"Arkansas Bill Lets Teachers Promote Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science Class"

[Jose Fly]

Picking away at historical mis-steps (the ad hominem approach) is all they really have.

And as the "Do creationists have anything new" thread showed, they don't mind the fact that that is all they have.

They can't assail it with well reasoned technical arguments.
And they have not testability to even make it a scientific alternative.
So even hundreds of years in the future, we'll still hear about Piltdown Man disproving evolution.

Yup.....because it's about religion, not science.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are a treasure trove of one sided problems with how evolution is taught today
take the peppered moth for example

Start with light and dark.... end with light and dark... therefore evolution is true.... well.. maybe not
Not the way to teach critical thinking

Can you provide an example of a textbook covering peppered moths that way?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Can you provide an example of a textbook covering peppered moths that way?

All peppered moth arguments in text books start with light and dark moths and end with light and dark moths. There is not genetic change involved

But oddly... even the iconic peppered moth case ... the people advocating it had to tape the moths to the light or dark objects as the moths didn't normally alight there ... a stunning example of critical thinking encouragement... no.. not really

 

[Jose Fly]

All peppered moth arguments in text books start with light and dark moths and end with light and dark moths. There is not genetic change involved

First, you're incorrect.

The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed : Nature News

Second, you can't provide an example of a textbook that covers peppered moths in the way you described, can you?

But oddly... even the iconic peppered moth case ... the people advocating it had to tape the moths to the light or dark objects as the moths didn't normally alight there ... a stunning example of critical thinking encouragement... no.. not really

If you're just going to regurgitate Well's "Icons of Evolution" arguments, then say so. But you should also know that he's lying. The moths do rest on tree trunks, contrary to what Wells says. The definitive work on peppered moths was conducted by Dr. Majerus in the 1990's and this is a chart from his book "Melanism: Evolution in Action"....

So as the data shows, your claim that moths don't naturally rest on the trees is simply false. In the future, I'd suggest not relying on a proven liar like Johnathan Wells for your talking points.

 

[Skwim]

First, you're incorrect.

The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed : Nature News

Second, you can't provide an example of a textbook that covers peppered moths in the way you described, can you?


If you're just going to regurgitate Well's "Icons of Evolution" arguments, then say so. But you should also know that he's lying. The moths do rest on tree trunks, contrary to what Wells says. The definitive work on peppered moths was conducted by Dr. Majerus in the 1990's and this is a chart from his book "Melanism: Evolution in Action"....

So as the data shows, your claim that moths don't naturally rest on the trees is simply false. In the future, I'd suggest not relying on a proven liar like Johnathan Wells for your talking points.

Thing is, over many years I've read just about all of the prominent creationists in town, from Ham, Hovind, Gish, and Morris to Sarfati, Brown, Dembski, and Wells. And every one of them, EVERY.... ONE.... OF.... THEM, has lied---meaning to purposely deceive---or was at least so stupidly clueless of the facts as to be criminal. And why have they done this? Because creationists can't mount a decent case without deceiving their audience. THEY HAVE TO BE dishonest.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Proof that in the year 3000, the same debate & arguments will rage....

 

[leibowde84]

The Oort Cloud

But, isn't the oort cloud a mere theory not based on any observations? I guess that would qualify as conjecture, but you have to start somewhere. It's not like astronomers claim it to be absolute fact or anything.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thing is, over many years I've read just about all of the prominent creationists in town, from Ham, Hovind, Gish, and Morris to Sarfati, Brown, Dembski, and Wells. And every one of them, EVERY.... ONE.... OF.... THEM, has lied---meaning to purposely deceive---or was at least so stupidly clueless of the facts as to be criminal. And why have they done this? Because creationists can't mount a decent case without deceiving their audience. THEY HAVE TO BE dishonest..

Yep, that's why after years of doing this I've concluded that it is simply impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

 

[gnostic]

Teaching only naturalism is a promotion of a religious world view.
It seems reasonable to teach critical thinking and alternatives.

"....Besides the fact that both concepts have no basis in evidence or reason,..."
There is much basis.

The problem is this. Creationism isn't science.

And creationism certainly don't involved critical thinking.

If I want to learn about creationism, I would either take Sunday school, or take a subject on theology or or study on comparative religions, but not in biology classroom.

The bible is not a textbook on biology; the bible cannot even explain basic anatomy and physiology.

Can the bible teach students how the brain, lungs, stomach, nervous system or reproduction work? Can the bible teach how the eyes or ears function?

And I have yet to see any Christian creationist here at be able to adequately explain what this unscientific "kind" is.

 

[idav]

Proof that in the year 3000, the same debate & arguments will rage....

No doubt.

 

[Derek500]

First, you're incorrect.

The peppered moth's dark genetic past revealed : Nature News

Second, you can't provide an example of a textbook that covers peppered moths in the way you described, can you?


If you're just going to regurgitate Well's "Icons of Evolution" arguments, then say so. But you should also know that he's lying. The moths do rest on tree trunks, contrary to what Wells says. The definitive work on peppered moths was conducted by Dr. Majerus in the 1990's and this is a chart from his book "Melanism: Evolution in Action"....

So as the data shows, your claim that moths don't naturally rest on the trees is simply false. In the future, I'd suggest not relying on a proven liar like Johnathan Wells for your talking points.

So, it's quite obvious that whirlingmerc didn't tell the truth about those peppered moths. My question is: Why did whirlingmerc tell untruths about those peppermoths?

 

[Jose Fly]

So, it's quite obvious that whirlingmerc didn't tell the truth about those peppered moths. My question is: Why did whirlingmerc tell untruths about those peppermoths?

That's the question I've been asking of all creationists for years. If you ever get an answer, let me know.