Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-06-2002, 01:57 PM

Hi kids, it's time to play: Creationist Now!

I'm your host, Rufus. The task of our contestants is to write the greatest piece of creationist literature to their local paper.

The rules of the game are as follows. Our judges, the community of IIDB, will point out the errors. This will be used to awarding points, on a scale 0-10, in three categories: arrogance, ignorance, and writing inability. The contestant with the highest score will be declared our champion.

Our first contestant is Steve. Steve hails from Marietta, Georgia. When his school board decided recently to teach that evolution is �just a theory�, he was ecstatic. However, his elation turned to anger, when he realized that dem darn liberals with their fancy schoolin� and research didn�t like this miseducation. Because he is never wrong about anything, despite what 160+ years of biological research says, he picked up his Bible and ICR pamphlets and decided to compose the below work.

Quote:

Evolution still theory, not fact
Copyright Marietta Daily Journal, 10/06/02

DEAR EDITOR:

For several months, the liberal newspapers have been lambasting Cobb
County and the Board of Education regarding the stickers in
grade-school science books regarding the theory of evolution. In my
time, it was a "theory," and there has been no further development
that would change the "theory" to a "fact." We do see a great deal of
maneuvering by all the interests who have a stake in the matter of
evolution, but notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary,
the theory remains a theory.

Some biologists have supported evolution based upon their position
that the basis of biology is created by evolution. If this be the
case, then they possibly need to reassess the foundation they are
placing their science upon. Evolution has been rife with hoaxes
claimed to be the "missing link" by a scientific community bent on
embracing the theory to be authentic. Several of these hoaxes were
authenticated for decades until they were proven false.

Evolution within a species is entirely understandable as genetics
undergo changes through even a short period of time, and most are
observable. Evolution between a species, however, still falls within
the realm of religion for those strenuous proponents of evolution
dogma. The further and further back in time, the less substance the
theory holds.

Mathematics wholly refutes evolution. The astronomical
improbabilities of chance gasses coming together to form life, give
way to even more astronomical improbabilities of creating all the
various genetic codes that have prevailed down the eons. It boggles
the mind, and is an insult to the intelligence of any logical person.
One may not want to believe in "intelligent design," but for the
matter, it is no less difficult to believe in the concept of
evolution, and "believe" is the word, because at the bottom line it
is a belief system.

Let students have other scenarios; let them debate them. That is how
knowledge is acquired.

Steve Rowland
Marietta

There you go judges, how great is this creationist work?

scigirl · 10-06-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Evolution between a species, however, still falls within
the realm of religion for those strenuous proponents of evolution
dogma. The further and further back in time, the less substance the
theory holds.

DK is that you?

Quote:

Let students have other scenarios; let them debate them. That is how
knowledge is acquired.

Ok I'll start. I wish to debate the following:
1. The Bible and its validity, based on how it was put together by the early church.

scigirl

Albion · 10-06-2002, 02:33 PM

"Let students have other scenarios; let them debate them. That is how
knowledge is acquired."

Now, exactly how many other scientific scenarios are there?

I wonder how much debate he'd allow students on the subject of the literal truth of the Bible.

RufusAtticus · 10-06-2002, 02:34 PM

Scigirl,

Looks like our judges are going to need some more incentive.

What is scores do you give Steve, in arrogance, ignorance, and writting inability? And you reasons for them.

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Albion · 10-06-2002, 02:44 PM

He scores high on arrogance, very low on originality, and high on writing like a person trying to sound more educated and articulate than he really is. That sort of writing style always makes me want to reach for a red pen.

Blinn · 10-06-2002, 02:52 PM

Arrogance: 8.3

Steve does well with this little gem:

Quote:

Some biologists have supported evolution based upon their position
that the basis of biology is created by evolution. If this be the
case, then they possibly need to reassess the foundation they are
placing their science upon.

Ignorance: 5.0 from Zetek. Standard lack of knowledge expected from a creationist.

Writing inability: 7.2

Quote:

Evolution within a species is entirely understandable as genetics
undergo changes through even a short period of time, and most are
observable.

What?

Overall score from Zetek: 6.8

Blinn · 10-06-2002, 02:56 PM

Contestant #2, Luis, from Worthington, Ohio:

Quote:

The Dispatch wants common sense and the U.S. Constitution to prevail against the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. According to its Sept. 18 editorial, "Intelligent design is the religion-based idea that life is too complex to have evolved through natural processes.''

However, that is not what intelligent design proposes, and The Dispatch knows it. What intelligent design proves is that life is too complex to have evolved through random natural processes. This statement is based on probability theory, the science of stochastic processes. Based upon what science can one make the opposite statement -- that life has evolved from simple chemicals to single-cell organism to man through random natural processes? None that I am aware of.

Notice that the issue is whether or not one can detect order and purpose in natural processes. If the positive answer is religion, wouldn't its denial be religion as well? And which answer is more congenial to science -- the one that says that one can find no rhyme or reason in natural processes, that they are random, or the one that finds not chaos but order and purpose in creation?

LUIS F. CASO
Worthington

Jimmy Higgins · 10-06-2002, 04:14 PM

For Luis of Worthington, where the home office of the company I work for is at, and home to a beer plant.

Arrogence: 5.0

This man is arrogant, mainly because he thinks he has a clue. However, I've seen much worse.

Ignorance: 8.5

Man the ignorance is strange. He says that ID proves something. Its amazing. You can tell the difference between a creationist paper and a science paper easily. A scientific essay includes words like, suggests, probable, unlikely, concerns.
Creationist papers always use absolutes like proves, disproves, and in the process bastardizing the words theory and religion. This man doesn't know what evolution is, and furthermore, doesn't understand ID.

Writing Inability: 4.0

Not too bad for a person from Worthington.

There are much worse people out there.

Coragyps · 10-06-2002, 04:38 PM

This is a little over two years old, but it is the letter that got me really started on the evo/cre debate (and also led me to II.) Dr Nussey and I had an exchange of three letters each: he's left town since.

(None of my doing, honest! And I lost my soapbox when he did!)

Quote:

Dear Editor:
From time to time, Snyder Daily News runs articles concerning evolution or of recent fossil finds; an article on July 3 particularly caught my attention. Titled, "Scientists plan more effective teaching," the article addressed the fact that many people have doubts about the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life.

Why do people have doubts about evolution? Here are some reasons not mentioned in the article:

1) Current evolutionary explanations are highly improbable. The British astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability that the enzymes needed for a cell to function would form at the same time, by chance, as 1 in 10-40,000th. A mathematician would tell you that such a probability is beyond reality.

2) The evidence does not overwhelmingly support evolution. The article stated: "Scientists, who almost universally accept evolution, believe that all the evidence is on their side." The key word here is "believe." Evolution teaches that millions of species have gradually evolved from a single cell over millions of years. If this is true, the fossil record should show millions of transitional forms, "missing links," between the species. The fossil record does not show this. In fact, there is not one undisputed transitional form in the fossil record.

3) No scientist can perform an experiment which proves that evolution is true. No current processes in nature clearly show one species evolving to another species.

So much difficulty exists with evolution, as Darwin proposed it, that many experts are looking for other explanation (sic). Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of DNA, agrees that there is virtually no chance that life could have spontaneously generated in the chemistry of the early earth. He has proposed instead that the first cell must have been brought to the earth in a spaceship! Others propose that instead of slow evolution, species abruptly appeared, without any slow, gradual change. Despite this, our children are still taught principles of evolution that are no longer seriously accepted by leading scientists.

There are many teachers, scientists, and professors who either doubt or do not accept evolution as an adequate explanation for the origin of life. They often keep their thoughts to themselves, though, due to either the criticism they would recieve or because of the threat of losing their jobs. Scientist Dr Michael Denton stated in 1986, "Ultimately, the Darwin theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."

Why do public school textbooks (and newspapers for that matter) fail to mention these facts? I have to think that such information is being supressed. I know of no other area of scientific inquiry where such enormous amounts of data are ignored or disregarded as the study of life origin.

The solution to this is not indoctrinating teachers or students more thoroughly, as suggested by the article, but rather teaching our children all the facts, and letting them think the issue through. Schools should be a place for thinking, no (sic) indoctrination and the supression of data that disputes our favorite theories.

Gary Nussey, M.D.

Bubba · 10-06-2002, 04:52 PM

For our buddy from Worthington:

Arrogence (sp?) 9.2

Ignorance:9.7

Writing inability 8.5

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

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

10-06-2002, 02:33 PM	#3
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	"Let students have other scenarios; let them debate them. That is how knowledge is acquired." Now, exactly how many other scientific scenarios are there? I wonder how much debate he'd allow students on the subject of the literal truth of the Bible.

10-06-2002, 02:34 PM	#4
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Scigirl, Looks like our judges are going to need some more incentive. What is scores do you give Steve, in arrogance, ignorance, and writting inability? And you reasons for them. [ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

10-06-2002, 02:44 PM	#5
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	He scores high on arrogance, very low on originality, and high on writing like a person trying to sound more educated and articulate than he really is. That sort of writing style always makes me want to reach for a red pen.

10-06-2002, 04:14 PM	#8
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	For Luis of Worthington, where the home office of the company I work for is at, and home to a beer plant. Arrogence: 5.0 This man is arrogant, mainly because he thinks he has a clue. However, I've seen much worse. Ignorance: 8.5 Man the ignorance is strange. He says that ID proves something. Its amazing. You can tell the difference between a creationist paper and a science paper easily. A scientific essay includes words like, suggests, probable, unlikely, concerns. Creationist papers always use absolutes like proves, disproves, and in the process bastardizing the words theory and religion. This man doesn't know what evolution is, and furthermore, doesn't understand ID. Writing Inability: 4.0 Not too bad for a person from Worthington. There are much worse people out there.

10-06-2002, 04:52 PM	#10
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	For our buddy from Worthington: Arrogence (sp?) 9.2 Ignorance:9.7 Writing inability 8.5 Bubba <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.