A Request for Tranquility Base

TB: Believe it or not, I think I may take you up on your response to the "I'm never moving down south" thread (at least partially). I am on the Board of Governors (equivalent to school board) of my two daughters' school (K-12). I have been asked to review the syllabus for the IB Biology curriculum they plan to teach, primarily with an eye toward providing additional resources/appropriate papers, recommending texts, etc. (For those who don't know, IB stands for International Baccalaureate - IB Biology is roughly equivalent to taking a condensed, intensive pass at the first two years of a core biology degree at the average uni - with a lot of the detail omitted).The syllabus includes in the core material concerning origin of species a brief discussion (probably no more than two class periods...) of "Other theories for the origin of species including special creation and panspermia". The section concludes with "Discuss the evidence for all these theories and the applicability of the scientific method for further investigation". Since this is an international school outside the US, it is not restricted by the courts. Here's your golden opportunity to insert the best evidence you have available for special creation. Be aware, however, that the kids who take IB Biology are going to be really hard to convince. God-of-the-gaps and Behe-esque argument from incredulity are NOT gonna fly. The students are from multiple countries and multiple religions - including a fair selection of non-religious students. An argument based only on the assertion that the Christian goddidit will fall about as flat as a lead balloon.Before everyone jumps down my throat - the rest of the two-yearsyllabus is pure science, including topics such as: OOL (an examination of the various hypotheses and evidence for/against each), detailed discussion on the evidence for evolution, detailed discussion on human evolution, neo-Darwinian synthesis, intro to population genetics, intro to biodiversity and conservation, intro to evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, etc. It's a damn good curriculum afaict.Here's your chance, TB. Give it your best shot. Present the hard evidence that will convince these kids that goddidit. If you can at least provide a convincing, evidence-based argument, I promise to bring it to the class and work to convince the rest of the board that it should be admitted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I know this is a question directed toward TB, however, I would simply like to make a simple addition. As we find when we do encounter discussions of highly intellectual debate here at evcforum, there is increasingly great emphasis placed on the concept of interpretation. I would therefor, recommend there be a segregated section in the syllabus whereby this concept is revealed and delved into at the highest depth possible. Without completely understanding these principles, the simplest questioning of current scientific hypothesis and their fundamental basis in data & evidence are unable to begin crossing the students minds.

---

Hi TC:Although the OP was addressed to our good TB - primarily in response to his post in the "Never moving down south thread" - the offer is open to ANY creationist.Given the nature and quality of the science presented in the course, and the fact that these kids are being given a crash-course in scientific methodology and critical thinking along with their biology, I do have some suggestions:1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly.2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way.3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group.4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient.I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism. I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence.Basically, it's put up or shut up time. I'm giving "you" a possible forum to present the best you've got to a bunch of smart kids without worrying about whether you'll get sued. I guarantee - in spite of my personal "bias" - that the material will be presented to them as compellingly and fairly as you present it here.

quote:

---

I have also found this to be true, if this were to be what is supplied, a vat of sophistry & other such appeals to incredulity this opportunity will indeed drop like a lead balloon. If I were to present an article explaining an alternative to the ToE, Initial Cosmogony, abiogenesis, etc. there would be required a little more that single compelling argument from a specific research query. Maybe what is required is a brief, general, but relatively detailed thesis in support of an alternative to one of the above. What kind of time period are we talking about here before your input must be given?

---

Exactly, TC. My emphasis in the above pinpoints what I think would be the best target - but I'm open to suggestions. I agree that it would be tough to present a thorough refutation of the ToE in one or two classes. However, I like your idea about the "general thesis". A general idea, with references that can be checked, would be super - and probably the best thing that could be presented in the time allotted.Timeframe: There's a school board meeting on the 15th. I'll be presenting my recommendations for the curricula then, although I'll probably have a meeting beforehand with the bio prof. You have my email, or you could post it here on the forum.

Excellent start, TB! Really only one suggestion so far:

quote:

---

Even scientists who believe that evolution is responible for life on earth admit that creation is an alternative that miust be considered.

---

This is a slip back into the old creationist "argument from authority". It adds nothing to your paragraph, and is an immediate red flag. The rest of the paragraph stands quite well without it. Remember, we're trying to convince the students with evidence, not rhetoric.you're[/b] trying to convince the students" [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What about a paragraph like:

​

The only possibilities for creation explanations of the fossil order appear to be (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilised organisms at differnet layers based on the interpretaion of continental marine stata as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) expains the fossil order through an evoltuion-like creation order whereas option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence, that a cataclysmic flood could generate the observed fossil orderings via mobility-sorting-ecology considerations.

---

I don't have a problem with it if you want to include this paragraph. It was my request, after all. I would suggest that you might want to spend a few lines explaining the "mobility-sorting-ecology" comment, however. Remember, these kids will probably (mostly) not have had much prior exposure to the creationist theories, and won't have any idea what you're talking about. A short list of examples would also be useful in this context.Thanks for your help so far, TB.

We're getting a tad off-track here. Not that I mind, but if I'm going to propose TB's lesson plan, I need him to flesh it out (examples, evidence, data, whatever). It really doesn't matter to me personally WHAT he presents - whether it represents a wide concensus or not. Without his input, even if idiosyncratic, I'll either end up recommending Zimmer's chapter on creationism (in "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea") or something off ICR's or AiG's website. And I get to pick it.I asked TB for his input 'cause - in spite of the fact that, like every YEC, he holds ideas which I consider to be both wrong and internally inconsistent - he is one of the more, hmm, clear creationist writers on this board.TB: Are you willing to complete your lesson plan? I have only until next Monday (Columbus Day in the US). By Tuesday (your time) the school board meeting will be over, and it will likely be too late. Let me know one way or the other so I can make contingency plans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Wow... flush with power ain't ya?

---

Yep. Ain't it great? And given my evilutionist bias, you can figure the quality I'd pick. Muwahahahha!

Outstanding TB. Thanks.

Thanks TB. Perfect timing - I have a pre-board meeting at the school this afternoon (in about 5 minutes, actually). I'll run the outline past the Bio teacher to see what she thinks. Meantime, if you can recommend specific ICR/AiG articles you think could be included, (we have a bit more time for that), that'd be great as well.One way or the other - thanks for your help and input.

TB: Thought you'd like to read the initial feedback from the reviewer of your lesson plan. Except as noted, the responses are verbatim.* INTRODUCTIONDiscuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'.Comments:- unjustifiably is meaningless without understanding if what would constitute justifiable extrapolation
- will macro- and micro- discussion include a drawn line? (where does micro end?)
- how do we distinguish features showing evidence of design?* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIESComments:- again, there needs to be a line drawn — where do you mark rodents, for example?
- discussion on anatomic differences should deal with true differences and not ones that appear different (wing/fin)* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORDComments:- fossil gaps isa fallacious argument. There has to be a mention of the necessity of gaps — maybe the discussion should be on trying to determine a reasonable gap — how big can the jumps be? What should we expect to find?
- what would we expect a gradual transition to look like?* FOSSIL ORDERQuetzal’s note: this is the only section where the prof has substantial disagreement. To synopsize her argument against the feasibility of including discussion of the flood:1. The Flood story is limited to a single religion, essentially a biblical literalist subset of Protestant Christianity, whereas the applicability of the other sections can at least reasonably be attributed to non-denominational/ID or any other form of divine/semi-divine special creation.2. A detailed discussion of flood sorting mechanisms, geology, etc, could reasonably be expected to take more time than is available for the entire lesson plan.TB: I’ll leave it up to you what NOT including the Flood does to your case.* CONVERGENT FEATURESComments:- to be scientific, though, discuss (again) expectations — what would we expect to find? Can we test this in any way?* CONCLUSIONSComments:- at no point in the lesson plan has there been any definition of what would be suggestive of creation; Are there examples?
- there is no discussion in the lesson plan on how to test creationism or what would disprove it

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Is this an annual opportunity? I may have an interest in jumping on this next year if possible.

---

Sorry, TC. It may well be an annual exercise, but my board membership expires this Spring (it's only a two-year elected position) and I don't intend to stand for re-election).