HelenM

Have you seen this, in the current issue?

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2" target="_blank">15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense</a>

What did you think?

love
Helen

Duvenoy

Me like.

Haven't read it all, yet. I'll get back to it later.

Thanks, Helen

doov

HelenM

You're welcome.

I thought it was clear, well-written and targeted well what creationists do say against evolution.

love
Helen

tgamble

I wonder if AIG is gonna come up with 15 answers to evolutionist nonsense.

RufusAtticus

Good article. Let's hope it get's used in places like this.

Bubba

Thanks, Helen.

Bubba

Valentine Pontifex

The editorial on page 10 started with "Preaching to the converted is unrewarding,..." Unfortunetely for the article, it really was preaching to the converted. And I doubt that is will really be able to convert anyone who was not already leaning fairly heavily in the right direction anyways. Don't get me wrong, I am glad that SA is giving space to the issue, and it should do so more often. But for this article in particular, it should not have gone after 15 subjects but far fewer and shown in detail why they are wrong as opposed to dismissing them as that article is a bit guilty of.

Still I am glad that The Talk.Origins Archive got mentioned. And I am also glad that The National Center for Science Education got mentioned. With any lucky the NCSE will get a few more members out of this.

Speaking of the NCSE, I would encourage all pro-evolution people on this board to <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/membership_new.asp" target="_blank">join the NCSE</a>. After all it only costs $30.00 a year. With the obvious exception of those who cannot afford it, it seems a bit silly to spend time on the boards ranting about the progress the evolution deniers have made against science eductation if one is not willing to actually do a small thing to do something about it.

Dr Rick

LV;

Thanks for the link to the NCSE; I just joined.

Good article, btw, Helen.

Rick

himynameisPwn

yeppers, I get the magazine, quite good.

HelenM

Fyi, here are the 15 Creationist statements to which the author responds:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

love
Helen