Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Galt, Jr. · 11-17-2002, 03:39 AM

Rufus Atticus,

Would you use the 'exercise' in just the way that the Lone Ranger presented it?

Why don't you just point out the flaws in the original presentation of the exercise and/or in the response to my comments? Or don't you see any flaws?

John Galt, Jr.

pz · 11-17-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
Rufus Atticus,

Would you use the 'exercise' in just the way that the Lone Ranger presented it?

Why don't you just point out the flaws in the original presentation of the exercise and/or in the response to my comments? Or don't you see any flaws?

I wouldn't use it because half the students, the ones who were supposed to defend creationism, learned nothing constructive and had to just give up in frustration.

That's the problem with dealing with creationism in the classroom. That whole point of view is vacuous and unproductive.

John Galt, Jr. · 11-17-2002, 08:28 AM

Meaganbrittney,

Are you still with us?

Why don't you show your anthropology instructor this thread an get her/him to respond to the question that I have asked. Or, perhaps you can take the question to her/him in hard copy, if getting the instructor to this site cannot be accomplished.

John Galt, Jr.

pz · 11-17-2002, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:

Why don't you show your anthropology instructor this thread an get her/him to respond to the question that I have asked. Or, perhaps you can take the question to her/him in hard copy, if getting the instructor to this site cannot be accomplished.

Which question? Whether the historical evidence falls on the side of evolution or creation? It's clear that you think it could go either way, but that's clearly not true...unless you distort "creationism" to an even more absurd degree. It sounds like you are trying to support the idea of continuous creation, a concept whose last credible proponent was Agassiz. He didn't have any significant converts, and it is quite clear that the geological/paleontological evidence supports a pattern of continuous biotic change that is not predicted by any religious myth.

Bubba · 11-17-2002, 09:00 AM

The big problem with any kind of old earth or continuous (Agizzas or Ross) style evolution is suboptimal design. Intelligent design means fixing design flaws with the next generation of product. If General Electric and Ford Motor Co. understand this, how come the divine being of Old earth Continuous creationism doesn't?

Continual creation just makes the designer out to be an Idiot. Gould wrote a good piece (I forget where) about Agizzas and his trip by boat to many of the same islands Darwin visited. Gould suggeted that perhaps it was better to be younger and not so set in your ways, as Agizzas was very unable to assimilate the evidence in the same way that Darwin had.

Bubba

John Galt, Jr. · 11-17-2002, 09:56 AM

All,

The Lone Ranger (Michael) sadi

Quote:

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

I, John Galt, Jr., responded with

Quote:

Michael,

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that the students in the 'evolution' group produced evidence that showed that evolution rather than creation is the proper explanation for 'life's variety'.

I ask because, if it is acknowledged that the historical data does not in itself rule against a creation hypothesis of some sort, it is hard to see what evidence could do this.

John Galt, Jr.

To which Michael responded

Quote:

The reason I thought up the exercise was because at the beginning of the semester there were several students in the class who were claiming that "Creation Science" was just as legitimate and well-supported as "Evolution Science."

So, I decided to make them prove it.

The "Evolution" students were simply required to provide conclusive evidence that Evolutionary Theory was valid, and to provide an overview of the theory. They, of course, had no difficulty doing so.

Similarly, the "Creation" students were required to provide positive evidence for the validity of "Creation Science." (In retrospect, I should have been really nasty and required them to present a scientifically-defensible theory of Creation.)

In any event, the point was to demonstrate to them why evolutionary biology is a perfectly legitimate and very well-supported branch of science, and why Creationism fails utterly to be in any way scientific, and so does not deserved to be taken seriously as an "alternate explanation."

So, the "Evolution" students weren't required to disprove Creationism in any way, nor were the "Creation" students allowed to "disprove" evolution and use that as "evidence" for their "theory."

I think the exercise worked pretty well, actually, since even the students who had begun the semester as outspoken Creationists wound up expressing utter disgust at the lack of scientific integrity within the "Creation Science" movement.

***

Incidentally, though I'm an atheist myself, I'm always careful to remind the students that the point isn't to disprove the existence of God or any such thing. The fact of evolution is only a problem for those theists who insist upon a literal interpretation of scriptures.

I've had students tell me that after learning about how the natural world works, they've gained a greater appreciation for the "wisdom" of God. Some seem to think that because God gave organisms the ability to adapt to their environments and change over time, that this is proof of his wisdom. Well, that's their business, I suppose.

***

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask because, if it is acknowledged that the historical data does not in itself rule against a creation hypothesis of some sort, it is hard to see what evidence could do this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

One could easily-enough come up with an unfalsifiable creation hypothesis. After all, there's no way to prove that the Universe wasn't created 10 seconds ago, and that all of us are carrying memories of a past that never actually occurred.

When the subject has come up in classes, I've used this to illustrate why Creationism fails as science. An untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is of very limited value.

Cheers,

Michael

To which I, J. G., Jr., responded

Quote:

All,

Will someone, a science educator preferably, restore my confidence in science education by explaining to the Lone Ranger the various flaws in his remarks about his 'defend evoution/defend creationism' assignment. I feel fairly confident that those with some training in philosophy of science see the errors (Clutch?). I would like to think that those with training in science see them as well.

I hope it is clear to at least some of you that the sort of thing that the Lone Ranger says she/he did/said in class does as much to further the 'scientific creationist' agenda as anything they themselves do. We will see.

John Galt, Jr.

I added the emphasis in the quoted remark from one of my earlier posts.

Is everyone happy with the view of science/scientists that he displays in his exercise and his remarks (those quoted above)? Does no one see any problems with any aspects of the picture that his display puts before us (and presumably students)?

John Galt, Jr.

Clutch · 11-17-2002, 10:14 AM

JG, Jr,

I know a bit about the philosophy of science, but I don't think you'd have to know much to see that Michael's assignment was well-conceived and open-minded.

Rather than just telling students, "Creation science is nonsense", he gave them a chance to defend it on a level playing field. Now, he may have known that he was just giving them enough rope to hang themselves, but then, that's because "creation science" is nonsense.

The only real phil.sci point here is one that Michael took into account: you never prove a theory merely by disproving a different one. So he required positive evidence. Defenders of evolution are made out of positive evidence. Defenders of creationism would quickly find out that there's no such evidence, precisely because there is no scientific theory there. Since creationism makes no predictions, rules out no discoveries, and advances no research or testing programme, there is no way of even going about gathering evidence.

Again, by leaving it open to students to find evidence if they could, Michael honestly and effectively (from the sound of it) helped them to educate themselves about the scientific status of creationism. I don't see any problem.

Bubba · 11-17-2002, 12:19 PM

Hell, if nothing else he got them to attempt actual library research. I agree with Clutch. To me it was a pretty good assignment.

Bubba

pz · 11-17-2002, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:

Is everyone happy with the view of science/scientists that he displays in his exercise and his remarks (those quoted above)? Does no one see any problems with any aspects of the picture that his display puts before us (and presumably students)?

I didn't care for the fact that part of the class had a frustrating assignment, but as far as illustrating an honest view of legitimate science and demonstrating the worthless void that lies at the heart of creationism, it was dead-on accurate.

Maybe you could take a moment and clarify your objections in some depth. So far, all you seem to have said is that creationism is as good as evolution at explaining the fossil record, which is simply wrong. Creationism is as good as solipsism and Last Tuesdayism, but it doesn't explain the facts anywhere near as well as real science.

RufusAtticus · 11-17-2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Galt, Jr.:
Rufus Atticus,

Would you use the 'exercise' in just the way that the Lone Ranger presented it?

Probably not, since every class is different. I don't know how I would create a similar project if a class needed it.

Quote:

Why don't you just point out the flaws in the original presentation of the exercise and/or in the response to my comments? Or don't you see any flaws?

From what he has told us, I don't see any flaws. If you do, why don't you tell us what you see?

~~RvFvS~~

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-17-2002, 03:39 AM	#41
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Rufus Atticus, Would you use the 'exercise' in just the way that the Lone Ranger presented it? Why don't you just point out the flaws in the original presentation of the exercise and/or in the response to my comments? Or don't you see any flaws? John Galt, Jr.

11-17-2002, 08:28 AM	#43
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Meaganbrittney, Are you still with us? Why don't you show your anthropology instructor this thread an get her/him to respond to the question that I have asked. Or, perhaps you can take the question to her/him in hard copy, if getting the instructor to this site cannot be accomplished. John Galt, Jr.

11-17-2002, 09:00 AM	#45
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	The big problem with any kind of old earth or continuous (Agizzas or Ross) style evolution is suboptimal design. Intelligent design means fixing design flaws with the next generation of product. If General Electric and Ford Motor Co. understand this, how come the divine being of Old earth Continuous creationism doesn't? Continual creation just makes the designer out to be an Idiot. Gould wrote a good piece (I forget where) about Agizzas and his trip by boat to many of the same islands Darwin visited. Gould suggeted that perhaps it was better to be younger and not so set in your ways, as Agizzas was very unable to assimilate the evidence in the same way that Darwin had. Bubba

11-17-2002, 10:14 AM	#47
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	JG, Jr, I know a bit about the philosophy of science, but I don't think you'd have to know much to see that Michael's assignment was well-conceived and open-minded. Rather than just telling students, "Creation science is nonsense", he gave them a chance to defend it on a level playing field. Now, he may have known that he was just giving them enough rope to hang themselves, but then, that's because "creation science" is nonsense. The only real phil.sci point here is one that Michael took into account: you never prove a theory merely by disproving a different one. So he required positive evidence. Defenders of evolution are made out of positive evidence. Defenders of creationism would quickly find out that there's no such evidence, precisely because there is no scientific theory there. Since creationism makes no predictions, rules out no discoveries, and advances no research or testing programme, there is no way of even going about gathering evidence. Again, by leaving it open to students to find evidence if they could, Michael honestly and effectively (from the sound of it) helped them to educate themselves about the scientific status of creationism. I don't see any problem.

11-17-2002, 12:19 PM	#48
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Hell, if nothing else he got them to attempt actual library research. I agree with Clutch. To me it was a pretty good assignment. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.