Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus

by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current

• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  Hooberus' position is extremely disengenuous and is part of the "wedge" strategy that creationists have been trying to use for years to get pseudoscience in the classroom.

  The position of teaching both the evidence for and against creation and evolution is not disengenuous. Creationists have to my knowlege had this position for years. The phrase "wedge" strategy was coined (I believe) by Phillip Johnson in his books. However, the position of teaching both views of origns was held by creationists long before Johnson came along.

  Hooberus claims that he want's evidence both pro and con for evolution in the classroom. What he doesn't seem to realize is that this makes just as much sense as teaching evidence pro and con for the heliocentric model.

  Evolutionists like to compare the creation/evolution debate to the heliocentric/geocentric and flat earth/ round earth debates. Of course they present the belief in macro-evolution (ie: people coming from parcticles, philosophers coming from fish, etc.) as being just as scientific as the belief in a round earth. The old geocentric/ flat earth "argument" is simply a way to try to make creationism look ridiculous by trying to equate it with a belief that most everyone considers ridiculous.

  Hooberus claims that he want's evidence both pro and con for evolution in the classroom. What he doesn't seem to realize is that this makes just as much sense as teaching evidence pro and con for the heliocentric model.

  What is a matter with this? If macro-evolution is really a sound theory then it should be able to withstand a look at evidence both for and against.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  This is exactly why I say that your are being disingenuous. You say you really just want the pros and cons taught, but what you really want to do is advance misconceptions about evolution as evidence against it. Misconceptions about evolution are not evidence against it.

  For example, you claim that you just want a higher standard of science taught in the classroom which is why you point out the error in the science textbook about Haeckel. The problem is that the Haeckel error is not a con against evolution. It's a technical error that has no business being in the science book, but has nothing to do with the validity of the current theory of evolution. It's a giant red herring.

  If your and your fellow creationist's agenda were really for accuracy in the classroom, you would stick to the valid errors and not try to promote creationism as a viable alternative theory. Unfortunately the creationist agenda and their 'wedge' strategy are all too clear.

  When one side of the argument is not science, there is no need to teach it in a science class. Geocentrism is not science and it is not taught as an alternate theory of the universe. Flat earthism, Lamarkism, Creationism, etc. likewise are not scientific theories and have no place in a science class (except as historical asides).

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  This is exactly why I say that your are being disingenuous. You say you really just want the pros and cons taught, but what you really want to do is advance misconceptions about evolution as evidence against it. Misconceptions about evolution are not evidence against it.

  Please give an example of these "misconceptions about evolution" that you claim that I or major creationist organizations use.

  For example, you claim that you just want a higher standard of science taught in the classroom which is why you point out the error in the science textbook about Haeckel. The problem is that the Haeckel error is not a con against evolution. It's a technical error that has no business being in the science book, but has nothing to do with the validity of the current theory of evolution. It's a giant red herring.

  Haeckels drawings are more than a "technical error" and they are in many textbooks.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  Please give an example of these "misconceptions about evolution" that you claim that I or major creationist organizations use.

  I just did: Haeckel's drawings. The misconception is that Haeckel's drawings are somehow a fundamental part of todays evolutionary theory. It is not. For others, please consult http://www.answersingenesis.org.

  Haeckels drawings are more than a "technical error" and they are in many textbooks.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

  Call it what you will, I don't care. The point is that it is not evidence against evloution. Capice? I agree that it shouldn't be in the science books. Primary and High School text books are filled with errors and poor teaching analogies in all subjects. It's something that has to be taken up with the publishers of these books. University texts, however, are of higher quality and a first year biology student should know the problems with Haeckel's drawings.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  When did I or (creationist organizations) ever say that Haeckels drawings were evidence "against evolution" per se? as in evidence against macro-evolution?

  Creationists point out that the drawings are fradulent in order to overturn them being used as evidence for evoultion (which they still are being used for in some textbooks.)
• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  The misconception is that Haeckel's drawings are somehow a fundamental part of todays evolutionary theory. It is not.

  I have never implied that Haeckels drawings are a "fundamental part of todays evolutionary theory" , though they are used in in support of Evolutionary embryology (a fundamental part of evolutionary theory) in some textbooks.

  I know that most informed evolutionists don't appeal to Haeckel.
• 

  rem

  When did I or (creationist organizations) ever say that Haeckels drawings were evidence "against evolution" per se? as in evidence against macro-evolution?

  By making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. The aim is to try to discredit evolution as a valid theory. By making it appear that Haeckel's drawings are an important part of the modern theory of evolution and discrediting them, Creationists commit the strawman fallacy.

  Like I said before, if the aim was purely for accuracy in the textbooks, that would be one thing, but the agenda of creationists is clearly to try to discredit the theory of evolution and create doubts about it in the minds of students. If the doubts were based on real science that would be fine - but doubts based on misconceptions and logical fallacies - that's not acceptable. That's what makes the pro-con claim by Creationists disingenuous.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  rem said: By making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. The aim is to try to discredit evolution as a valid theory. By making it appear that Haeckel's drawings are an important part of the modern theory of evolution and discrediting them, Creationists commit the strawman fallacy.

  Here is a quote from the AIG arcticle on Haeckel:

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp

  Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.3

  Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.4

  Therfore your statement that creationists try to present Haeckel's drawings as "an important part of the modern theory of evolution" is inaccurate.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  Please read the entire article you cited. Pulling a quote out of the context of the entire article makes it look like you've made a valid point, but the careful reader of the whole article will find that my point was actually made. Note that your carefully crafted response dealt with the theory of recapitulation - not Haeckel's work in general.

  It is a wonder if Creationists recognize that Haeckel's theory of recapitulation is not a fundamental piece of evidence of evolution, then why do they harp on it and Haeckel so much? Maybe because Haeckel's work has value and is still referred to today, though not his theory of recapitulation. I guess the theory goes if you demonize recapitulation, you demonize all of his work, which makes modern evolutionary theory look like it's on shaky ground. Again, misconceptions used as evidence against evolution.

  Some info on Haeckel, the accusations against him, and his work:

  http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/ar_hb2548/Haeckels_embryos.htm

  rem
• 

  Kaethra

  To heck with Haeckel what's-his-name and recapitulation! I want Abaddon to answer me this:

  Is that you and Delilah naked in your new avatar??!!??