Bubba

This is false. You forgot Dembski and Hovind.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Bubba

Jimmy Higgins

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=54&t=000481" target="_blank">Approximately over 250 proofs for creationism</a>
And if you believe that, I've got some a unicorn to sell ya.

Is it just me or have a few people been asking for "pro-creation" info for debates in school recently?

Editted to add the proof from anthropology.
[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jimmy Higgins ]</p>

John Galt, Jr.

meaganbrittney,

I assume that your task involves a defence of a creationist history of the occurrence of various species that have existed on this planet. If so, you might remind your audience that the creationist and the evolutionist are reconstructing history across relatively meager data. You might then point out that the major data for the actual history is, in itself, completely ambiguous between an evolutionary stroy and a creationist story. One must read natural selection, etc., into the data-- the evolutionist story is not the only possible explanation. The evolutionary story would be shown to be false if aliens showed up one day and provided documentation of their seedings over the course of the millions of years that the Earth has existed. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows that this did not happen.
This admittedly remote epistemically possibility was acknowledged in a recent Scientific American.

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2" target="_blank">Scientific American</a>

The specific passage says, John Galt, Jr.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

John Galt, Jr.

meaganbrittney,

It is, perhaps, also worth pointing out that, in a straightforward sense, evolution doesn't show that (a form of) creationism is false; it presupposes that it is false. If one can show that the alien hypothesis is false by some other means, then, of course, one need not appeal to evolution to show that it didn't happen. But if one can't rule it out by other means, evolution as it comes to us via contemporary science cannot show that it didn't happen.

John Galt, Jr.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Dank

*Looks at Meagan's post count*...
*Spidey sense is starting to tingle*...
*<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00008671" target="_blank">Checks Meagan's profile</a>*...
Troll

Good thread, anyway...

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Dank ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

What sort of "creationism" is to be defended?

The word means different things to different people. The belief that some sort of supernatural (or alien) creative agency has been at work is always a possibility: it cannot be disproved.

However, the Genesis creation account HAS been disproved: it is indefensible. Hence the need to lie.

bluefugue

This has been a useful tool of creationists and IDers for years. They play upon people's instinctive desire to be open-minded, to allow both sides of a debate. "If scientists won't let the case for creationism even be *made* in science class, then they must be trying to cover up for weaknesses in the theory!" "What's the harm in allowing both sides of the issue to be taught?" "Open debate works in a courtroom, why not in a classroom?" The trick here is the implicit bifurcation fallacy and the unspoken question of "who determines what the two sides are?" What's important is not the debate itself; it's framing the parameters of the debate. Simply by persuading people that there *are* two legitimate sides to the scientific question of life's origins, and that supernatural (and/or Hebraic mythological) creation is one of them, creationists have won the only argument that really matters. If the average layman is left with two "equally valid" theories to choose from, and he lacks the time or desire to study the question in depth, he will incline toward the one that suits his presuppositions.

I actually think evo/cre discussions probably can lead to a lot more critical thinking about the scientific process than other methods of teaching. I have learned more about evolution (and science in general, as well as epistemology, history of science, etc.) from following the debate, than I did just from absorbing facts in high school biology class. Still, if this is going to become a habit in classrooms, I would like to see an astronomy class where the students have to debate Heliocentrism versus Geocentrism, and a history class where students have to debate whether or not the Romans actually existed. Maybe English class can be devoted to the Shakespeare Authorship Question, and in Math Class somebody should be asked to argue for the case that the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle does not equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

beausoleil

I might attack the evolution side's notion of 'fittest' on the grounds of circularity - fitness is demonstrated by survival, then the mechanism is shown to be survival of the fittest.

Of course it's a caricature of the scientific notion, but it's a caricature many accept. I bet your opponents wouldn't be able to counter it.

Nothing can save the young earth creationist position. An alternative might be to go for early creation followed by evolution. Abiogenesis is much less tightly constrained than evolution, though a probabilisitic argument shows this isn't a problem in reality.

All in all, it's a dumb assignement, I'd say. Much more interesting to pick holes in run-of-the-mill non-creationism as espoused by most people than have to advocate creationism itself.

The Lone Ranger

Actually, in a course I once taught, I had some students claim that I should give "equal time" to the "scientific evidence" in favor of Creation.

So, I assigned half the students in the class to prepare a presentation for the end of the semester presenting the scientific case for evolution. The other half were assigned to present the scientific case for Creation.

The rules were this:

1.) Only positive evidence in favor of the "theory" in question was admissable. No "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore wrong -- that means Creation 'Science' is correct" arguments allowed.

2.) Only evidence from peer-reviewed science journals was admissable. No quote-mining -- they had to read the actual articles in their original form and show how they provided evidence for either Creation or Evolution. Just to make sure, I insisted that they provide all their references beforehand, so I could look through them to ensure that no "quote mining" took place.

***

The result?

The students who were assigned to defend the idea that life's variety is the result of evolution over a long period of time had no difficulty at all in presenting their case. (No surprise there, of course.)

The students who were assigned to defend the idea of Special Creation were forced to admit that they could find no evidence at all with which to defend the "theory."

I think it turned out to be a useful lesson for them.

Cheers,

Michael

Godless Dave

Well done, Michael!