Biology teacher resource help

No, as it turns out.This may sound narrow-minded, but consider: there are practical questions, like, say, gun control, or universal healthcare, where there are pros and cons that need to be added up and weighed, and in such cases only a narrow-minded man would deny that there are points on both sides.But now consider the question of whether pigs have wings.A priori, we know that there can't be good arguments on both sides of this question. In this particular universe, it so happens that pigs don't have wings, and so there are no good arguments for them so doing.I can think of some bad ones, though. They'd go something like this.---* "There are winged pigs in my favorite Holy Book. Are you calling God a liar?"* "There are many credible reports of winged pigs. I don't have to do your research for you. Find them yourself."* "You haven't looked at every pig in the world, so it's just your antiporcovolantist assumption that pigs don't have wings."* "It is a basic scientific fact that sparrows are pigs ..." (he continues in this vein for some time).* "They serve bacon sandwiches on airplanes ..." (followed by an enormous fallacy of equivocation).* "Professor X says that pigs have wings. Yes, his favorite Holy Book does turn out to be the same as mine. This is because only we holybookers have the integrity to stand up to nonholybookish lies."* "N.B: all the so-called-"holybookers" who read the passages about flying pigs as a spiritual message that all things are possible with God are not really holybookers but have sold their souls to the Big Green Demonly One."* "None of you antiporcovolantists can explain how pigs got to so many continents if they can't fly ..." (He is then shown a link to http://www.talkflyingpigs.org that explains it in great detail with quotations from and references to the scientific literature. He refuses to read it on the grounds that it is "antiporcovolantist propaganda". Throughout the rest of his life he will continue to explain that "no antiporcovolantist can explain" this to him, and in a sense he's right --- a choir of angels with a note from God couldn't explain it to HIM.)* "Antiporcovolantism is an atheist metaphysical system based on denying a priori the possibility that God exists and can create pigs with wings."* "If my views were really as silly as you say, you wouldn't bother arguing with me. Therefore, the fact that you're disagreeing with me proves that you secretly think I'm right."* "Everyone who says that pigs don't have wings is a liar or has been brainwashed by the antiporcovolantist establishment."* "Sometimes scientists have made mistakes and other scientists have corrected them. Therefore, I don't believe anything scientists tell me about pigs. Yes, I am using a computer powered by electricty when I type this message, what's your point?"* "Antiporcovolantists believe that pigs somehow magically fly from place to place without wings ..." (he is interrupted here by loud cries of "no we don't", which he ignores). "They maintain that the location of pigs is determined by gravity alone ..." (more loud cries of "no we don't").* "The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that pigs have wings."* "So does quantum physics, a subject that I have also never studied and never will."* "If I redefine 'wing' to mean 'leg' then pigs certainly have wings and you are a disingenuous liar for saying that they don't."* "Here are some quotations from eminent antiporcovolantists admitting that pigs have wings. No, I have never thought about that statement and I never will."* "There is no such thing as 'proof' in science. This means that my opinion is as valid as yours. If you disagree, you are an elitist. Yes, I know that all my other arguments involve saying that I'm absolutely right and that you're lying and you know it, but fortunately I am completely immune to cognitive dissonance. ANTIPORCOVOLANTISM IS A LIE!!! TEACH BOTH THEORIES!!!"---I have a certain creative facility at this sort of thing (aided by my long study of creationists) but the one thing I can't invent is a valid argument that pigs have wings.I have labored this point because, as you have noted yourself: There's a reason for this. If they were right, all the good arguments would be on their side. As they are wrong, they've had 150 years to come up with something, and of course they have drawn a blank. N.B: my remarks apply to fiat creationism of plants and animals, i.e. stuff that contradicts our knowledge of what actually happened; they do not apply to arguments for the existence of a creator of the actual, real universe revealed to us by scientific inquiry, which is a different question altogether.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.