…and this is a 
I'm going to be in this silly debate on "Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In The Schools?" with creationist kook Jerry Bergman on 16 November, sponsored by CASH and the local Kook Central. The latest hangup, though, is that the creationists want to have a pre- and post-debate survey, and they plan to give the audience these questions:
I think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in all schools, public and private.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly AgreeI think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution by teachers who support it, without punishment.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly AgreeI think that as a minimum, the evidence against evolution should be taught alongside evidence for evolution.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
I've told them that that last question is simply unacceptable: it's misleading, prejudicial, and begs the question. There is no evidence against evolution. If there were, I'd agree — teach it. However, until they can say something specific, I'm not going to let them get away with sneaking in a stupid loaded question to their audience ahead of time.
I explained that as is, I'd answer that question with "strongly agree", because I think that evidence should be taught…but that I know they want to use it to pretend that there is some substantial support for teaching creationism, which is not the case.
Much waffling is going on on their part. I've put my foot down: cut the question out. They're trying to weasel in some fuzzy alternative that will have the same effect. The first two questions are fine, they directly address the subject of the debate more specifically (that is, "Intelligent design"), but the last is just an open-ended bit of noise that they want to use to justify their anti-science agenda.
Dealing with these charlatans is aggravating on so many levels.
Comments
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
And yes, before you say it, I am using the power of this medium to apply more pressure to those rascals to cave in.
Posted by: Ewan R | October 27, 2009 12:56 PM
Demand your own question be added to the survey, something along the lines of
If creationism is taught alongside evolution I think that as a minimum an extracurricular 2 hours per week class be set up to teach the evidence against creationism.
Etc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 27, 2009 12:56 PM
Do you get to preview the handouts before hand so there isn't any "miscommunication"?
As in Whoops? I know we discussed that last question and we're not sure how it got in there?
/shrug
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 27, 2009 1:00 PM
Why not suggest that each "side" gets to put 2 questions in the survey.
Posted by: Demha | October 27, 2009 1:00 PM
To add to Ewan R's point, how about if we posed the question: I think that as a minimum, the evidence against creationism should be preached in churches alongside evidence for creationism.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 27, 2009 1:09 PM
The last question is great, if you get to add the question of whether or not creationists should quit beating their wives.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Q3 should read:
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2009 1:10 PM
Ah, the old 'evidence to be named later' gambit.
*Pats coat pockets* I swear I just had it!
Posted by: sachatur | October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
How about changing the third question to be something on the lines of "Discuss what would constitute evidence against evolution, and why ID is not Science"?
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
I would choose "Strongly Disagree" as my answer to the second question even if it didn't involve intelligent design or evolution. In other words, I would disagree with "I think discredited views should be taught alongside accepted views by teachers who stubbornly support the discredited views, without punishment." A student's education should not be allowed to suffer from the quirks of individual teachers.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 27, 2009 1:13 PM
It looks like Glen D. beat me to the joke while I was fiddling around with the font code. :-(
;-)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 27, 2009 1:17 PM
Question 3 should read something like: The US courts have decreed creationism to be a religious idea. Therefore, should creationism should only be taught in classes on comparative religion, mythology, or philosophy?
Posted by: Siamang | October 27, 2009 1:18 PM
Better than that. Have them put this question on the survey:
I think that as a minimum, students should be educated on the misinformation, deceitful tactics, perjury and criminal convictions of famous creationists, like William Buckingham, Alan Bonsell and Kent Hovind.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 27, 2009 1:19 PM
Sheesh, yes. That third question is dishonest. It's like an atheist group sponsoring a debate on the existence of God, and polling the audience with "I think that the fact that there's no good reason to believe in God shouldn't matter to people of faith." Uh, presumably, the apologist is all about making the case that there is good reason to believe. That's the whole debate.
Maybe the third question can be
I think that, as a minimum, any theory taught in science class should provide a mechanism.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Posted by: Tyro | October 27, 2009 1:20 PM
Funny how we never see questions like "I think that as a minimum, the evidence against Creationism should be taught alongside evidence for evolution."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 27, 2009 1:22 PM
They can leave the question as is, only prefaced in this way:
"Accepting that the scientific community as a whole agrees that at this time there is no credible evidence to refute the Theory of Evolution, I feel that if such evidence did exist, it should be taught alongside the evidence for Evolution."
Does that not accurately and truthfully frame the question to provide an honest and viable response that would be hard to mis-construe?
Posted by: uppity cracka | October 27, 2009 1:24 PM
Now I'm totally going to this debate...just to fill out the survey. Okay, and to see PZ humiliate a lunatic.
Posted by: Michelle R | October 27, 2009 1:24 PM
You're damn right to do that. They're being snakes in the grass.
Posted by: Michelle R | October 27, 2009 1:27 PM
By the way, I'd also say you should ask to have a guy on your side present when they calculate the results of the survey. So it's not tweaked and all... I'm not saying I don't trust them, but I totally don't trust them. (wait... What?)
Posted by: dreikin
|
October 27, 2009 1:31 PM
I'd suggest changing it to
"Do you think there is substantial evidence against evolution?"
It asks their question in a more honest manner (by making the presumption "there is evidence against evolution" into a question), and is useful for PZ's side as well (to help improve future presentations).
Of course, one could pair it with
"Do you think there is substantial evidence against creationism/ID?"
Posted by: Hub Bub | October 27, 2009 1:34 PM
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
PZ Myers: Dogmatist.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 27, 2009 1:35 PM
Don't worry Michelle. I too am not saying "I don't trust them". I'm saying, "I totally don't trust them".
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
October 27, 2009 1:35 PM
Great argument Hub Bub... don't you have a car wash to attend to?
Posted by: ChrisZ | October 27, 2009 1:36 PM
@Glen D
I have to say the IDers would have a hard time proving they've NEVER beaten their wives.
Posted by: hznfrst | October 27, 2009 1:37 PM
How about this one: In the interest of fair play, do you think evolution should be given equal time in Sunday school?
Posted by: mattincinci
|
October 27, 2009 1:37 PM
such a bad move on so many levels PZ! they will never let you live it down
when you argue with idiots and lets be honest they are idiots, they end up dragging you down to their level and making you look like an idiot...
is it really worth it?
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 27, 2009 1:37 PM
Fair is fair. I say let them have their three questions, but only on the condition that you can interleave your own three questions for a total of six:
1A. I think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in all schools, public and private.
1B. I think intelligent design is a religious concept and has no place in science classes, or even in any American government-run schools, due to the First Amendment prohibition against establish of religion.
2A. I think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution by teachers who support it, without punishment.
2B. I think public school teachers should be prevented from casting unjustified doubt upon scientific facts. They are there to educate, not confuse.
3A. I think that as a minimum, the evidence against evolution should be taught alongside evidence for evolution.
3B. Although no evidence against evolution currently exists, I think that in the unlikely event that such evidence is actually discovered some day, teachers should discuss it with their students.
Posted by: CJO | October 27, 2009 1:38 PM
So, Bub, as a principled anti-dogmatist, do you have anything more than blustering hilarity to offer, like, oh, I don't know, some of this 'evidence against evolution' we hear so much about, but never actually see?
Posted by: cag
|
October 27, 2009 1:43 PM
One of the questions should be something like
Believers must answer this as strongly agree or else they have to admit that the bible is just a collection of lies and myths.Check this out for a comprehensive analysis and refutation of geocentrism.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 27, 2009 1:48 PM
You know, Hub, I was just about convinced that what PZ said was funny, but you lacked the three more "HAs" that would have proven your point.
Better luck next time, master debater.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: gadfly47
|
October 27, 2009 1:53 PM
Is Hub Bub yet another ID troll?
Posted by: s.k.graham | October 27, 2009 1:56 PM
PZ -- you are missing a great opportunity to score points in your opening remarks! Let them put in the question, then use it as a starting point for you opening remarks -- you could open by saying something like this:
You've been given a survey in which one of the questions asks whether you support teaching the evidence against evolution. I am going to surprise you. I strongly agree. The problem is, there is no evidence against evolution -- the supposed evidence that my opponents advocate is simply nonsense based on misunderstanding of both evolution and the actual evidence for it.
In the course of the debate, you can dismantle various misconceptions, always returnign to this questino fo "teaching the evidence" as a unifying theme. By posing this question in their survey, they are exposing their rhetorical throat. I say go for the jugular!
Posted by: cag
|
October 27, 2009 1:57 PM
Hub Bub #21, there is a typo in your screed. Here let me fix it for you.
PZ Myers:
DogmatistRealist.Posted by: JackC
|
October 27, 2009 1:59 PM
I am rather pleased - before reading out of the quote, I was thinking as follows:
"um... yeah - Disagree Strongly"
"um... yeah - same thing"
"WTF?"
Then, I completed reading. Amazing. OK - not so much.
"Third question: The ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference is precisely 3.0"
Strongly Agree... you get the idea.
JC
Posted by: s.k.graham | October 27, 2009 2:00 PM
I also agree with the comment suggesting that you insist on adding your own questions to the survey.
Posted by: Camels With Hammers
|
October 27, 2009 2:02 PM
Sorry for going slightly off-topic, but I think this is the best place to answer a question about the creation museum's misinformation and find a number of people who've been there and are up on the details. A commentator on my blog listed several accusations of scientific inaccuracies at the museum and I liked the remarks and so featured them in a post of their own. Then today, Mark Looy (Creation Museum COO) arrived in my comments section claiming that the museum did not make the claims my commentator said it did.
The post with my commentator's post reposted is here http://camelswithhammers.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/crazy-theories-in-the-creation-museum/ and Looy's comments are at the end. If anyone can corroborate my commentator's claims or corroborate Looy's claims to never have heard the particular ideas he alleges are presented at the museum, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks for any help....
Posted by: Don Teuton | October 27, 2009 2:04 PM
Will the 'debate' be recorded and youtubed for our viewing pleasure?
Posted by: abb3w
|
October 27, 2009 2:05 PM
Perhaps "I think that the amount of evidence against evolution is significant enough that it should be included in the curriculum alongside evidence for evolution"?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 27, 2009 2:06 PM
PZ, they're trying to lure you into a minefield. Don't do it. These people aren't interested in objective reality - just performance art that validates their beliefs.
Posted by: Berlzebub | October 27, 2009 2:06 PM
The reason for the third question is that they don't have any evidence for ID, so they try to muddy the waters by casting doubts on ToE. I don't think they could create a class to show the evidence for ID, because that would give some students two study periods and that would just be unfair.
Posted by: NoFear
|
October 27, 2009 2:06 PM
OK, finally got this registration thing working that shows my usual commenting name (not that I comment often anyway, but it's better than the long string of URL gibberish that showed up as my user name with OpenID) ... anyway ...
Question 2 is bad as well. Why should some poor kids be subjected to a different curriculum based on a teachers leanings? Should kids in history class be taught that the holocaust didn't happen because their teacher happened to be a holocaust denier? Or that we never landed on the moon because a teacher is a crazy conspiracy theorist? In science class, teachers should teach science no matter what the teachers religious leanings are. Period. When and if the ID movement ever does any science, then and only then should ID be taught in science class, which of course would be never since there is no way in proverbial hell that ID can ever be a viable scientific theory. So regardless of whether one believes that ID should be taught alonside evolution, one should not agree to have different curricula for different students based on individual teachers' beliefs.
Posted by: raven | October 27, 2009 2:06 PM
Hmm, not enough. Maybe we should pray for them to see the light as well. LOL
Posted by: abb3w
|
October 27, 2009 2:10 PM
Perhaps: "I think the amount of evidence against evolution is significant enough that it ought to be included in the curriculum along side the evidence supporting evolution"?
(It's still a bit of a kludge, as evidence is not really "for" or "against" a conjecture in the way people ordinarily think of it, but explaining that would involve excessive esoterica.)
Posted by: raven | October 27, 2009 2:11 PM
If religious cult nonsense should be taught in school, should evolutionary biology be taught in kid's sunday school classes?
Oddly enough, a Unitarian once said they taught exactly that in their sunday school.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 27, 2009 2:20 PM
I think the pretense at "non-censorship" (apparently they equate inane babbling of public servants paid to teach knowledge with "freedom" in very specific instances) would be dropped pretty damn quickly by the IDiots and cretinists in that case.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Anonym | October 27, 2009 2:20 PM
'Lie with dogs, rise with fleas.'
Posted by: MikeM | October 27, 2009 2:27 PM
I'll go one step further: There should be no survey, period.
Science is not decided by a popular vote. We tried that with Pasteur, and we failed. So surveys are pointless.
If there is to be any survey, both sides should get the same number of questions. But I don't think there should be any survey at all.
Posted by: thepugilist
|
October 27, 2009 2:28 PM
No way, the question suggests that there is some credible evidence against evolution when there simply isn't.
Posted by: Kraid
|
October 27, 2009 2:37 PM
http://memegenerator.net/Instances/813/HA-HA-Guy-PZ-MYERS-DOGMATIST.jpg
Sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind.
Posted by: David E | October 27, 2009 2:43 PM
I think that as a minimum, the evidence against evolution should be taught alongside evidence for evolution.
That's all well and good, but what we really want to know is:
Do you still beat your wife?
Posted by: MikeM | October 27, 2009 2:48 PM
By the way, completely O/T, but the LHC is back on-line.
This is excellent news. I'm pretty excited about it.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
Posted by: Kraid
|
October 27, 2009 2:56 PM
@50
And...
Do you ever eat newborns without the hotwing sauce?
Do you use clean needles when shooting heroin?
Do you ever fantasize about being the tentacle monster instead of the Japanese schoolgirl?
etc
Posted by: Luther | October 27, 2009 3:15 PM
This could be a pre/post setup for a "win"
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 27, 2009 3:30 PM
PZ Myers:
DogmatistQualified biologist.There, fixed it for ya.
Posted by: wiley | October 27, 2009 3:38 PM
The result of teaching Evolution in schools is that most people think we evolved from apes. I blame evolutionists themselves and their ridiculous 'Ascent of Man' poster.
One reason I don't subscribe to the Theory is the fact that Evolutionists keep changing the story about which species we are supposedly evolved from. Another is Dawkins' absurd and unprovable claim that Adam & Eve "never existed". How you going to convince rational human beings that all life had a common ancestor if you rule out the possiblity that all humankind had a common ancestor?
Theory dismissed. Next!
Posted by: Kevin | October 27, 2009 3:40 PM
How about:
I think there is scientific evidence against evolution that should be taught alongside evidence for evolution.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 27, 2009 3:57 PM
and....
Well that is a silly linear representation, but the actual science is solid.
This sentence makes me think that the problem isn't the science, but your grasp of it.
Again I'm not sure you understand what is being said here.
Yep, you really don't understand it. Adam and even wouldn't be the start "common ancestor". Populations not individuals buddy.
not even close
Posted by: Michael | October 27, 2009 4:13 PM
Actually, if I'm not mistaken the first two questions are _heavily_ bias'd as well towards creationism.
It should be something along the lines of:
Do you think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in all schools, public and private.
Yes No Undecided
Do you think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution by teachers who support it, without punishment.
Yes No Undecided
By putting "I think" it creates a bias towards saying yes.
Posted by: Nathan | October 27, 2009 4:14 PM
I like the question #3 asked as "Do you think there is credible evidence against Evolution.", and perhaps having a question #4 asking about credible evidence against creationism.
I was recently at a party in which a person said they were an archaeology major. As I started to ask him about his thoughts on the amazing discovery of Ardi, he looked right in the eyes, and with dead seriousness: "I just LOVE digging up all of God's work!"
I hate the ability of lunatics to deny facts in favor of ones that promote their own longheld ignorance.
Posted by: B166ER
|
October 27, 2009 4:21 PM
@wiley #55
Wow, that level of stupid ALWAYS burns. You really think that the story of just TWO individuals leading to our entire species is realistic? Wiley, the strength of the ToE, or any scientific theory, is that it does change. As we get better information and new evidence, we change our minds. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS! If we didn't change our minds about things when presented with better information, we would be just as bad as the crazy kooks you seem to surround yourself with. I don't blame you though, wiley, because you know, birds of a feather.
As to the questionnaire, I think you should demand that it be written by a team of BOTH scientists and IDiots. If they don't agree to that demand, argue that they are using leading questions and that the questionnaire has to go.
No Gods, No Masters
Cameron
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | October 27, 2009 4:26 PM
Withdraw from the debate.
I'm always "iffy" about debates: there is too much riding on presentation skills, tactics and tricks. A debate can be useful if it is undertaken with a sincere goal of examining the arguments.
With these questions it seems to me that the other side have shown their bad faith. They are not interested in searching for the truth but in using any tactic to bolster their case. Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 27, 2009 4:26 PM
But we did evolve from apes, the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence clearly demonstrates that we did. We shared a common ancestor with the chimpanzees some 6-7 million years ago, and the genus homo almost certainly came from the genus Australopithecus.
Do you mean that there's uncertainty about which fossils we've found in Africa are our ancestors? Shouldn't the problem be that there are so many fossils when really none should exist at all?
Evolution doesn't happen in individuals, it happens in a population. There wasn't a pair of "first humans", there was a population. And in that there's no definite point where we've gone from one species to another, it's all a continuum whereby at each stage there are small changes that are almost indistinguishable from generation to generation.Posted by: Sastra
|
October 27, 2009 4:30 PM
Nathan #59 wrote:
My first guess is that your new acquaintance thought you were a creationist, and he was just trying to head off an argument against evolution by making it clear that evolution was God's work. Theistic evolutionists don't deny the facts: they just add an unnecessary element to a hazy, undefined background.
Of course, I wasn't there, so I don't know how he said this, or what he said afterwards. Maybe he really was trying to suggest that the fossil skeleton was just a few thousand years old. But I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: uncle chuck | October 27, 2009 4:44 PM
Jerry Bergman claims a PhD from Columbia Pacific University? Show me 1 building at Columbia Pacific. Oops, there aren't any. It doesn't exist. All it ever WAS was a mail order diploma mill. What a douchebag.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 27, 2009 4:45 PM
wiley #55 wrote:
In one of his books, Daniel Dennett talks about what he calls the "first mammal" fallacy. It's one of the problems with discontinuous, black-and-white thinking. Either something is a mammal, or it is not. Thus, there must have been a not-a-mammal which gave birth to an is-a-mammal.
But that's not how life works. There was no "first mammal." There couldn't be. The changes are so gradual that you never have one species giving birth, suddenly, to another. As Kel says in #62, it's a continuum. Where we draw the line, exactly, in a shifting population is as arbitrary as where we draw the line, exactly, in an individual who changes from a child to an adult.
You can't criticize a science theory properly if you don't understand it. From your point of view, that would be like atheists criticizing Christianity because they think it claims that anyone who accepts Jesus' sacrifice can no longer be killed or harmed, and bullets will bounce off their chest like Superman. What might be a fair point is laughable if you're not even close to understanding, or addressing, the actual argument.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 27, 2009 4:47 PM
How about a question that shows a photo of a rabbit, followed by:
Yeah - I totally stole that one from Penn and Teller.
JC
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 27, 2009 4:53 PM
Yeah, I was looking at the third statement thinking "no evidence against evolution is being discussed because there is none".
For the first statement, I wouldn't even recommend christian creationism in a mythology class because the bastardized christian version has got to be the dullest and most unimaginative of them all. Teach the more entertaining of the creation mythologies from around the world instead; it is far more instructive than obsessing with the tawdry judeo-christian-mohammedan creation myth plagiarism.
For the second statement, teachers who support creationism should lose their job; how can someone teach effectively when they have such infantile notions? Do *you* want a creationist influencing your children?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 27, 2009 4:54 PM
Theory dismissed. Next!
Yes, Wiley, that's right. You've found us out. It really is as simple as that. Thousands of scientists have been lying for over a century and a half. They do it because they hate baby Jesus, and they thought they'd never, ever get caught.
Please do the human genome a favor and kill yourself before you procreate.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 27, 2009 4:55 PM
Sastra, you just reminded me of a video by DonExodus2 that I like. In it he points out the problem with expecting there to be a "first" anything or "something giving birth to something else" by comparing it to aging. What day is the last day of infancy? The first day of maturity? Have you ever seen a baby wake up as an old person? It is a great analogy.
Posted by: bobxxxx | October 27, 2009 5:27 PM
wiley: "The result of teaching Evolution in schools is that most people think we evolved from apes."
Actually we are an ape species, you uneducated moron.
Posted by: Carlie | October 27, 2009 5:56 PM
Here's one:
Did the Creationist provide any positive evidence to support his hypothesis that consists of anything other than "it's too complicated"? Please list the evidence provided in the space below.
Posted by: Gaia sighs... | October 27, 2009 6:00 PM
I'm afraid they've stepped into it with the first question. Logically, They are clearly advocating the teaching of Evolution along side Intelligent Design in all schools. Which causes me to wonder when the Great Hunt will begin for lecturers willing to join the staffs of non-secular schools as Instructors in Evolution.
Posted by: SparrowFalls
|
October 27, 2009 6:02 PM
How about:
I think that as a minimum, any scientific evidence against evolution should be taught alongside evidence for evolution.
Same general thrust, except all the arguments from authority and pulling facts out of thin air will not be allowed. Well, should not be allowed.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 27, 2009 6:07 PM
Dear Brother Wile E. @55
I'm writing to say how proud the entire Christian Coyote clan is at your marvelous attack upon the foul roadrunner of evolution. Your bold step into the path of that speeding bullet of scientific fact, armed with nothing but your ACME Creation Kit, warmed the cockles of my god-loving soul. Of course the evolution roadrunner ran over you, around you, under you and through you with a cheeky grin and a jaunty "Beep! Beep!", but we all know that's not your fault. I mean, let's face it, the evo-roadrunner has had a few billion years to sort out its lines of descent, while you're still stuck straining on the creationist crapper sometime back on 23 October 4004 BC trying to force out of your puckered protestant poo-hole that constipating turd known affectionately as the Book of Genesis.
Please let me set your mind at rest, Brother Wile E. I don't for a second think you "evolved from an ape". Most apes I know have functioning brains, live happily in the present, and have minds untainted by beliefs in bronze age fables or silly stories about gods and magic sky fairies. It's an awful slur on apes to suggest they might have evolved into a ridiculous parody like you. Still, I praise Loony Tunes for your absurd and unprovable belief that Adam & Eve "ever existed", as kid's cartoons go it's great for a laugh. "Beep! Beep!"
Yours in Cartoon-Christianity
Smoggy (waiting excitedly for the next trick in your ACME Faith Kit)
Posted by: Gaia sighs... | October 27, 2009 6:23 PM
"Do you still beat your wife?"
Hmm. Shouldn't that be 'have you stopped beating your wife'?
Posted by: Rich | October 27, 2009 6:25 PM
The second question is bad as well. The use of the word "punishment" is very, very loaded. No one wants to "punish" a teacher. I'd strongly disagree with that questions, teachers should not be allowed to teach ID in schools. But on the question of enforcement, to say that I'd punish them for teaching it is not quite right. They're just not, as public teachers, allowed to proselytize. If they want to teach the evidence against evolution, go to, that's vital to science. But to teach myth and call it science is not the place of public science teachers.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 27, 2009 6:28 PM
@Smoggy
Here's what happened to Wile E.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 27, 2009 6:31 PM
Smoggy, you irrepressible bastard!
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 27, 2009 6:35 PM
How about this:
We should teach the creation stories of all the religions - not just the Abrahamic model - as equally valid.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
October 27, 2009 6:38 PM
Dear Brother SciencePundit,
Thanks for the brilliant link.
Wile E. finds Jesus then turns up here to piss all of us off.
Religion... the loser's last resort.
Smoggy
Posted by: Carlie | October 27, 2009 6:43 PM
How about: "Should teachers be allowed to proselytize about their own alternate religion to your children during school?"
Not that they'd be able to make the connection...
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 27, 2009 6:45 PM
MadScientist,
Say, you may have hit upon something there. Perhaps the Adam and Eve myth has endured for so long because of the fact that it’s comparatively bland as tall tales go. If it’d been a cosmic cow licking the first man out of butter, or flying snake-gods pooping out people then it would have expired long ago as obvious nonsense. But an invisible god is so nondescript that it can be whatever you want it to be. After all, even in science lots of things are invisible. Of course, there was a talking snake, but maybe it didn’t actually talk, just slithered and beguiled.
There’s something ironic about one of the most unimaginative of the creation myths being the one picked up and obsessed over by modern Christians. In my experience with the born-again crowd, though, that is hardly surprising. Predictable even.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 27, 2009 7:14 PM
Nathan @ # 59: ... a person said they were an archaeology major. As I started to ask him about his thoughts on the amazing discovery of Ardi... "I just LOVE digging up all of God's work!"
Um, questions about Ardi might be much better addressed to a paleontologist...
... but an archaeologist who doesn't realize he is dealing with human artifacts really should've been directed by his college counselors much sooner toward a rewarding career in fast-food service.
Posted by: MJ | October 27, 2009 7:18 PM
@43
Plz explain. Evidence is never "for" or "against" a conjecture? How about when the probability of the conjecture conditional on the evidence is greater than the probability of the conjecture simplicter? Isn't that evidence telling *for* a conjecture?
Posted by: uncle frogy | October 27, 2009 7:24 PM
I vote as was suggested above to use the questions against them. They want put it in writing and give it to everyone in attendance so use it against them if you can get other questions added that is OK but they and their own attitudes and assumptions I.E. lies are your best allies.beat them over the head with them again and again.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 27, 2009 7:55 PM
Dear wiley(#55),
maybe you should dismiss the germ "theory" of disease and not bother with going to the doctor the next time you get sick.
Once you're done with that you can get around to the "theory" of gravity and make the world a better place by taking yourself out of it.
Incidentally, were did Abel and Kane get their wives? Was incest the "traditional" form of family those early days?
Posted by: Qwerty
|
October 27, 2009 7:58 PM
Ahhh, the third question: Another creationist trick to try to wedge creationism and Jesus back in junior's school.
It's pathetic to think that science can be decided upon by popular vote, but they keep trying.
Posted by: raven | October 27, 2009 8:07 PM
Unlike religion that gets it all wrong at the start and never changes anything no matter how much data is accumulated.
Eventually the only cultists left are mentally ill, stupid, or ignorant. Or in your case all three. Finally, the religion dies out. We no longer sacrifice humans to Tlaloc to keep the rains coming. Apollo Helios no longer drags the sun across the sky in a chariot every day.
Someday Yahweh and Adam and Eve will join Zeus and Hercules in the mythology books.
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 27, 2009 8:08 PM
Ask to substitute an alternate third question:
3.) What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree
Well, they might go for it. They're college students, after all.
Posted by: Gra | October 27, 2009 8:35 PM
It's tiresome, but maybe you should also get certain terms agreed upon first. Things all normal people understand like "evolution", meaning what it means and not "evolution + abiogenesis + the big bang + social theory". I once listened to a podcast of the Infidel Guy where they had Pagliucchi(?) against a creationist and Reggie had them back up and back up and back up to try and get them to start on some common ground. After 10 minutes they were still trying to agree on the meaning of "science". It was pitiful to hear.
Tell them, you're there to debate evolution vs intelligent design, not abiogenisis, not cosmology, not eugenics, not politics, not religion.
Posted by: kamaka | October 27, 2009 9:16 PM
Debate? This is a "debate"?
Science does the best it can to describe reality. "Intelligent" Design does the best it can to redefine reality in a supernatural way.
Fine.
Debaters, show us the evidence.
Oh, one side of the debate doesn't have any evidence? None? Not one shred of evidence?
Questioning and denying evidence doesn't make a positive affirmation.
So where's the debate??
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
October 27, 2009 9:33 PM
"kamaka" (#91) wrote: "Debaters, show us the evidence. Oh, one side of the debate doesn't have any evidence? None? Not one shred of evidence?
That sounds like a good summary of the 2005 Dover Trial.
Posted by: Harmless Eccentric
|
October 27, 2009 9:50 PM
3. I think that everything taught in science class should be supported by the best available evidence.
Posted by: LowellGuy | October 27, 2009 10:16 PM
Are you implying that people who are intellectually dishonest would stoop so low as to be intellectually dishonest? Well, now I've heard everything!
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
October 27, 2009 10:50 PM
#3
I think creationism is real science?
Strongly Disagree (sane) Disagree (quite sane) Undecided (agnostic fence sitter) Agree (loopy as fuck) Strongly Agree (deFUCKINGranged)
Posted by: BdN
|
October 28, 2009 12:06 AM
@Gra
I guess you're talking about Massimo Pigliucci. And possibly his debate with Jonathan Wells.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6589272663573268460#
@Sastra
"Theistic evolutionists don't deny the facts: they just add an unnecessary element to a hazy, undefined background."
You're mostly right, except for one detail : they have a teleological view of evolution. My parents are both Christians but never had a problem with ToE and thinking that the universe is a few billion years old, holding a kind of de Chardin vision of it. But when I recently taught my father that it was mostly a random process and that there are good possibilities humans wouldn't exist if we did this all over, he looked at me really confused and quite shaken. The discussion ended there and we haven't talked about it since and I doubt we will ever.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | October 28, 2009 1:28 AM
Hub Bub seems to be a fan of math given his love of multiplication. Mental masturbation is rewarding however he might want to tackle something more productive like ... say ... debating math ?
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
October 28, 2009 1:41 AM
Whatever you agree on as a survey you should always take time, at the end of the debate, to explain the survey nuances to the audience. If there is a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question then explain that and tell them not to answer it.
Finally, scrutineer the results. Don't let 'em get away with anything.
Then when its all over, phone Richard and say "You were right, oh wise one. Never debate the cretinists." Then say seven "Hail Darwin"s.
Posted by: Wiley | October 28, 2009 3:11 AM
Raven @#88
Point of order: Adam & Eve are not deities and Atheism does not forbid belief in the existence of mortals like them. Dawkins could have said the talking snake never existed, but chose to target the man & the woman instead, but if they didn't exist then neither could any of their descendants, so it all gets a bit messy & complicated. If Dictator Dawkins had allowed the perfectly believable possibility of the existence of a man called Adam (who called his wife Eve) then we could get on with the point of contention: was he created or did he evolve from another species and if so, what bloody species?
Insightful Ape @#86
Abel was murdered before he got a wife. Cain was given a mark to protect him from people outside of Eden, who may not have been Homo Sapiens and may have even pre-dated Adam; Genesis doesn't say. Cain's wife was from Nod, east of Eden. Likewise, their is no information on Seth's wife, so we can't presume she was a daughter of A & E either. There's your population, peoples.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 3:43 AM
Skeptical atheism generally means one doesn't believe in any mythical/fictional beings, whether they are mythical people or mythical gods, or mythical animals or mythical geography. silly person.also, atheism doesn't "forbid" anything, it's not a club with rules. it's a descriptor.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 4:07 AM
No, but reason precludes believing in the existence of characters who are only described in a story about the actions of a deity -- and which story has logical and empirical flaws.
Do you believe in every myth which involves the creation of mortals? After all, you're not committing idolatry if you believe the myth but not in the gods.
What's messy and complicated about the simple fact that the entire story was made up?
"Dictator"?
How about we get on with the point of contention that people have made up stories all over the world and throughout time, and scientists have to rely on evidence, not made-up stories?
I realise that this may be too hard for your tiny little brain to grasp, but the theory of evolution does not say that any population of organisms which, over time, evolved to become humans, was ever down to a single male and a single female.
That is simply not how it works.
So are you saying that there were "people" who were not created by God? Then what is it that God is supposed to have done?
Make up your mind, will you?
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 4:24 AM
Jadehawk, you cannot qualify Atheism, nor make generalizations. Atheism = disbelief in God/gods, that is all. Belief in Adam & Eve, or extraterrestrials or even fairies and mythical creatures like the Loch Ness monster, are all perfectly allowable/halal/kosher in Atheism. Anyone says different, they're a liar.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 4:48 AM
Did God die and make you the Dictator of Atheism?
True. Quite true. That is why Jadehawk qualified "atheism" with skeptical, to indicate a mindset which does reject other fake, made-up, fictional entities.
Who the fuck are you to say that that is not allowed?
I agree that many religious people are liars.
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 5:12 AM
Owlmirror: "What's messy and complicated?"
Well, were Cain & Seth real? What about their wives? How about Enoch, Zillah, Mahalaleel, Methuselah, Abraham? Yeah I'm missing out a few, but when do the real people kick in, Jacob, Ishmael, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, Zechariah, Yeshua, Saul? Adam & Eve denialists have an existential problem here, not least of all: who recorded all these names and from where did they procure the literature normally attributed to them, if indeed they were all made up, as you must believe if you believe that the Bible's authors' ancestors didn't exist?
Are we getting messy yet?
Posted by: Rrr | October 28, 2009 5:24 AM
Well, wiley, I'm pretty sure there is a simple explanation to be found. Takes some thinking, though not necessarily very deep.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 5:28 AM
Their ancestors did exist, but why does the bible have to be an accurate genealogy? The archaeology doesn't tell the same history as the bible does, so why should we expect the bible to be accurate?Indeed, expecting the bible to be accurate is missing the point of what the story is about. It's mythic storytelling, one peoples explanation of existence and their place in it. It's no more accurate than expecting the tasks of Hercules to be an ancient Greek historical account. We don't take the fall of Troy as described by Homer, there may be some elements of truth interwoven in the story, but the story is not a historical account.
Besides, much of Genesis was taken from the mythologies of surrounding cultures. The flood story has been around for around 1500 years longer than the Jewish culture themselves!
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 5:41 AM
Owlmirror
Point of order: "skeptical" does not indicate "rejection".
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 5:59 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the above were real people.
Have you considered ever maybe doing some research into archaeology of the Middle East? Is that too hard?
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
There's a single inscription that might refer to a House of David, and nothing else outside of the bible in support of the early kings of Israel and Judah.
Human beings made up distant ancestors. They do that all the time. They "procured the literature" from their own imaginations.
Or do you consider these to be fact-based simply because people told stories about them and wrote about them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_and_Embla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deucalion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 6:07 AM
Point of order: You can't think.
Why else would someone reject fake, made-up, fictional beings, besides being skeptical of their factualness?
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 6:25 AM
Owlmirror: 'Human beings made up distant ancestors. They do that all the time. They "procured the literature" from their own imaginations'.
Good grief, if (for argument's sake) I wrote all David's psalms, why would I attribute them to King David? -please don't say he'd kill me if I didn't; that's an acknowledgment that KD existed! And gee whizz, if I had the wisdom of Solomon I could have written Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (my fave, BTW), but no way I'd give the credit to some imaginary dude. See the problem yet?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 28, 2009 6:28 AM
wiley wrote:
Is it that you're a insipid, clueless dumbass?
Posted by: kai | October 28, 2009 6:37 AM
wiley@110: if (for argument's sake) I wrote all David's psalms, why would I attribute them to King David?
For any of a number of reasons, the least not being inflating their perceived value. It happens all the time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_hoax and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_hoax to begin with.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 28, 2009 6:41 AM
Wow. Troll keeps asking the same questions, over and over, and doesn't understand the answers given him. Who'da thought?
Reminds me of the work of Ken Heilman, who suggests that an unconditional adherence to religious dogma single reasoning strategy may be the result of frontal lobe dysfunction.
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/Heilman-neuroscienceandfundamentalism
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 7:40 AM
Wiley, Dawkins saying Adam and Eve were not real poses exactly zero problem for evolution.
You're hung up on your bible stories of them being the original "humans" and can't fathom the fact that humans didn't spring forth from a single couple, as a few of us have tried to tell you numerous times. Dawkins saying they weren't real is accurate in that a single human couple is not responsible for being the single point from which the rest of humanity came. Evolution works on populations not individuals.
Good grief that's a ridiculous argument.
Posted by: echidna
|
October 28, 2009 8:04 AM
Kai is right to say it happens all the time. Hence ghostwriters.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 8:22 AM
So, wily the troll, the wives of Seth and Cain were not descendents of Adam and eve? Gosh, I thought all human beings were their descendents. Or were they having sex with animals? Nice.
And Cain had to be marked to protect him from those non-human-humans? I wonder why the alimghty forgot to give that protection to Abel, seems he could use it too.
But I am still waiting to hear what you think about the germ "theory" of disease. Clearly it's not proven, or it would be called "germ fact of disease", right? And since you are so good at dismissing theories, I'm sure you don't buy into this swine flu thing either, right? I mean, could those puny little viruses make you sick? No way.
Posted by: Rrr | October 28, 2009 8:35 AM
Hey wiley! Ever heard of Hollywood? Lots of stories there. Not all of them true, either, even though many of them include named characters, complete with relationships, brave deeds etc.
Posted by: mafaremrga | October 28, 2009 8:40 AM
PZ. When I agree to debate creationists I try to prenegotiate EVERYTHING before saying "yes." I assume you do the same thing and that this pre- and post- survey of the audience was not part of the original agreement. You should make them drop the whole thing.
Even if the first two questions are reasonable and appropriate I would advise you not to make this a part of the event. Remember, there is no way that you can "win" a debate with creationists, you can only hope to inform some small portion of your audience.
When asked why I agree to such debates, I usually say is is because of that chance that there is one person in the audience who would otherwise never be exposed to my side of the argument. Remember, you are there for that person and that person only. Audience surveys like this one are only designed to make it look as if you have accomplished absolutely nothing, but if you enlighten one person, you have accomplished everything.
Good luck.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 28, 2009 8:44 AM
As an atheist who doesn't believe in a god, I would therefore not believe that said god had created what your book says he created.
Why therefore would I believe that a "biblical based" Adam and Eve existed? That would be like not believing in fairies but thinking fairy dust existed.
Anyone can make anything up. It doesn't get more real with antiquity. Nor is it real because it says it is. Or because you really, really, really want it to be.
Posted by: dag | October 28, 2009 9:17 AM
Wow... I feel for you PZ. It's frustrating dealing with this kind of thing.
On a side note, and please don't be offended by my suggestion (because I'm sure you're well prepared)... but I would recommend watching some youtube debates against creationists, for example Thunderfoot versus Ray Comfort. Reason being - I've noticed that creationists don't have many arguments, and seem to use only a handful most of the time.
Posted by: dag | October 28, 2009 9:26 AM
mafaremrga: "..if you enlighten one person, you have accomplished everything."
I agree, and thank God for people like you PZ. I was brought up in a creationist-teaching home and private schools. When I went to college I had no fear of "evil" evolutionary theories because I had confidence in what I "knew" to be true. Because of people like yourself I was able to learn about evolution (amazingly this was the *first* time) and it took only a few years for me to go from 100% creationist to agreeing with modern science.
Where I'd be without people like yourself is just a terrifying thought!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 28, 2009 10:22 AM
Wiley the brain-dead creationist troll:
And if Ben Franklin wrote all those letters, why would he pretend they were from a bunch of women with names like Silence Dogood, Caelia Shortface and Martha Careful? You've uncovered an ancient secret, wiley! Franklin never wrote those letters, he kidnapped a bunch of women and used them as sex slaves while forcing them to do his writing for him! There's no other way it could happen, there's no way any person would ever write something and give someone else the credit! Wow, wiley, you've just blown the lid off the biggest conspiracy in American history!
Yeah! And if Stephen King really wrote The Regulators, and a bunch of other books whose titles I forget, why would he attribute it to some guy named Richard Bachman? No, no, Bachman MUST be a real person, and King must have been keeping him imprisoned in his basement! That bastard, locking up a poor defenseless cancer patient and profiting from his suffering!
It's the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION! No writer in all the history of the world has ever used a pseudonym! The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It!!!!!
Posted by: kopd
|
October 28, 2009 10:23 AM
I like that better.
Posted by: FastLane | October 28, 2009 11:05 AM
The emperor of Japan traced his ancestry directly back to the first Japanese gods.
Therefore Izanagi no Mikoto and Izanami no Mikoto are real.
Damn, that was easy. Better get these added to the scientific creation stories added to public schools.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 28, 2009 11:42 AM
Pfff, all those dumb scholars wasting their time questioning who wrote The Illiad and The Odyssey. I mean, if there were more than one writer wouldn't they want to take credit for these great pieces of literature? It's also inconceivable that these works were passed down from oral tradition and distorted every generation before they were written down.
Homeric denialists also have an existential problem. Who was real and who wasn't? Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Ajax, Hector, Helen?
Therefore, not only is Homer the author of The Illiad and The Odyssey, but everything in those two works is historically accurate. It's also good evidence for the existence of the Greek gods.
Posted by: mafarmerga | October 28, 2009 12:40 PM
dag: "Where I'd be without people like yourself is just a terrifying thought!"
And thank you dag. It is comments like yours that gives people like PZ and myself the motivation to walk into an evangelical church with several hundred creationists. At the end of a debate I usually look around the room and say "My colleagues wonder why I agree to do these debates when I know that I cannot win. I do it for you. You may not even be willing to admit to the person sitting next to you that you are wrestling with these issues, but if I did not come here tonight you most likely would never hear about these things. So I am here tonight for you."
I'm glad that someone else was there for you dag. Don't be afraid to be that person for someone else.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 1:04 PM
What happens when you lure Godzilla into a minefield?
CRONCH CRONCH CRONCH
It is very easy to show using genetics that the population size of our ancestors, all the way down to at least our last common ancestors with the gorillas AFAIK, has never been down to two. Of course, this has been done at least once.
You haven't even tried to imagine how much knowledge there is out there that you have no idea of.
Okaaaaay. And where did all those people come from? Did they evolve or something?
The first of the two creation stories is shortened from a Babylonian creation story, and the second contains a Sumerian story about the creation of a goddess who was called both "life" ("Eve", in other words) and "rib" – same word in Sumerian.
2 Kings and at least some of the younger books contain at least some.
Keep in mind that the books of the Bible are not ordered by their age.
It can't be entirely accurate anyway, because the two genealogies from David to Jesus contradict each other. They don't even agree on the name of Joseph's father.
===================
Wow, Smoggy, that was pure genius. And I even learned something about the Noo Zillund Sound System (I always hear "meep" instead of "beep").
Posted by: eyelessgame | October 28, 2009 1:06 PM
I suppose they'd be giving away the game if they reworded it as
"I think that as a minimum, what creationists claim as 'evidence against evolution' should be taught alongside evidence for evolution."
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 2:53 PM
Because you live in a conservative religious totalitarian society where the only art that is acceptable is art from the past? Just as one example. There are plenty of other ways that writings can be misattributed. All that's necessary is that the people copying it not know the writers name, or deliberately erase it or change it.
If everyone around you thinks that Solomon was real, and they respect the legend of Solomon, why wouldn't you attribute your writings to Solomon, if you want those around you to read and respect what you wrote?
Funny enough, there's at least one example of where it's certain that that happened (it's far more uncertain with the other writings; I am not saying that David and Solomon absolutely did not exist and did not write what was attributed to them):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Wisdom
Posted by: Mike | October 28, 2009 3:44 PM
I'm gay and I like the picture the Kook Central uses to promote the debate! Now if only the debaters actually looked like that...
Posted by: BdN
|
October 28, 2009 3:55 PM
Ever heard of The Song of Roland or Tristan and Iseult ? You are aware that most sentimental novels written under Henri IV weren't signed by their authors because they didn't have the same notion of intellectual property as we do today ?
Heard of Romain Gary/Émile Ajar ?
Roland Barthes ?
The Songs of Maldoror ?
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 4:31 PM
I just thought a reason to teach ID in schools: kids might learn what their ass was designed for before they start using it for sex.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 4:37 PM
All the torah is attributed to Moses, but textual analysis reveals that the Torah has 5 different sources. There's even reference to Moses' death. Yet Jewish tradition holds Moses as the author.But that's besides the point, read Psalm 137. This was written after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586BCE. King David on the other hand was meant to live ~500 years earlier. See the problem with such simple statements? They seldom reflect the evidence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 28, 2009 4:43 PM
Wiley the IDjit bleats:
considering they've been pooping since day one, there is nothing to learn. And nothing in ID to say otherwise.Until you show physical evidence on how the creator was created, you have a self recursive idea (every creator requires a creator) that fails every time. And you keep failing to do so, so you have nothing but idjitcy with every post. You should be embarassed.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 28, 2009 4:44 PM
It was designed so you had a place to pull theology out of.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 4:52 PM
I'm pretty sure that most kids can work out the arse is for pooping on their own...Posted by: Sastra
|
October 28, 2009 5:07 PM
wiley #132 wrote:
No, this won't help you: remember, the "Intelligent Designer" might be anything, or any one, or any god or gods at all. That's how it's supposed to be taught.
One of the advantages of using God to justify something, is that you don't have to support it by any rational argument. God can be used as a trump card for any position, missionary or not. God can order wars, on either side, or order everyone to be a pacifist. Someone had a special revelation; you must trust that God wouldn't reveal itself falsely, and pick the person you trust most. After first trusting your ability to pick, of course.
God could have designed sex only for procreation -- or a nice, jolly pagan God could have deliberately designed sex primarily for recreation, with procreation only a side benefit. And the schools can't say which religion has the "right" God. The problem with invoking ideas like "Natural Law" is that real natural laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. Any moral guideline which is the least bit controversial can have people on both sides insisting that nature clearly shows that their side is "natural," and the other side is "unnatural."
To an objective scientific observer, a behavior is only "unnatural" if it's "supernatural." Homosexuality isn't supernatural.
Posted by: BdN
|
October 28, 2009 5:11 PM
Pulling their/your head out ?
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2009 5:11 PM
You mean, you just farted.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 5:14 PM
It's the magic top hat of Intelligent Design.
Instead of reaching in and pulling out a rabbit, Behe, Dembski et al reach in and pull out a failed non-theory.
Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2009 5:15 PM
I wrote all David's psalms, why would I attribute them to King David?
The psalms represent the "greatest hits" of a genre of Hebrew praise poetry. The were written over the course of centuries, so obviously not by any one person. In the ancient world, any such collection of literature begged to be attributed to an authoritative figure of old. Best guess is that they were so attributed at the time that a closed canon of Psalms was formed. (The Septaguint tradition has a psalm 151 that is also attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so we can say fairly accurately when the closing of the Psalter occurred: late, in the Hellenistic period or possibly even as late as the Hasmoneans.) David was the obvious figure to choose, not least because many of the songs act as commentary on the stories found in Samuel and Kings, and take the voice of David faced with his various travails. Note that these are literary considerations: they comment on stories written from a perspective after David's death; from that alone we know David could not have written them.
Posted by: wiley | October 28, 2009 6:28 PM
Thanx 4 that, CJO. Just 1 correction: we know that David did not write all the Psalms.
Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2009 6:50 PM
Well, the ones that implicitly take the voice of David take the voice of a literary figure represented in stories written from a perspective after his death; they expand and comment on the literary tradition represented by Samuel and Kings. Are you suggesting that those of the psalms that don't take the voice of David (the literary figure) should be attributed to a real David, about which history can say nothing? If so, on what basis?
Posted by: John Tetreault | October 29, 2009 12:52 PM
Dr. Meyers,
I think it should be clear what "alongside" means. Does it mean that ID can be presented in the same school, in a philosophy course, but not in a biology course? Or does it mean that ID can be presented in a biology class AS SCIENCE?
John
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2009 1:00 PM
John,
First get his name right. PZ Myers. It's even written at the top of the blog. How hard is that?
Second, it's never been about presenting ID as a philosophy or in religion class, it has always been about presenting ID as the alternative to Evolution. That is one thing that is very clear when talking about Intelligent Design. The rest, mostly smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 29, 2009 1:02 PM
This is what the IDjits for the DI want. Science doesn't care if ID is taught in comparative religion, mythology, or philosophy classes, just not in science class, as ID isn't a science.Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 29, 2009 1:05 PM
John Tetreault, if you are going to address the owner of this blog, you could at least spell his name correctly. It is Dr Myers. Usually it is the trolls who use the other spelling.
If you actually read the contents of this blog (I know, there is a lot of content.) you would know that the general consensus is this, ID can be taught in school. But it is to be taught in philosophy or religion classes. That is because ID is a form of thought based in religion, not science.
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2009 1:13 PM
"Can be taught in school" sure, about the way you "teach" phrenology in school: by way of a brief mention, pause for laughter, and back to stuff that matters.
Posted by: RickR
|
October 29, 2009 1:22 PM
"ID can be taught in school. But it is to be taught in philosophy or religion classes. That is because ID is a form of thought based in religion, not science."
Even more to the point, creationism is religious, but ID is specifically political. I'd be all for teaching about it in a political science class. Right alongside the First Amendment.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
October 29, 2009 5:16 PM
I've been reading some of Jerry Bergman's article. Yes, kook is an accurate description.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 29, 2009 5:29 PM
This whole issue has always been about science teaching. The legislation, the intent of board members and activists, it is centred around weakening the teaching of the theory of evolution (teach the controversy, strengths and weaknesses) and presenting creation / creation science / intelligent design as a viable alternative.Teach it in philosophy class? In religion class? In history class? I'm all for that. Students should learn about the socio-political controversy. But a socio-political controversy a science controversy make not and this has always been about the promotion of mythology as science / destroying the science dangerous to their myth.