Texas Creationists Pwned By Genie Scott

Of course she flummoxed them - she answered questions honestly. They aren't used to honesty about science (or much else that comes in front of them, most likely).

Short, concise, to the point. Perfect.

Are they teaching the weaknesses of tectonic plate theory? Of geology? Of chemistry? How much time in the gravity instruction are they spending on missing mass, or on the inconsistency in the Voyager locations?

Why is it just evolution? Religious reasons, that's why - that, and the fact that many of the people in that room don't like the idea that chimps are their cousins.

Why is it just evolution? Religious reasons, that's why - that, and the fact that many of the people in that room don't like the idea that chimps are their cousins.

There is no doubt (in my mind, at least) that most of the reason is religious. A better question is "Why are they so difficult to get rid of?" Despite the best efforts of many people, the anti-evolution folks hang around and aren't viewed with too much disdain by the general public.

On the other hand, folks who don't believe relativity, or plate tectonics, or issues related to medicine, etc., don't get the same public treatment. I asked a former student, who argued against evolution (almost) until he was blue, why he so readily accepted relativity, plate tectonics, etc.. His response: "Physics, and lots of geology, are real laboratory sciences. You can't argue against the stuff that can be done that way. Evolution can't be demonstrated - it's just ideas."

I could feel the scorn he had when "ideas" hissed from his mouth. Clearly there's a lot wrong with his view but: I'd propose that many in the general public view things the same way: physics, chemistry, geology, etc., deals with things that we can just plain see, whether in a lab, through a telescope, or a hole in the ground, and so have to be accepted, but that just isn't the case with evolution.

Greg and others will have a better take on this than I do, as I'm "only" a statistician.

Anyway, that's my two cents on this.

hahaha....really awesome..GENIE SCOTT is very open to speak..and she answered correctly and honestly..i agree with her

I agree with the answers of Genie Scott, she is absolutely true.

Man - massive blockquote failure by me in #4. Sorry all.

I do have a couple subtle points of disagreement with her stance regarding methodological naturalism versus philosophical naturalism, and whether the scientific method is necessarily the same thing as the experimental method.

Nonetheless, Eugenie Scott is very cool.

Re. Greg #3 and generally:

When creationists bring up the "teach the debate" arguement, we should whole-heartedly agree and then go on to say that Marxism should be taught in highschool history & economics classes on the same basis. Then support the arguement by asking how many people in the room have taken an economic hit in the Crash of 2008 and the resulting "deep recession," and go on to say that those events demonstrate flaws in the theory of laissez-faire capitalism, and the need to teach "alternative theories."

This will make the creationists dump those arguements and move on to something else. The more they hop around like that, the more easily they are exposed as merely promoting sectarian religious doctrine.