting that a theory is flawed, and changing it to accommodate observed reality, is NOT a sign of weakness and deception. (Though it might appear that way if you are treating scientific findings the same way as religious dogma ... which seems to be something the people pushing that list of questions are doing.)

[AllegroRondo]

15. I like that idea

2. If God already has a plan for our future, why do you pray for a specific outcome? Do you presume to know better than God what should happen?

[Alpharetta]

23. I can answer that one

Some Christians believe in predestination. I can't answer for them. But I think they'd say the prayer was part of the plan too and was needed for the plan to come to fruition.

Liberal Christians are comfortable with paradox. We can handle mind-warps like "God was here BEFORE time". So it's no big deal to believe in free will and also in God's ability to see the future as if it was already past.

[DiverDave]

68. HA HA! I spit coffee out my nose on that one!

That was FUNNY.

[triguy46]

16. How about...

exactly when and how did God stop planetary motion and make the earth stand still, rather as in the Bible, the sun stop moving?

Or... explain the chemical steps necessary to turn water into wine?

Lest we forget that Newton's theories are JUST theories...

[Alpharetta]

38. You do know that they're not theories, they're laws, right?

And many scientists' conjectures regarding the Big Bang, for example, or black holes, for another example, say that not all Newton's laws are in effect when other forces override (such as supergravity, for example).

[Alpharetta]

21. depends on the Sunday School teacher

I can handle your first one easy.

"Nobody said this world was perfect. Try the Book of Job -- it laughs at anyone who tries to explain God."

P.S. I find the "10 Questions to ask your science teacher" are easy too. I could knock those off without too much time. None of them refute evolution.

[Barrett808]

32. Free will versus determinism is better

If God is omniscient how can free will exist? Etc.

[Alpharetta]

35. Already answered in same thread

This post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1441566&mesg_id=1441674

[Barrett808]

62. I'd say being "comfortable with paradox" isn't much of an answer

I once saw a Christian theologian using nonlinear dynamics ("chaos theory") in an attempt to resolve the paradox. He seemed to have a good grasp of the basic concept of sensitivity to initial conditions, but to my mind, the attempt still failed. God must be ignorant to some degree (of quantum fluctuations, in this case) to "make room" for an unknown outcome.

Still, I was pleased to see somebody at least making an effort, rather than just leaving the elephantine paradox to languish in the middle of the room. To resolve the paradox, it seems likely that one or more assumptions must yield: omniscience or free will are the most likely.

[catnhatnh]

24. How about....

Can God make a rock so big even He can't move it???

[Alpharetta]

40. most Christians are comfortable with paradox

Some Christians acknowledge them. Others don't.

For example, the Trinity. Jesus is God. Jesus is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is God. Separate. The same.

Your answer will vary depending on what kind of Sunday School teacher you get. But the question's not exactly a faith-shaking stumper.

[catnhatnh]

43. If He can't...

...He's not all-powerful and if He can...WHOOPS!!!

[Alpharetta]

48. Not exactly.

Ask it in its more obvious form: could God kill himself?

==

Contemplation of God is not guaranteed to be easy.

[catnhatnh]

55. Sure...

...it's OK with me...

[uberotto]

26. I like this one asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro...

Are right/good acts right/good just because God says so, or does God say so because they are right/good?

If it is just because God says so, then God's commandments seem arbitrary.

On the other hand, if God's commandments are made for a reason, i.e. if there is something else (other than God's arbitrary decree) about bad acts that makes them bad, what is it? And is God then irrelevant to ethics?

And what if God does not exist? Does anything go?

[Alpharetta]

44. the nature of belief

Of course there's no straight answer. Only personal ones.

But it's not a faith-shaking stumper. Seriously. Any religious person can take either stance and make it work.

Me? I'd say God knows good, God saw it was good and so he said it was good. I'd say ethics are capable of standing free of God. That does not imply God is irrelevant to ethics.

[Orrex]

59. Yeah, but...

If goodness exists independent of God, then goodness is not subject to God, and God therefore cannot qualify as the "supreme" being.

At the very least (by this formulation) then God didn't create "goodness," so he didn't create everything, which conflicts with scripture.

Alternatively, one might posit that goodness is a function of Creation (as Milton obliquely proposed) i.e., of the universe. In that case, goodness remains arbitrary and subject to God's whim.

Worse, if goodness is subject to God's whim, then God can't be assessed in terms of goodness or evil, so any claims that "God is Good" or "God is omnibenevolent" are nullified.

Fun stuff!
:nuke:

[AllegroRondo]

47. Another one

If God is perfect, how could he create an imperfect universe? A perfect God would be incapable of creating anything flawed.

[Alpharetta]

52. God is not a programmer

Faith and belief are personal. If somebody can only conceive of a God the puppeteer, then fine, I guess that's as far as they can go.

[AllegroRondo]

56. I'm not sure I follow you

[Alpharetta]

63. "A perfect God would be incapable of creating anything flawed"

I don't agree.

Flaws are beautiful. Artists love flaws. Why can't God?

[AllegroRondo]

67. Perfection by definition means no flaws

so a perfect God would be incapable of creating anything flawed.

edit - more info.

doing less than creating perfection would mean God is not perfect. If he were perfect, he would have created a perfect universe.

[Orrex]

80. That objection is circular

Until you define "flawed" independent of "perfection," you are simply assuming your conclusion.

Additionally, you are assuming that humans (a subset of the universe) are qualified to assess the absolute "flawed-ness" or "unflawed-ness" of the universe, but you have not demonstrated how this might be the case.

I do not believe in this "God" that theists like to talk about, but arguments against its existence should be logically sound.

[AllegroRondo]

85. No, the idea of a perfect God leads to circular arguments

[Orrex]

86. Of course it does

I'm not disputing that faith is inherently circular, but that doesn't mean that objections may likewise be circular.

Besides which--you haven't demonstrated the means by which you impartially assess the absolute flawed-ness or unflawed-ness of the universe. Until you do so, your objection remains unconvincing.

[AllegroRondo]

97. The fact that evil exists shows that the universe is flawed

[Orrex]

98. Again, circular.

You're assuming your conclusion. Each time you do this, even if you assume a restatement of your conclusion, your argument is circular.

[AllegroRondo]

104. No, I've pointed out that the argument for God is circular,

and therefore illogical.

[Orrex]

113. And I've agreed that the argument for God is circular.

But the fact that your argument is circular does nothing to demonstrate the validity or non-validity of your opponent's argument.

In fact, if you were to voice your argument in an actual debate with a debate-savvy theist, that theist would attack your argument and thereby make your position appear to be ridiculous, regardless of the absurdity of his own argument.

And if the discussion were held in a public forum, I'm confident that the theist would come out on top. Not because his argument is correct but because they're generally very good at controlling the arc of the debate itself. If he spends enough time in mocking your position, the audience will come away believing that the theist had won handily, and you will have done yourself a disservice.

The theist will ask, for example, where your idea of good vs. evil came from, if not from God. This is largely irrelevant to the debate, but your attempt to answer will take so much time that you won't be able to rebut the theist's essential argument. And, once you've credibly articulated your notion of good and evil, your opponent will hit you with another similar question, requiring you to waste further time on another irrelevant answer.

You're better off formulating your argument so that it stands on its own regardless of your opponent's position, and by all means you can't assume your conclusion!

[AllegroRondo]

132. Let me break it down to the basics

three of the arguments for the existence of the Christian God are:

1) God is perfect
2) God created the universe
3) The universe contains evil

My argument merely points out that these assertions are mutually exclusive, and that a Christian God could not exist where all three are true.
This in no way makes my argument circular, it shows that the Christian argument is circualr, and therefore a fallacy.

[Orrex]

176. That's swell, but it's not the argument you've put forth

Here's your actual argument so far:

Assume:
1) That which is perfect can't allow evil to exist
2) If God exists, then God is perfect
3) If God is perfect, then God cannot permit evil to exist
4) Evil exists
-------------------------------------------
Therefore:
1) God does not exist

Really, that's the essence of your position. Unless you define "perfection" and "evil" independent of each other, your argument remains circular. Here's why: You're defining "perfection" as "the nonexistence of evil," and you're making "God" synonymous with "perfection." By assuming the existence of evil you are assuming the nonexistence of perfection; therefore, you are assuming the nonexistence of God.

By the way, other interpretations of your argument include:
Therefore:
2) Evil does not exist
3) God exists but is not perfect
4) That which is perfect can permit evil to exist
5) The existence of evil is independent of the existence of perfection

And on and on...

And until you reveal how you have the objective means to identify evil, your argument gets no better.

[AllegroRondo]

184. The existence of evil is the basis of Christianity

because without evil, there would be no need for salvation.

identifying evil is not necessary on my part, it has already been assumed by the Christian argument.

[Orrex]

193. Round and round we go

Identifying evil is necessary on your part, because you're basing the entirety of your argument on it. You draw a flaccid equivalency between "flawed" and "evil," but you give no justification for this equivalency other than a vague "this is what I've decided" kind of statement. Forgive me if I find that to be unconvincing.

In Reply132 you made a half-hearted swipe at redefining your argument this way:

1) God is perfect
2) God created the universe
3) The universe contains evil

Where, in this argument, do we see that perfection is incompatible with evil? Are you requiring us to infer your assumption? Sorry, but that's unacceptable.

Where, in this argument, do we see that, by creating the universe, God created everything in the universe? I made a peanut-butter sandwich this morning; does that mean that God made my peanut-butter sandwich? Are we to infer that God created everything that the universe has created subsequent to its own creation? Sorry, but that is also unacceptable.

Frankly, I'm bored with your one-liner answers. This will be my last reply to you until you offer something more substantive.

[Terran]

108. Is that an argument for, or against, the existence of god?

"The fact that evil exists shows that the universe is flawed"

The latter, I assume, no? If so, that's just as circular as arguments for the existence of god. To say such a thing, you would have to be privy to the mind of god, and know that god even considers evil to be a flaw. We don't know that. And many Christians would just tell you that god allows evil to exist to test the good. And of course several Eastern philosophies say that one can't exist without the other.

Just sayin'.

[AllegroRondo]

111. Its meant to point out the inconsistancy of the Christian definition

The standard definition of God, in Christian terms at least, is of the perfect being; or of the perfect goodness.

But we can see that there are things in the universe that are more or less good (or perfect) than others. Therefore a perfect being could not have created the universe, because he would not have created a universe with flaws if he were perfect.


This all actually comes from arguments against St Aquinas' essays on his proofs of the existence of god, several centuries ago. Fun reading, though.

[Orrex]

123. Still looking for your answer,

"We can see that there are things in the universe that are more or less good (or perfect) than others."

By what standard are these things judged to be less good or less perfect? Is that standard separate from the universe, or is it a subset of the universe?

If the former, I must ask how your mind has access to it.

If the latter, then I must ask how you determine that your judgment of perfection/goodness is qualified to make that assessment objectively.

[Terran]

127. Ok, but

But we can see that there are things in the universe that are more or less good (or perfect) than others. Therefore a perfect being could not have created the universe, because he would not have created a universe with flaws if he were perfect.

This is *your* own reasoning, is it not? You're not saying this as illustrative of someone else's opinion, are you?

If the former is the case, then again I say you are basing your whole argument on logic that is just as circular, because you are assuming god does not have the *ability* to create an "imperfect" universe. No one has any way of knowing that god, if it exists, didn't create this universe as it intended to down to the last electron. What god thinks of as perfect is well beyond your comprehension, and the comprehension of every human being.

[Lerkfish]

166. actually, it just shows that your opinion of order has a low tolerance.

meaning: YOUR view on what a perfect universe would be is one without flaws. Therefore since the universe is not flawless (in your opinion), it is not perfect.

On the other hand, I personally think "flaws" or diversity is the whole point of creation.
so, to me, its perfect in its imperfections. If we were all superheroes, where would courage be? if we had no adversity, where would we find spiritual strength?

if you view the universe as a static non-instructive construct, it can only be valid if everyone has already achieved perfection. If, however, you view the universe as a large spiritual university, then the JOURNEY to perfection is the process of dealing with obstacles, then this is a valid universe.

[AllegroRondo]

191. Well, that IS the definition of perfection

[nolabels]

109. Flaws exist because of the vision of the beholder

Everything is flawed and perfect depending how you want to define it.

The reality of deception is somehow thinking a little more of it will make the world a little less deceitful latter on, sort like giving pearls to some needy swine.

UNHRC resolutions are like pearls for a pig
Filed under: NK Human Rights/Refugees — The Marmot @ 7th April 2005

The official refusal to speak out about the human-rights abuses of Kim Jong Il’s regime was on full display last week during an interview with the South’s minister of unification, whom I met on the day the gulag report was released. For North Koreans, Minister Jeong Se Hyun said, “political freedom is a luxury, like pearls for a pig. The improvement of economic conditions for the North Korean people is the most important issue right now.”
(snip)
http://blog.marmot.cc/archives/2005/04/07/unhrc-resolutions-are-like-pearls-for-a-pig/

Just to point out the rest of the world can also go out and get stuck in endless arguments and nary have any word about religion

[NickB79]

57. I did that to my Sunday School teacher as a kid

My question was: If Adam and Eve were the first people created by God, and they had children, who did their children marry?

The teacher didn't like me so much after that.

[MountainLaurel]

70. Me too Nick

I had an interesting discussion with my pastor one day about why, if we were to love everyone as ourselves and god loved us all equally, was it a sin to marry someone of a different race (as the pastor had taught).

[Outrider]

119. Here's one that will hurt peoples brains

If God created the first man and then first woman thereby creating the sexes, what sex is God?

[AllegroRondo]

133. Related joke

A young child asks his mother "mom, is God a man or a woman?"

Mom says "God is both"

The child asks "mom, is God black or white?"

Mom says "God is both"




The child asks "Mom, is Michael Jackson God?"

[rocktivity]

144. My question was about those pigs who Jesus sent over the cliff

with the devil's spirit. If they died, then why are ALL pigs bad?

:headbang:
rocknation

[AllegroRondo]

60. Yet another one

If the Bible is the infallible word of God, how do you reconcile the contradictions?

[Alpharetta]

74. I can't answer that

I'm not a rightwing fundie

[shawn703]

81. What contradictions?

I'll try to reconcile them. ;)

[AllegroRondo]

101. For example....

on the morning of the resurrection, who went to the tomb?
When did they go - before or after the sun rose?
Was the stone rolled away before they got there, or after?
How many angels did they see?
Who did they tell afterwards?

The four gospels give differing answers for all of these questions. Kind of difficult to believe the four authors could not get the facts straight, as this is probably the most important day to all of Christianity.

[DearAbby]

138. Take that further................

>>on the morning of the resurrection, who went to the tomb?
When did they go - before or after the sun rose?
Was the stone rolled away before they got there, or after?
How many angels did they see?
Who did they tell afterwards?

The four gospels give differing answers for all of these questions. Kind of difficult to believe the four authors could not get the facts straight, as this is probably the most important day to all of Christianity. <<<


Also Why would God have ispired four authors to write four different accounts...logically only one would be the correct account of the events that happened that morning...with this being the key to salvation, why then would a perfect God place three other accounts that are in fact lies?

[shawn703]

161. See post #154

Also the reason for four accounts is to highlight his different characteristics. Matthew focusus on Jesus as King, Mark as our humble servant, Luke as the Son of Man, and John as the Son of God.

[shawn703]

154. Harmony of the Gospels

Q: on the morning of the resurrection, who went to the tomb?

A: Mark 16:1 is the complete account. John 20:1 omits that Mary mother of James and Salome were there, but omission is not contradiction.


Q: When did they go - before or after the sun rose?

A: They started out when it was still dark, and arrived at dawn. Mark 16:1 and John 20:1 occurred prior to Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1.


Q: Was the stone rolled away before they got there, or after?

A: Before. Matthew 28:2 is the first event in the resurrection. It is confusing because you would think Matthew 28:1 occurs before Matthew 28:2 chronologically, but Matthew worried more about narration than chronology. Also see Acts 10 and Acts 11, and this is in the same book.


Q: How many angels did they see?

A: Two. Mark 16:5 says one, Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 say two. Again, omission is not contradiction.


Q: Who did they tell afterwards?

A: Peter and John at first, who go and then leave, then Mary tells the apostles after Jesus appears to her and the other women.

[AllegroRondo]

185. Omission is not contradiction?

by that argument, you could say that Elvis was one of the people who went to the tomb, because none of the gospels say that he was not there.

[shawn703]

216. Let me put it this way

Suppose you and I go to the same party. The next day someone asks you who was there, and you say Andy, Beth and Caroline. I get asked the same question and I say Andy and Caroline were there. Am I contradicting you or simply omitting Beth? Neither one of our statements is a lie. If I were to say Elvis was there, and you said Elvis was not there, that would be a contradiction and one of us would be either lying or mistaken.

[AllegroRondo]

219. True, but seeing an angel is a pretty extraordinary occurance

I can understand neglecting to name friends who had been at a party, but not noticing that an angel was there???

Matthew: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it."

Its pretty clear that he is describing only one angel. THE angel.
While the others clearly describe two.

Luke: "And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments."

John: "And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain."




When did they arrive at the tomb:

John: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Clearly, they arrived when it was dark. But according to Mark, the sun was rising.

Mark: "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun."

[shawn703]

222. All the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit

Why would the Holy Spirit allow some details to be omitted in some accounts and not others? I am not sure, but I would like to believe it is so we cannot rely on one Gospel for the entire story of Jesus. And when we read all four, we get  

[XemaSab]

69. Here's one

How can a just God send people to Hell who haven't been exposed to the Gospel message?

[Alpharetta]

75. I can't answer that one either

I'm not a rightwing fundie

[Ms_Mary]

209. Nor am I and all these assumptions are based on fundamentalist

beliefs, which I don't share either. There have been some rather broad generalizations here.

[shawn703]

88. Romans 1:18-20

18 For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth,
19 since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.
20 From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.

[XemaSab]

100. But what about Christ?

the redeeming power of Christ has only been showed to people in part of the world.

[shawn703]

150. That's not God's fault

Rather, according to the passage I quoted from Romans in my previous post, in addition to the following passages - it is up to both the believers and non-believers to fix the problem you mention.


For those who do not yet believe, Matthew 7: 7-8:

7 “Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you.
8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


For those who do believe, Matthew 28:19-20:

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”


On edit: I had to change how I listed the passage from Matthew 7, it was showing up as a smiley.

[Coexist]

163. How about these?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

[shawn703]

173. Not contradictions

Genesis 1 is the chronological account of creation, while Genesis 2 is the narrative account, focusing on the sixth day.

[IdaBriggs]

183. Actually, they are two different accounts.

They were written in separate time periods, as was a great deal of the Old Testament. The Northern and Southern kingdoms both had oral traditions with some variants, but it was (if I remember correctly) the Northern kingdom that finally put everything together in about 700-800 BC, which occurred AFTER the fall of the Southern kingdom. When people started "translating" the different books, they tried to make them "coherent" (not realizing it was different versions), hence some of the repetition / duplication. The Creation stories are one obvious example (Gen 1 - God makes the world in Seven days, with the first commandment being "be fruitful and multiply"; Gen 2 - God creates the world AGAIN in one day in reverse order, with the #1 command being "don't eat the fruit"), while the Flood story is another one (one author uses "40 days / 40 nights" while the other doesn't). Biblical scholars have a blast working on this stuff. :)

[Coexist]

186. how about these??

"They were written in separate time periods, as was a great deal of the Old Testament."

So? But they are all in the bible. So you are saying some of the bible is right and some of it is wrong??? Based on when it was written, you are explaining away contradictions by saying that they are no REALLY contradictions because... but the fact remains that they are in the book and the contraindicate (is that a word?)

There are histories of the American Revolution is still being written. Does that make contradictions in the stories of battles NOT contradictions, if they were written years apart? Sorry but your arguments aren't very convincing.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/alcohol.html

[IdaBriggs]

203. What I am saying...

Is that the Bible is a collection of oral traditions from the Middle East that were compiled over 1,000 years, then written down by a team of scribes working on orders of a Northern kingdom ruler about his ancestors. The translation that many people use (King James) was done in 1611, and biblical scholarship has come a long way since then, as has our understanding of "everyday" English. Compare (re: King David during his outlaw days): "not one that pisseth against the wall" versus "not one man left alive."

Translation and context are everything. For example, many people use the story of Abraham, Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah as "God doesn't like homosexuals" when IN REALITY the story is about how God punishes those who DON'T OBEY THE LAWS OF HOSPITALITY, which was a life and death matter in a dessert culture. The same point is driven home again in Judges 19, when breaking the laws of hospitality ends up causing a war against the tribe of Benjamin, but since that involved the rape of a runaway concubine, most folks don't mention it (plus, we're back to MISSING THE POINT either ON PURPOSE or because of not living in a dessert).

Yes, there are TWO different versions of creation in the Bible, but the King James folks (a committee of 54 men who tried to translate to Elizabethan English) didn't get that, so they used language to try to "edit" the stories together. They also merged the two different Flood stories, among others.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis are PREHISTORY (aka Creation Myths) and are very Babylonian in nature, (which makes sense if you look at a map of the time period where the two super powers of the Greater Mesopotamian are Babylon and Egypt) followed by a detailed genealogy. Genesis is an INTRODUCTION to the important bit: Exodus!

I also did a quick double check of some of my notes: the Bible was WRITTEN DOWN in the early 600's BC by the scribes in the Northern Kingdom (the Southern Kingdom had already fallen), so its not too surprising when the Northern scribes make some of their less than flattering comments about the Southern kingdom.

If you are interested in biblical scholarship, I highly recommend the "New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha RSV" (1991). The beauty of the language in the King James version is amazing, but the New Oxford is much clearer, in my opinion, while a lot of the biggest translation issues have been address (Red Sea versus Reed Sea, for example, and don't even get me started on the "coat of many colors!).

:)

[shawn703]

206. What is the other number

I know forty days/forty nights was the length of time it rained, but Noah was on the ark for much longer until the waters abated.

[IdaBriggs]

208. Don't make me go to my notes again, please!

I remember that there are two versions -- the "J" (who is the poetic one, if I remember correctly, but don't take that as gospel LOL), and the "P" (or Priestly) writer. One version has a sad, sorrowful God, while the other is a more vengeful, pissed off God. Both are variants of the Babylonian "flood" myth (see Gilgamesh), and both have different endings. In the attempt to "merge" the two variants, sometimes they switch mid paragraph. (Please remember that the verse numbers weren't added to the Bible until only a couple of centuries ago.)

Time Magazine did an article about the ways scholars are identifying the actual "writer" of the Bible a few years ago, and I think they did a good job of making it easy to understand. I believe the cover had "Who Wrote the Bible?" on it; I remember being pleased that biblical scholarship actual made the cover of Time Magazine! If you can't google it yourself, PM me, and I'll see what I can dig up later today. The historical evolution of the Bible is absolutely amazing!

[reprobate]

242. How does Christ have anything to do with American evengelicism?

[K8-EEE]

87. Here's One For The Sunday School Teacher....

If God is supposed to be infinitely forgiving -- then why will he banish us to an everlasting hell for choosing not to worship him? That sounds infinitely PUNISHING to me and more punishing, not more forgiving, than his human counterparts are with their beloved children.

[AllegroRondo]

194. Or how about this

Would someone who lived an otherwise perfect life (committed no sins, donated all time and money to help others, etc) but did not accept Jesus go to hell?

Conversly, would a serial killer who repented and accepted Jesus as he was given his lethal injection go to heaven?


Why?

[iamjoy]

94. Ask About Genesis

At one point it says, "Let us create man..."
Who is "us"?

It also gives conflicting accounts of creation.

[dhinojosa]

221. Here is my favorite....

If God created Adam and Eve, and they had two sons, how did human life continue to propagate?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

223. Naw...Just one question (and a followup)

One Question:

Can you prove conclusively that your God exists?

Follow Up:

If not, could you please shut the fuck up during my science class?

[Thor_MN]

237. Where's my asbestos underwear?

If God is Love and Love is Blind does that mean God is Ray Charles?

(And coincidently, Dead?)

[callous taoboy]

7. I have a student who regularly wears a t-shirt

that says, "Darwin Lied."

[Gothmog]

8. The Ten questions are pretty stupid

The ten questions are all based on disagreements as to intrepretation of facts and not on any solid scientific evidence. A rebuttal should be prepared and circulated to all high school science teachers.

[rocktivity]

14. DING DING DING! Gothmog, you're our grand prize winner!

A rebuttal should be prepared and circulated to all high school science teachers.
Now you're talking--we need to do less whining and more retaliating. Show 'em the slightest bit of backbone, and they run like roaches in a light beam!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Viking12]

18. rebuttal at your fingertips.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.10q.html

Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.

Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.

Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.

Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.

Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!

Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.

Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!

Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.

Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.

Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."

[Gothmog]

36. Good job

I hope that someone circulates this to teachers somehow.

[Viking12]

39. I'll take credit for the link. Others deserve the credit for the rebuttal.

[Julius Civitatus]

41. Excellent! Well done!

:yourock:

[iamjoy]

91. Thank You (eom)

[iamjoy]

143. Of Course, This Is Quite Complicated...

A good Scientist should be able to handle it but for the rest of us...

As for us common folk, we could just say evolution (like much of science) doesn't have all the answers and does not pretend it does. However, there is concrete, tangible and credible evidence for it.

[rocktivity]

10. What a B.S. poll

A Gallup poll late last year showed that only 28 percent of Americans accept the theory of evolution, while 48 percent adhere to creationism - the belief that an intelligent being is responsible for the creation of the earth and its inhabitants.

Disguising Christian fundamentalism as a "belief," God as the "intelligent being," and faith as "adherence" is intellectually dishonest. And even if Darwin's theory is incorrect or imperfect, it has facts, observations, experimentation, and trial and error at its core--not dogma, blind faith and infallibility. That is to say, creationism isn't a science--these questions are merely a feeble attempt to legitimize it as such. They should be countered with, "You're talking about religion. I'm talking about science."

:headbang:
rocknation

[phylny]

147. I took exception to that poll because I'm probably just the type of

person who would skew that poll.

1. I believe in the theory of evolution, and...

2. due to my faith, I believe that God designed the universe and everything in it, with evolution being part of his plan.

Before the flamefest, let me say that I do not want part 2 (about God) presented in any classroom or taught to any child in school. My faith brings me to that belief, but I in no way think that you need to believe in part 2 to make part 1 accurate.

I hope I'm making sense.

I can easily reconcile evolution with the stories in Genesis about how God created the universe in 6 days, because I believe that story is a parable, much like Jesus told stories and parables to help people understand his message.

[eridani]

157. This is typical of what most Catholics I know believe

Protestant fundies are an entirely different matter. I think that we shoulc go out of our way to point out that evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God. Evolution is one part of our current explanation about how the operating system of the universe works. That system of laws could be the product of an Author, or it could just exist. Either way, it is what it is.

We should not let them have the term 'intelligent design.' What they are actually talking about is stupid design, because if we are going to assume a deity smart and powerful enough to invent the operating system of the universe, we need to also assume that s/he was smart enough to get it right the first time. 'Stupid design' assumes that the laws of the universe never got out of the beta test phase, so God always has to be messing with them.

[Ms_Mary]

210. Perfect sense. That's me in a nutshell. nt

[triguy46]

13. Kangaroos in Kansas?

You bet, as in kangaroo court. Who cares that 48% of the surveyed population adheres to creationism? Science is not based on the understandability of a concept.

The fact that this is being held as an investigation is ludicrous. Closed minds don't learn.

My daughter has a full academic ride to a Kansas university, so while the theocrats are pontificating, my kid gets the benefit of a quality education that she will never use in the state of Kansas. Thanks, chumps.

[naturalselection]

17. There is a pretty good book out there now

entitled "Defending Evolution" by Alter and Alter. It covers the differing views of evolution from a theological standpoint and then addresses how to answer questions from students in your classes. I teach our pre service teachers in science education and spend some time discussing this book. If you are a science teacher, this is pretty helpful.

[triguy46]

20. The Chronicle of Higher Ed...

a few years ago published a piece that examined how little evolution is being taught today, primarily to avoid the hassles. In Oklahoma they pay 50th in the nation in teacher salaries, PLUS they expect you to put up with this kind of crap. Dogma over fact is our state motto.
Anyone know Latin who could translate that? or "dogma over all"
(dogma uber alles).

[XemaSab]

72. My Latin's very rusty

but perhaps

Dogma supra omnia?

[callous taoboy]

118. Many thanks for the tip, naturalselection:

I will order that book immediately.

[AllegroRondo]

19. The whole thing is a logical fallacy

The creationists assume that if they discredit evolution, then creationism (sorry - intelligent design) must be right.

[Orrex]

27. Clearly logical!

If A is false then B must be true. Stands to reason. :sarcasm:

[daleo]

34. And not just intelligent design

The unspoken assumption (maybe not even unspoken) is that if they discredit evolution, then intelligent design must be right, then theism must be right, then Christianity must be right, then fundamental Christianity must be right, then "my church" (there will be some disagreement at this point) must be right, then I must be right. And anyone who disagrees with me should be punished, preferably by an eternity of torture.

This is obviously a pretty long chain of reasoning, but I think that's how it works.

[Lisa]

95. yes, and any admission that science has changed over time ...

... is, to them, tantamount to saying "we lied!" Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, there. They are like the person who refuses to admit that s/he may have been mistaken, even if it's staring them in the face ("well...someone must have hidden my keys, and replaced them on the table just to make me look foolish!").

They forget that the whole POINT of science is to change over time, as we learn more about how the world works. Evolution as explained by Stephen Jay Gould, is not a carbon-copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species", because Gould had more than a century of work to build on -- plus fossil finds, new dating methods, and the input of other ideas like plate tectonics and the DNA molecule.

[Orrex]

22. A useful rebuttal has already been put forth

The most excellent National Center for Science Education has ably dealt with this ignorant questionnaire already. If you know an embattled science teacher, either forward this link or print out the page for that teacher.

(On edit, corrected the hyperlinks.)

[Alpharetta]

30. Good link. Thanks!

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

[Roland99]

45. Thanks. I just forwarded that link to CSMonitor.com's Jeffrey MacDonald

he was the author of that piece.



Dear Mr. G. Jeffrey MacDonald,

Your article re: 10 questions students should ask their Biology teacher failed to offer the rebuttal to those supposed questions (which are merely distortions).

Please visit:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

for the proper responses to those inane questions.

Sincerely,

[Roland99]

31. Bible Study With *...10 things to ask the radical extremists:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1: 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

[wtmusic]

46. I *do* love that list! n/t

[pnutchuck]

53. I've never read the 1st book, but if I ever get the urge

I'm steering clear of Leviticus!!! :hide:

[XemaSab]

76. But that's the best part!

That's the part where you learn that you're hellbound 8 ways from Sunday for infractions that you were never aware of!

As my preacher puts it, a gay man eating lobster is twice as hellbound!

[pnutchuck]

78. Too scary for me. I'd rather not know how I am defiling myself. eom

[aldian159]

79. Thank you Aaron Sorkin

and the dudes at The West Wing

[GiovanniC]

243. Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing Rock

But that list predates the pilot episode of that fine program.

President Bartlett merely broadened its exposure.

[skip fox]

37. One question and a theological inquiry for literalists.

Is the Bible the literal word of God?


Then why are you remiss?

That is,


Deut. 10: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart"


Deut. 11: "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart
and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand,
that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them
when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by
the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine
house, and upon thy gates:"

etc.

[wtmusic]

42. According to the Discovery Institue, "Neo-Darwinism" is at fault

"... the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species."

:rofl:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

[Robworld]

58. I fear for the next generations to come.

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Larkspur]

61. Maybe the biology teacher could graphically show what circumcism is?

And if the fundie parents object, he can throw the Bible at them.

[Orrex]

73. Also, for reasons of cleanliness

The teacher should require that menstruating girls sit in a different section of the classroom. Or stand, preferably, so that they don't befoul chairs with the wickedness of their menses.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

65. "Are you looking for answers or just trying to forward an agenda?

Right now I'm busy teaching students who want to learn science so they can go on to college. If you want to debate philosophy I'd be happy to talk to you after class."

or

Draw a pie chart on the board and point out that if this represents all the professional (i.e., Ph.D.) scientists who have submitted their research to peer-reviewed journals, the slice representing the creationists would be nearly invisible -- if there was any at all. Then divide teaching time according to percentage. Creationism would get half a sentence, if any.

[wtmusic]

92. Ah I like that technique

as opposed to say, using the ratio of media coverage given the two

[KittyWampus]

93. Darwin's Theory Is Absolutely Based In Philosophy- MATERIALISM

that YOU decide to take that as granted doesn't mean other scientists and theorists need do so.

[Orrex]

120. Gross misunderstanding!

Darwin's theories make no claims about the existence or non-existence of super-material entities, forces, or phenomena. And the theory of evolution requires no adherence to materialism or any other philosophical view aside from the assumption that the universe exists and can in some fashion be understood by those of us in it.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is based on empirical analysis, which is not a philosophy but a system of tools for evaluating observed phenomena under repeatable and falsifiable conditions.

If you find evolutionary theory to be in conflict with your beliefs, then that is not the fault of evolutionary theory.

[reprobate]

174. Excellent answer, Orrex. I have yet to see a definition of 'Materialism'

[mainer]

224. Peer-reviewed creationism articles? Scarcely any.

The only one that actually got into a real scientific journal was soundly ridiculed after it appeared.

-------------

Déjà vu All Over Again
How did the Intelligent Design movement publish in a peer reviewed biology journal? A similar--and notorious--story from climate science sheds light on the question.

Chris Mooney; September 13, 2004



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific viewpoint seek added credibility. They're sick of being taunted for having few (if any) peer reviewed publications in their favor. Fed up, they decide to do something about it.

These "skeptics" find what they consider to be a weak point in the mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his hat.

They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has considerable political implications.

Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what's happening. They shake their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it, questioning the review process and the editor's ideological leanings. In published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.

Embarrassed, the journal's publisher backs away from the work. But it's too late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.

The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done.



This basic story-line describes not one, but two high profile incidents in the past two years. One concerns climate science, the other evolutionary biology. Both are highly politicized fields, and in each case, the incentive to get something into print is considerable for those who want to carry on their political and scientific fight against the accepted, mainstream view.

Take the climate science storyline first. The most definitive account of what happened appeared in a Chronicle of Higher Education article by Richard Monastersky; the New York Times and Wall Street Journal also covered the story.

In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change "skeptics" Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn't present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of "proxy records" for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" a thousand years ago.

Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That's when the controversy began.

Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe called it literally paradigm shifting. The Bush administration attempted to edit an Environmental Protection Agency report's discussion of climate change in order to include reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. None of this should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a key piece of evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences of human-induced climate change.

Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal's editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.

Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.



Now shift to Intelligent Design. The story is newer, and far from over. But already it's looking like Climate Research parte deux, down to the coverage by the Chronicle of Higher Education's Richard Monastersky.

Recently, ID advocate Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute published a review article in a little known taxonomic journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (that's D.C.). Focusing on the well-known "Cambrian Explosion," Meyer argued that evolutionary theory could not account for the appearance of new organismal forms in a relatively short period of geological time. Instead, Meyer concluded by suggesting that "intelligent," "rational" agents may have been responsible for the "origin of new biological information." It was the first time the intelligent design movement has published in a peer reviewed biology journal.

Meyer had sent his article to an editor, Richard Sternberg, who sits on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, which studies "creation biology" and is based at Bryan College, a fundamentalist Christian school in Tennessee named (fittingly enough) after anti-Darwin crusader William Jennings Bryan. Sternberg--who is reportedly no longer editor of the Proceedings--sent the paper out to three unnamed reviewers and claims they recommended publication.

Now comes the controversy. The pro-ID Discovery Institute has trumpeted the study, media coverage has begun, and evolution defenders predict ID advocates will use the study to try to get critiques of evolution into public schools by claiming they're based on published science.

Not surprisingly, mainstream scientists are fighting back. Several have authored a devastating critique of Meyer's paper on the blog The Panda's Thumb and are preparing a more thorough version, presumably for publication. The critique charges that Meyer's article systematically ignores relevant scientific literature and contains serious "errors in facts and reasoning." The Biological Society of Washington, meanwhile, has already issued a statement noting that the article represented a "significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history" and was "inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings."

But once again, the damage has been done. The Discovery Institute defends Meyer's work and will undoubtedly continue to do so. In response to the statement from the Biological Society of Washington, Discovery has accused the group of imposing a "gag rule on science" (never mind that Meyer's article was beyond the scope and traditional subject matter of the Proceedings). Meanwhile, evolution defenders claim the article in question wasn't even particularly original to begin with.

The political battle over this highly questionable paper will continue for some time.



What conclusions can we draw from these two case studies in the publication of dubious science by peer reviewed journals?

The first is that we shouldn't exaggerate the benefits of peer review or pretend it's an absolute guarantor of scientific truth. On the contrary, the forms, methods, and merits of peer review vary widely both by journal and by standards of practice. Peer review is an important norm in science, and groups who make scientific claims without publishing in the peer reviewed literature should be regarded skeptically on the grounds that they're not actually engaging in the scientific process. But that doesn't mean successfully publishing a single peer reviewed article in a little known journal ensures scientific credibility.

Another conclusion is that in scientific debates with intense political and policy relevance, we shouldn't be surprised that both camps want to claim that the evidence lies on their side. In order to do so, scientists on the fringe will inevitably seek to bolster their credibility through peer reviewed publications. Obscure journals working in controversial areas should therefore enforce rigorous quality standards, while remaining careful not to censor new ideas or limit legitimate scientific debate. They should take the stories of Climate Research and the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington as a serious warning. These journals have now had their reputations dragged through the mud.

Finally, politicians and policymakers need to decrease the incentives for science abuse by showing that they're unwilling to aid and abet it. So long as the James Inhofes of the world devote entire Senate hearings to single, controversial scientific papers, and announce that they shift the scientific paradigm, we will have Climate Research and Proceedings-type controversies. Instead of contested studies hot off the presses, politicians should generally restrict themselves to relying upon the conclusions of major scientific consensus documents, such as reports from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. In the long run, it would save them considerable embarrassment.




http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/deja-vu/

[drm604]

83. Self Delete

Somebody already made my suggestion.

[bvar22]

96. Students should also be informed that:

There was a time in History when the preachers and politicians decided what was to be taught in school.
The preachers and politicians were in charge of what was TRUE or FALSE.

That time was THE DARK AGES.
Would you like to go back to The Dark Ages?

[UCLA Dem]

121. This is insane! Such ignorant fools!! Learn about religion in church!

[nolabels]

129. Some also haven't figured out that sooner or later the state will.........

be dictating what kind of religious teaching should be taught, guess they haven't heard of the Church of England yet :shrug:

[demo dutch]

139. I so agree! This country is going backwards, it's just amazing

[Bo]

134. Xtians killed G-D long ago

They worship baal

[Ian David]

136. How to debate a Creationist

How to Debate A Creationist: 25 Creationist Questions With 25 Evolutionist Answers
by Michael Shermer
Provides brief answers to creationists' most common arguments. Also: debating Duane T. Gish; the relationship of science & religion; debates and truth; Interview with Stephen Jay Gould; What is evolution?; Evolution denial & Holocaust denial. Expanded second edition--now 24 pages.

Price: $5.00 (paper)
http://www.skeptic.com/b7pb.html




How to Debate a Creationist

An overly long account of my debate with Creationist Walter Brown at Southeast Christian Church, Louisville, Ky, 27 October 1996, by Robert T. Dillon, Jr. Department of Biology, College of Charleston.

Walter Brown

Walt's conversion to creationism began in 1970, when, as a new professor at the Air Force Academy, he heard "some surprising, almost shocking, claims that Noah's Ark rested near the 14,000 foot level of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. Almost daily I gazed up at 14,000 foot Rocky Mountain peaks and tried to imagine, at one of their summits, an object large enough to fit snugly inside a football stadium. By 1972, I had become a creationist." He has been touring the country with his In the Beginning seminars since 1980.

I'd been watching Brown perform since Friday afternoon, and he really does have considerable skill as a public speaker. He is forceful and declarative, and presents as a classical "authority figure", although brusk. He is of the military sort, not the "distinguished gentleman" sort. He is of Midwestern extraction, with some Yankee flavor. A southerner will have an advantage in front of many audiences.

He normally uses a lot of humor, mostly at the expense of evolutionists, but sometimes at his own expense, which of course can be especially disarming. His best jokes Friday and Saturday were all based on the theme, "aren't scientists of all sorts stupid?" He found a nine year old girl in the front row and led her along his line of reasoning, to show that even she might marshall more insight than the entire scientific establishment. He moved around easily, used the stage well, and smiled often.

But the man seemed to cave in Sunday evening. He can't take much pressure. I joined the Director of Adult Education, who organized this thing, the timer, the moderator, and assorted wives, for sandwiches while Brown hid in the choir room.

Brown's Forty Minutes

More:
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/newsletter/vol6/n4/debate.html



Then a Miracle Occurs
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind,
Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith

Michael Shermer

At 7:00 pm on a balmy Southern California evening, April 29, 2004, I entered the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the campus of the University of California, Irvine, to a jammed house of over 500 people chock-a-block jammed into a 400-seat venue. I was there at the behest of one Pastor Jason, of the OMC Youth, a campus Christian organization, to debate Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith, on: “Creation vs. Evolution. Creation (supernatural action) or Evolution (natural processes)—which is the better explanation?”

It was already 20 degrees warmer inside the hall than out, even before the dialogue heated up. Hovind’s people were there in force, handing out literature at both entrances: “Ph.D.’s Who Are Creationists.” (See the National Center for Science Education’s list of “Steves” who accept evolution at http://www.natcenscied.org/.) “Did Jesus Say Anything Regarding the Age of the Universe?” (The answer given is yes, because in Mark 10:6, Jesus said: “But from the beginning of Creation, God made them male and female.” You decide.) “Biblical Reasons the Days in Genesis Were 24 Hour Days.” “Does Carbon Dating Prove the Earth is Millions of Years Old?” “The Flood of Noah: Ridiculous Myth or Scientifically Accurate?” And a 20-page booklet on “Weird Science” and “Creation vs. Evolution Questions and Answers.” My associates Matt Cooper and David Naiditch accompanied me, staffing a small Skeptics Society book table where we countered Hovind with our magazine, books, and “How to Debate a Creationist” and “Baloney Detection” kits. (Matt sensed the deck was stacked against us when they gave us a puny three-foot table while Hovind luxuriated with a couple of eight footers—several complaints netted us near parity.)

I agreed to participate in the debate at the last minute, after the originally-scheduled date was changed and the first debater could not attend. The local skeptics/free thought campus group contacted me at once, encouraging me not to participate so as not to give Hovind—and by extension all creationists—the recognition that there is a real debate between evolution and creation. This has always been the position of such prominent evolutionary biologists as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, and they are, of course, correct—there is no debate. That issue was settled a century ago, and evolutionary theory won hands down. They are also right to note that public debate is not how the validity of scientific theories is determined. And, in any case, debate is a questionable forum to determine scientific truth because such an adversarial system more closely models the law, as Gould noted after the Arkansas creationism trial:

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact—which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent’s position. They are good at that. I don’t think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!

More:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html



See also:
Other Resources for Defending Evolution
By John Rennie
<snip>

Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001. This up-to-date overview of the creation/evolution controversy explores the issues clearly and readably, with a full appreciation of the cultural and religious influences that create resistance to teaching evolution. It, too, uses a question-and-answer format that should be particularly valuable for teachers.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Second edition. National Academy Press, 1999. This concise booklet has the backing of the country's top scientific authorities. Although its goal of making a clear, brief statement necessarily limits the detail with which it can pursue its arguments, the publication serves as handy proof that the scientific establishment unwaveringly supports evolution. It is also available at www7.nationalacademies.org/evolution/

The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. Niles Eldredge. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2000. The author, a leading contributor to evolution theory and a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, offers a scathing critique of evolution's opponents.

Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Edited by Robert T. Pennock. Bradford Books/MIT Press, 2001. For anyone who wishes to understand the "intelligent design" controversy in detail, this book is a terrific one-volume summary of the scientific, philosophical and theological issues. Philip E. Johnson, Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski make the case for intelligent design in their chapters and are rebutted by evolutionists, including Pennock, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.

More:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDF

[Coexist]

162. try this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

[demo dutch]

140. There must be a direct correlation between this resistence

and the fact that less and less students are chosing the sciences as a major. I heard on NPR that this has become a major problem in the future for the US to compete in the world arena.

[mainer]

141. Statement by the American Association for Advancement of Science

I'm often confronted by creationists/ ID-ers who claim that "most scientists" question evolution. I simply offer this statement, by the board of directors of the AAAS (publishers of SCIENCE magazine) to show them that, no, most scientists do NOT dispute evolutionary theory. And by the way, these are REAL scientists working in REAL fields, pioneering REAL technological advances. There has yet to be a peer-reviewed article on Intelligent Design accepted in any accepted scientific journal.

----------------------------

AAAS urges opposition to 'intelligent design theory' within U.S. science classes
AAAS policy alert
The board resolution is available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml.

The world's largest general scientific organization--the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)--today urged policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer and executive publisher at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."

American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.

Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors and one of the world's leading botanists, agreed:

"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."

In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of 'intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."

AAAS--publisher of the weekly journal, Science, provides leadership for more than 130,000 members and 272 affiliates serving 10 million individuals. Its Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.

In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.

A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."

The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.

While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.

THE FOLLOWING AAAS SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR MEDIA INTERVIEWS:
Dr. Alan I. Leshner, PhD, CEO and Executive Publisher for AAAS
Dr. Peter H. Raven, PhD, Chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors
Dr. Floyd Bloom, PhD, President of the AAAS Board of Directors
Dr. Al Teich, PhD., Director, AAAS Science and Policy Programs
Dr. Audrey Chapman, PhD, Director, AAAS Science and Human Rights Program
Dr. Shirley Malcom, PhD, Director, AAAS Education and Human Resources
Media Contact: Ginger Pinholster, AAAS Office of Public Programs, [phone], [email protected], to request interviews with any of these AAAS sources.



###
Founded in 1848, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) works to advance science for human well-being through its projects, programs and publications in the areas of science policy, science education and international scientific cooperation. The association also publishes Science, an editorially independent, multidisciplinary, weekly peer-reviewed journal that ranks as the world's most prestigious scientific journal and administers EurekAlert! (www.eurekalert.org), the online news service featuring the latest discoveries in science and technology.

[mainer]

145. Arthur C. Clarke on religion:

"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now."

Arthur C. Clarke

[PATRICK]

156. So a teacher has to master politics

when under political attack. The source of the question must be known if the teacher on his lonesome is going to defend his sources. Comparison of sources and viewpoints is even more important than the questions. Any smart kid can throw the teacher off track. A brilliant mind can poke holes in and out of the box. But these are planned group attacks on behalf of an agenda an a worldview that challenges the very notion of science and its definition as word.

Skeptic societies, Snopes, can help the smart informed teacher from the (once) unassailable height of training in empirical science, but should they have to? A good wordsmith can run logical circles around anyone believing in St. Thomas' proof of the existence of God or Santa Claus. It is easier to propose than disprove, to attack than defend. It is advisable of the teacher to stake out the parameters of the discipline coolly and not put one overreaching faith against another.

God(omnipotent, if He exists) could have made a world of underwater blue kangaroos and given them sea resistant VCR's or have used evolution or magic marbles to decide destiny. It might be advisable to learn about the world as HE made it and not as we fantasize, with the senses, brain and loving society provided as best within our limits.

It might be advisable to study Scripture the same way and not take the easy out of erroneous snap fantasies and insecure traditions circling wagons around pride and ignorance.("The Canticle of Leibowitz" comes to mind). Mainstream Christianity has little problem with factual or even theoretical science(these days, well out of political power). Those sources can be brought to bear.

If the Fundamentalist fervor for misinterpreting quantum possibilities(asserting something just is because we believe. Even Peter Pan doesn't have it that easy). ever dies down and they see reality asserting itself with really painful lessons let us hope the number of their victims is relatively small.

If the students want real word traps have join the Mensa society or visit the Lewis Carroll web page. Thinking every question is a question is an opening for a game not a discussion.

Better yet, redirect to the History teacher since the debate over world knowledge has long evolved over the ages- if not all mindsets.

[cookiebird]

165. Or, Master the art of Argumentation

A basic function of these 10 'questions' is to disrupt the class with an off-topic or off the wall observation that the teacher can not possibly be prepared to answer. Here's another suggestion for a response strategy: status quo. In Science, the status quo is that the evolutionary theory provides the best explanation, the best possible prediction, and the best possible control possibility at this point in time. Any other "explanation" or "theory" has to meet the test of challenge: since evolution is the status quo among scientists, the competition has the burden of "proof". The competition has to meet certain intellectual requirements to ground the debate, the status quo does not have to justify its existence.
Pick up a well written debate/argumentation textbook and enjoy the work of Aristotle & Cicero (for starters) and the 20th C. masters.
Simply mentioning 'Cambrian' or 'fruit fly wings' does not establish an argument nor does it make a case against evolution.

[The Flaming Red Head]

164. First class to research ID and the second class to make fun of it

And then back to teaching the biological sciences all of which are based on evolutionary underpinnings.

[valis]

170. The scientific community should come up with 10 quick & effective answers

to those 10 questions. Could actually be a good thing.

[The Animator]

177. 10 Questions to ask your preacher?

1. Why are you disupting my class with this shit?

2. Why are you trying to undermine my aurthority as a teacher?

3. Why does your religion feel the need to supress information?

4. Do you think you really understand the scientific definition of the word Theory?

5. Are you purposely tring to misinform the masses regaurding the Sciences? Or are you just stupid?

6. Do you beleive that the universe goes around the earth?

7. Do you believe that the Earth is flat?

8. How many times has Christianity actually been right when in regaurds to to how the universe works?

9. Has a true scientist ever encouraged the burning of books?

10. Has a true scientist ever encouraged the burning of people tied to a stake?

[norml]

178. The questions themselves are flawed, and they use the word "probably"

quite often, while making their misrepresentations.

[union_maid]

181. These questions represent an opportunity

It might be a waste of time in an AP or college class. In a regular high school class, addressing these questions fully can lead students to an understanding of evolution that might be clearer to them than otherwise. If they're asked by students and answered, even better. A little controversy will wake up the rest of the class.

Sometimes you have to take up a challenge and make it work for you. Ignoring the questions would only add fuel to a fire.

[bdot]

182. Honestly, who cares?

Both creationism and evolution can be correct. They don't disprove each other.
It really doesn't matter if any are right. It's stupid to waste so much time and money over nothing.

[chickenscratching]

196. ahh, yes it does matter

it's about teaching what we know in regards to truth, fact and logic, versus promoting one's religious agenda.

[bdot]

201. but it still doesn't matter

If either or neither are correct, it won't affect today. Either way I'll go to this crappy job at 2AM. Either way I'll eat the same food.

[chickenscratching]

205. yes, it won't matter to you

but it will matter to quite a few other people if you step out side of the spectrum.

ultimately, no, it doesn't matter because we're all going to die sooner or later.
However, I believe in a search for truth in regards to my thinking, intelligent design doesn't have a lot to back it up----stick with what we know in theory, (ie evolution), and stop teaching our children things that belong in either a philosophy or religion class.

[JRob]

232. I totally care!

Look at the history of the Christian Religion, how Christianity achieved its current prominence (esp in this country). Whereas I have no problem with spirituality or the various philosophies that spawn the various religions, I don't want anything to do with any organization that attempt to control or increase its market share through fear and oppression. I would be outraged to find out that precious class time (for my children) was being wasted because some zealot encouraged their child to disrupt a teachers planned lesson.

Questions are fine, but there's a time and a place for everything. Teachers don't have the time, nor are they paid enough (which is "sinful")to need to deal with this kind of BS.

Attacking something like this is nothing more than an agenda by people who seek to control all aspects of our life.

[Coexist]

187. Scientific American weighs in (funny)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F

[Coexist]

189. Here's another great site!

http://www.nmsr.org/iconanti.htm

[Bouncy Ball]

195. As a teacher, I'd be searching out EVERY bit of anti-evolution

stuff I could find, read and study all of it so that I am prepared in class to answer those questions based on SCIENCE.

[JackDragna]

199. I love most of these questions..

.."this was faked, that was faked." No, those things were not faked. The questions themselves show an unbelievable ignorance of science. The questions should be renamed "the top 10 ways to beg the question, insult the other side and other logical fallacies."

[Wilber_Stool]

202. I've always found that the best way

to deal with someone that asks a talking point question is to ask them a question about their question. Once it is established that they don't even understand their own question, it's easy to make them feel quit foolish.
"Just what about the atmosphere in the original origin of life experiment is inaccurate." would be a good place to start.

[Toots]

204. Questioning is good

Question everything.....especially authority..

[jayfish]

211. But, Is This Genuine Intuitivness...

or blatant disruption? I say it's disruptive and should be dealt with just like any other disruptive behavior.

Jay

[Xithras]

218. You are wrong.

Many of these questions cover issues that the students might stumble across later anyway. It's better to have them asked in the classroom environment where they can be soundly refuted in front of the entire group than to suppress their discussion and potentially give the conspiracy theorists a foothold to instill their beliefs that evolutionary theory has holes.

It is a teachers job to educate, and if a teacher punishes a student simply for asking a question...no matter WHAT the ulterior motive might be...then that teacher isn't doing their job. I have a sign that hangs over the door to my classroom that reads "There are no stupid questions, only untaught answers".

[jayfish]

220. I Disagree, But...

you're a Teacher so I respect your judgment. To me, it smacks of the one smart-ass kid in class who always has a snide comeback, for the Teacher, after every lesson or answer.

Jay

[sakabatou]

215. The questions are so... so... help me out here...

[drm604]

230. sakabatou, I'll help you out...

I don't know if this is what you're looking for but the first thing I notice about these questions is that eight out of ten of them begin with some variation of "why do textbooks". The other two start with "Why are artists' drawings" and "Why are we told that Darwin's theory".

These aren't questions about evolution! They're questions about textbooks, artist drawings, and why someone is telling us something. (If I was a teacher and someone asked me one of these questions I'd be tempted to respond with something like "that's a question about textbooks, do you have a question about evolution?")

These are questions about the presentation of evolution rather than questions about evolution itself. In fact they are indirect attacks on the presenters of evolution rather than on evolution itself. Why is that? It can't be by accident. These appear to have been carefully designed by someone with knowledge of linquistics and rhetoric. They are reminiscent of the type of linquistic misdirection the radical right uses when they're presenting an argument they know isn't backed up by the facts. (Yoo hoo, Frank Luntz, did I see your shadow around here somewhere?)

So, what if I'm correct and these questions were designed by people who know that they are trying to obscure the facts (rather than sincere people who believe that their faith is being attacked). What then is the real agenda behind this?

Excuse me while I put on my hat...
:)

...

:tinfoilhat:
Could this be an attack on knowledge and intellectualism? Could it be part of an attempt to dumb down the population?

...

:)
Probably not, but those questions are sure worded strangely...

How much do we know about the people behind this particular program? Who are they linked to?

[sakabatou]

235. Thank you

These things make the phrase, "stupid question" true.

[drm604]

236. Unfortunately they're not all that stupid.

In one sense you're correct, they are stupid questions. Nothing they say disproves evolution. But in another sense they're not so stupid. They are worded very cleverly so that, while seeming to simply question evolution, they implicitly question the motives of those who teach evolution. I don't think this is an accident, if the facts aren't on their side they misdirect by casting doubt on those who present the facts.

[DistressedAmerican]

239. This Issue Has Been Getting Under My Skin As Well.

Posted a similar thread to GD today.

Kicker!

[drm604]

240. Can you post a link

to that thread?

[RedCloud]

217. 10 questions right back at you!

1. Are you allowed to discuss evolution at your religious gatherings with competent spokespeople of opposing viewpoints?

2. Why are five elements common to all life?

3. Can you discuss other religions at your religious gathering sites with qualified spokespeople of opposing viewpoints?

4. Why do you only quote one source?

5. If your source is omniscient, where is the part about dinosaurs?

6. How many religions have you tried out before deciding on the one you have now?

7. I notice your thoughts are replete with monosyllabic ramblings. Is that as qualified as you get?

8. Also this part about Thou shalt not kill... Why doesn't that apply to our president whom you avidly support?

9. Why do we do so many things like animals such as sleep, reproduce, and get pissed off about messing with our young ones?

10. Why was our president holding hands for a long, non-heterosexual amount of time with a prince he just kissed on the lips?????????

[mainer]

225. No fossil rabbits in the Pre-cambrian!

Interview with Richard Dawkins on Salon.com has this nice come-back at creationism:

------------

Q: Once again, evolution is under attack. Are there any questions at all about its validity?

Richard Dawkins: It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That, of course, is nonsense. It's rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold.

There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction.

British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." They've never been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts. But all the fossils that have been found are in the right place. Of course there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record. There's nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn't there be? We're lucky to have fossils at all. But no fossils have been found in the wrong place, such as to disprove the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact.

[mainer]

226. No one's yet answered: "Who designed the designer?"

I brought this up during a radio interview. The answer I got back was a frustrated: "No one had to design Him! The designer just IS!!!"

So much for scientific inquiry with these people. Things just "are" the way they are. And stop asking questions!

[JRob]

233. Masters of evasion!

My brother-n-law is a pastor and I've looked him square in the eyes and put questions to him that he refused to really answer.

Like car sales people, these guys are probably trained and role-play to address a number of subjects and scenarios to deal with real-world logic to their benifit...

[JRob]

231. Beware of the American Taliban!!!!

[Hosnon]

234. Only 28% of Americans believe in EVOLUTION? Oh dear God...