10. My Motivation For This Discourse ==>
   10.1. What Got Me Interested In This ==>
     10.1.2. Concern About Science Education ==>
       10.1.2.1. Louisiana attempted to get "creation science" taught in science classes ==>

10.1.2.1.1. Initial Rant That Started It All

THE POINT!

I became concerned about the state of ignorance wrt evolution when I learned the nonsense that creationists attempting to have taught in our schools

PHRASES DESCRIBING CREATIONISTS POSITION

God of the gaps

Argument from personal incredulity

Argument from ignorance - also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam

 

MICHAEL BEHE

(Behe is the one creationist with appropriate credentials - professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania

but note also…. a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.)

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."[1] Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4] There is a a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, [22] which demonstrates that the pufferfish lacks at least three blood clotting factors, and still is a workable system, defeating a key claim in Behe's book, that blood clotting is 'irreducibly complex'. It is just one of many that prove the fallacy of "irreducible complexity".

Unlike William A. Dembski [20] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[21] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.

 

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[9]

From the judge in that case: "Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich"

COUNTER TO THE CLAIM THAT CREATIONISTS ARE EXCLUDED FROM UNIVERSITY FACULTY.

Would you let someone who believes in the flat-earth be a member of your geography department?

Would you let someone who believes that the sun revolves around the earth be a member of your astronomy department?

Would you let someone who doesn't believe in radioactivity be a member of your nuclear physics department?

 

 

EVEN CREATIONISTS HAVE TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

Give them that "the flood" did occur 4000 years ago in 2000 BC.

How then did we get so many races in that short period of time if not through evolution - i.e people changing physical appearance and intelligence?

Every species of animal and insect and bacteria that we know today had to be on the ark or else there would have had to be evolution to get us where we are today.

Another approach:

Bacteria change over time to become resistant to the things that used to kill them.

Do creationists get flu shots each year? Why each year? Because the vaccine has to be altered to account for the flu bacteria that now are resistant to previous vaccines. o

In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years).

IT'S JUST A THEORY, IT CAN'T BE/HASN'T BEEN PROVEN.

Definition of Theory.

Colloquial:

A conjecture, an opinion, a speculation or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.

 

Scientific:

Refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. A scientific theory has withstood the process of peer-review. Theories allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

e.g. Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Wave Theory, electromagnetic theory, gravitation theory- Newton's Theory(NASA), atomic theory of matter, germ theory (pathogens cause disease).

 

With new discoveries, details of scientific theories are refined and scientists are comfortable with the notion that theories are constantly challenged and amended.

That's the nature of science. Those who discover NEW theories are (eventually) rewarded.

 

There are so many indisputable facts from so many different disciplines, that when taken together, do fully explain how we came to be through evolution and confirm the Theory of Evolution. It is the best scientifically supported theory of how we have come to be.

 

 

THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL

Forget Darwin.

Think for a moment of all the universities in the world.

Most have departments of Geology, Botany, Biology, Physics and Chemistry. Some have departments of paleontology.

There must be over 1,000,000 scientists engaged in those disciplines, especially if you count those working in industry.

These people aren't doing research to "prove" evolution. They are doing research that increases their understanding of their discipline.

Now, it so happens that their findings, IN THEIR SEPARATE disciplines, like pieces of a puzzle, contribute to the validity of the Theory of Evolution. No new discovery in any of the disciplines contradicts the Theory of evolution, but instead, each discovery confirms, reinforces or extends the collective knowledge about evolution.

 

Now, it also so happens that you have a small group, the Discovery Institute's "Center for Science and Culture", publishing papers and books that directly contradict the fundamental principles found in all of the aforementioned disciplines. "Research" that is contrary to established theories. There hasn't been a single discovery in the relevant areas, IN ANY OF THE SEPARATE DISCIPLINES, that doesn't support, reinforce or extend the Theory of Evolution. All these disciplines, coming from different directions, with different agendas, have theories, that when put together, provide a unifying explanation for the theory of evolution. New discoveries, e.g. cell biology, DNA reinforce the theory.

.

In order to reject the Theory of Evolution, you also have to reject multiple theories found in Geology, Biology, Botany, Biology, Physics and Chemistry and the entire discipline of paleontology. With the latest developments in cell biology, a whole new confirming discipline has been added to the aforementioned disciplines.

You have to disavow findings by the National Academy of Science.

In summary, you have over 1,000,000 scientists whose disciplines independently, from different perspectives, conclude that evolution is a fact. There are about 10 people who publish rubbish saying it didn't.

IDEA - find the 10-20 "scientists" who are the source of the ID rubbish and point out that everything re ID is from them

By the way, why aren't there any young earths advocates working for the oil companies? Wouldn't you think their unique perspective could be useful in finding new oil and gas reserves?

IDEA:

As a Computer Scientist, I offer to do a free spinal adjustment on their neck or chiropractic work on anyone with pain in a joint. When they refuse, ask why? Of course it's because I am not qualified to work on their body. Why then, do they accept statements about life from people who are unqualified to come forth with their opinions that are contrary to an established body of research?

EVOLUTION BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES:

A tadpole can only live in water, has gills. A tadpole becomes a frog or toad.

A caterpillar can only crawl on umpteen legs; becomes a flying insect (moth or butterfly)