Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

And there is the answer to my question. The fault does not lie with your teacher, but rather the fault lies entirely with you. Your brain was (and still is) filled with so much nonsensical bullshit that you had rendered yourself incapable of learning even the most basic concepts.In Message 557 you said: Now you know that your reason for not trusting dating methods is based on your own incredible ignorance and, quite frankly, stupidity from being such an incompetent student. So now you can either rethink your stand on dating methods, or else double-down on stupid.You strike me as the type who will double-down on stupid without giving it a thought. Which, I know, is redundant.

How?I started studying "creation science" in 1981 because creationists claimed to have scientific evidence for creation and I wanted to know what it was. In the 32 years since then, I have never once seen any creationist be able to present any scientific evidence for creation, nor have I ever seen one make the attempt. I've been discussing creation/evolution on-line since about 1987 and have repeatedly requested that evidence, but always in vain. Oh sure, creationist after creationist would claim to have mountains of evidence for creation, but never has one actually presented any evidence for creation. All they would ever offer would be false claims against evolution and other sciences, but never ever any evidence for creation.I even wrote to Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), one of the creators of "creation science" asking for that evidence. He replied that they considered negative "evidence" against evolution to be positive evidence for creation. That is their "Two Model Approach" which postulates two and only two mutually exclusive models, the "creation model" and the "evolution model". They never define the "creation model" in any by the most general of terms and then define their "evolution model" as being everything else including "most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern" (as Dr. Henry Morris himself wrote to me). The "Two Model Approach" is a prime example of a False Dilemma, AKA "false dichotomy", a logical fallacy designed to deceive, a lie. "Creation science" therefore becomes nothing more than a series of arguments and claims against their "evolution model" (which is at best a gross misrepresentation of evolution; ie, yet more creationist lies) with which they attempt to "prove" creation solely by "disproving" "evolution", all without ever presenting any evidence for creation or even presenting their "creation model" at all.They must never actually present their "creation model", because that is part of the legalistic deception for which they created "creation science" in the first place. In the debates (which was the creationists' primary vehicle), it is always their opponents who have to present the "creation model", because the creationists never will. And in the rare cases where creationists do present the "creation model" (eg, in the 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law), that exposes it as being a very narrow literalistic interpretation of Genesis and therefore purely religious.Creation cannot be taught scientifically because there is no scientific evidence for creation. Of course, if you have some actual scientific evidence for creation, then please do present it. Nor could "creation science" ever possibly be taught without evolution, since it consists almost purely of false claims and arguments against evolution.

Basically, you tried an old "you wouldn't like it if we did the same thing to you" rejoinder and he called your bluff.That compromise wouldn't work. For one thing, your going into their churches to challenge them with science will have no positive effect:

1. You will only perpetuate and reinforce their misconception that science is the enemy of religion and that scientists are trying to destroy religion. Basically, science is the study of how the real world works, so any religion that lives in the real world should have no problem with science. It's only those religions that insist on beliefs that are contrary to reality (eg, young earth, Noah's Flood) that could feel threatened by an endeavor that studies and teaches about reality. Knowledge will show them that some of their beliefs are false and, since they've been taught that those false beliefs must be true in order for their religion to be true, then they will shun knowledge and cling desperately to their ignorance. Even try to impose ignorance on the public schools, as we're seeing being argued for.
   ​
2. Even if they wanted to listen, which they don't, they wouldn't be able to understand. Most of them are scientific illiterates. If you try to explain how creationism has gotten thermodynamics all wrong, that would require them to have a very good understanding of math; most of them have a grasp of math that does not extend beyond being able to hit the right keys on a calculator some of the time.
   ​
3. It takes a lot more time to explain what's wrong with a creationist claim than for the creationist to make the false claim in the first place. In the infamous "Gish Gallop", a creationist can easily fire off a dozen false claims in less than a minute, whereas in order to counter just one of those false claims can easily take the better part of an hour and often much longer. Assuming that your audience would even listen, let alone understand, which they won't.

And in exchange, creationists would come into the classroom and in ten minutes spout off more than 100 false claims and lies that would take the teacher all year to expose. Of course, that assumes that the teacher is knowledgeable in both science and creationism to be able to understand and know the bases of the creationist claims.No, it would be far better to leave the churches to themselves and to teach only science in the science classrooms. And as a compromise, have special "balanced treatment" classes in addition to regular science classes in which "creation science" claims can be presented and examined and discussed. And those classes would not be run just by a creationist, nor just by a science teacher, but jointly run by both. In these classes, the creationist claim would be presented by the creationist, the actual science would be presented by the science teacher, and the creationist claim would be compared against the actual science and the actual scientific evidence. A true, "Two Model", "balanced treatment" class, which should offered as an elective with the regular science classes as the prerequisite; after all, the creationist students will be coming into the class already thoroughly indoctrinated by their churches. And the science teacher would need to be knowledgeable of both science and "creation science".But what creationist would ever agree to such a class? Their success depends on ignorance, confusion, and deception -- no, rather it's their entire position that depends on ignorance, confusion and deception. Over the decades, I have found that there's nothing that almost all creationists hate more than to have someone take their claims seriously and to examine those claims and to try to discuss their claims with them. They really hate that!Such classes have been done. For several years, Thwaites and Awbrey ran a two-model class at San Diego State University. They gave half the lectures and guest speakers from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research, including the leading creationists who literally wrote the book on "creation science", gave the other half, and then the class would examine the creationist claims with the actual science. Creationism never fares well when examined directly, plus the class provided opportunities for demonstrations that proved creationist claims wrong, such as the bomdadier beetle claim that two chemicals explode spontaneously when mixed together (that claim was made by Duane Gish and the experiment was conducted in his presence in front of the entire class). The campus Christian clubs absolutely hated that class! Finally, those clubs put so much pressure on the university administration that the class was closed. The bookstore used to sell the class notes; I don't know whether they still do.I also heard of a similar class at California State University, Fullerton. I don't know the details, nor whether it survived the massive financial meltdown six years ago, President Bush's parting gift to us all.I would think that Colbard should really like this compromise. He can spend his half of the class telling them how radio-carbon dating is wrong because it had dated his 1950's coin to be over 2000 years old. And the science teacher can explain to the students how radio-carbon dating really works and what that means about Colbard's claim.Come to think of it, I haven't seen any indication from Colbard that he has any clue what's wrong about his claim. Have you?Edited by dwise1, : slight clean-up

Of course, that depends on what is meant by "Creationism". Its most basic meaning would be belief in the universe, world, life, and/or humans having come into existence through a supernatural act. We could narrow that down more by limiting it to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions of Divine Creation. From there, creationism splinters off into narrower and more finely detailed accounts and traditions and beliefs regarding Divine Creation. Its perhaps most narrow meaning would be that given the term by various Christian sects that practice forms of biblical literalism and which are generally referred to by the public as "fundamentalists"; there appears to have been a parallel development among Islamic fundamentalists. Even as we descend through the levels of Christian creationism, there is a broad spectrum of forms of creationism which are mainly based on different approaches taken to try to harmonize their interpretations of the Bible with the age of the earth. And at one end of that spectrum is the firmly entrenched and intractable young-earth creationism (YEC). For more information, see The Creation/Evolution Continuum.For most believers in Divine Creation, there is no conflict between science and their beliefs because they do not base their faith on claims about the natural world that are contrary-to-fact. The ones who have problems with science are the YECs, a small but extremely vocal minority of biblical literalists who base their faith on young-earth creationism and its false theology of "creation science." They stake the very existence of their religion and of their faith on contrary-to-fact claims, which means that any honest study of the natural world would expose their contrary-to-facts to be false, leading to the destruction of their religion and of their faith. It is for this reason that YECs misperceive science as the enemy which is attacking and trying to destroy their religion. Instead, it is reality that threatens their faith and science is merely the messenger. And the only reason why they find reality to be threatening their faith is because they have chosen to have created that situation.No, science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor is any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Rather, that is what YEC does. It is YEC that disproves Creation and even God. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the earth is old, then Scripture has no meaning, and that if evolution is true, then God does not exist and everybody should just become atheists (I'm not making this up; over the decades several fundamentalists have insisted emphatically that those are the consequences of an old earth and evolution being true and nothing I could say would budge them from that position). Well, of course the earth is old and evolution is true, so according to their false logic Scripture has no meaning and God does not exist. Even many non-YECs accept YEC's false premises at face value and, seeing that the claims of YEC are false, follow the YEC conclusions that God does not exist.Having created that booby trap for themselves, the only defense available to YECs is ignorance. That is why YECs work so hard to maintain their own ignorance as well as to try to spread that ignorance as far and wide as possible. They hate science so much because it destroys their blessed state of ignorance. That is also why they work so zealously to undermine science education in every way they can imagine, in order to preserve their ignorance, which is the only thing that can preserve their faith.Helluva petard they've hoisted themselves upon! No, it does not. Rather, that is just more YEC bullshit. You see, we're not talking about creationism, belief in Divine Creation, here, but rather the YEC form of creationism which employs and depends on that deliberate deception which is called "creation science." The same form of creationism that you are trying to promote, Colbard, much to your discredit."Creation science" is predicated on claims of having scientific evidence that supports creation and disproves evolution. The format of "creation science" claims has very little to do with alternative interpretations, but rather it has a lot to do with citing scientific sources as supporting their position.The actual process of "creation science" is to misrepresent and distort scientific sources and scientific ideas.
Science's response to "creation science" claims is to demonstrate they are wrong by presenting the actual scientific ideas accurately and truthfully and to show what the scientific sources being cited actually said. For example, in one classic debate against ICR VP Dr Duane Gish, his opponent presented a series of slides: on one side was Gish quoting a scientific source and on the other side was that source and hence what that source actually said. In each and every case, Gish had misquoted and misrepresented the source and there the audience could see that fact for themselves. In fact, I have found that many YEC claims are refuted simply by reading the source.Please note that at no point in that process is any attempt ever made to "disprove Creationism", but rather to expose the "creation science" claims as being false. And from the gross pattern of creationist misrepresentations evident in all those false claims, to expose those YECs as liars. God has nothing to do with it, nor does any aspect of Divine Creation. It is entirely about the lies of "creation science". The same lies that YECs want to have taught in the public schools. The same lies that you want to have taught in the schools, Colbard.

---

Here is a synopsis for Colbard, who hates to read:

1. "Creationism" can mean any of several things. There is a huge difference between belief in Divine Creation and the young-earth creationism (YEC) that is being pushed by fundamentalists and other stripes of biblical-literalist evangelicals as the only possible meaning of "creationism".
   Of course, that depends on what is meant by "Creationism".
   ​
2. Belief in Divine Creation does not conflict with science nor with the findings of science. But as soon as believers in Divine Creation start making predictions and assertions about the real world that are contrary-to-fact, then those believers do themselves bring themselves into conflict with reality and hence also with any discipline that studies reality, such as science.
   ​
3. YEC makes several fairly detailed proclamations about the real world which are contrary-to-fact. They even go so far as to stake their faith on those contrary-to-fact claims being true and insisting that if those claims are not true, then there is no other alternative than for them to throw their Bibles into the trash and become atheists. It cannot be emphasized too much that it is the YECs themselves who have created and promulgate that self-destructive teaching.
   ​
4. Of course, YEC's contrary-to-fact claims are indeed not true, as is inevitably discovered when YECs encounter the real world. They can avoid those encounters in everyday life through self-deception and mental blindness; a formerly-fundamentalist friend once described how he had to do that constantly until the mental strain finally became too much and he had to stop and examine his religion critically. In their efforts to avoid reality, the YECs' greatest tool is ignorance. YECs will cling desperately to their ignorance, since it is their only refuge.
   ​
5. Studying science dispells ignorance, so YECs see science as the enemy. Learning what the real world actually is and how it actually works is a spiritual death sentence for YECs, in accordance with the booby trap that they themselves had constructed for themselves. YECs try to place the blame for their spiritual suicide on science, claiming that science is trying to destroy their faith. Instead, it is reality that threatens their faith and science is merely the messenger. And the only reason why they find reality to be threatening their faith is because they have chosen to have created that situation.
   ​
6. No, science does not disprove Divine Creation, nor does it try to, nor are any scientists without a personal religious agenda in any way motivated to. Nor could science ever disprove Divine Creation. Divine Creation is a supernatural event. Science cannot study nor in any way work with the supernatural.
   ​
7. Rather, it is YEC that disproves Divine Creation and even the existence of God as well. YEC accomplishes that impossible task by convincing its followers of false premises that say that if the world truly is as it actually is, then Scripture has no meaning, God does not exist, and they all are required to become atheists. That is exactly what several fundamentalists have insisted to me emphatically over the decades. And many non-YECs accept YEC's false premises at face value and, seeing that the claims of YEC are false, follow the YEC conclusions that God does not exist. Truly, YEC and its "creation science" is one of the major contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.
   ​
8. YECs have created that self-destructive spiritual-suicide situation for themselves. The only defense available to YECs is ignorance. That is why YECs work so hard to maintain their own ignorance as well as to try to spread that ignorance as far and wide as possible. They hate science so much because it destroys their blessed state of ignorance. That is also why they work so zealously to undermine science education in every way they can imagine, in order to preserve their ignorance, which is the only thing that can preserve their faith.
   ​
9. This discussion really has nothing to do with how one interprets the evidence, even though that is part of YEC rhetorics. YECs' primary tool is "creation science", which does operate by offering alternative interpretations, but rather by misquoting and misrepresenting science and scientific sources. The primary claim of "creation science" is that it has scientific evidence to support its claims of a young earth, world-wide flood, non-relatedness of humans with other animals, etc. And that many reputable scientists also support their position. Of course, all that is lies and deception.
   ​
10. Since the actual process of "creation science" is to misrepresent and distort scientific sources and scientific ideas, science's response to "creation science" claims is to demonstrate they are wrong by presenting the actual scientific ideas accurately and truthfully and to show what the scientific sources being cited actually said. For example, in one classic debate against ICR VP Dr Duane Gish, his opponent presented a series of slides: on one side was Gish quoting a scientific source and on the other side was that source and hence what that source actually said. In each and every case, Gish had misquoted and misrepresented the source and there the audience could see that fact for themselves. In fact, I have found that many YEC claims are refuted simply by reading the source.
    ​
11. At no point in that process is any attempt ever made to "disprove Creationism", but rather to expose the "creation science" claims as being false. God has nothing to do with it, nor does any aspect of Divine Creation. It is entirely about exposing the lies of "creation science".
    ​
12. If the YECs have lied to you about science, then why believe what they told you about the consequences of learning the truth?

The facts that have been established. Like these?:

1. The earth is flat.
   ​
2. The earth is at the center of the universe with everything revolving around us.
   ​
3. Lightening is created and thrown by Zeus, or by Thor, or by God (hence its being called "The Finger of God"). It is sacrilegious to thwart God's Will by mounting lightening rods on a building. Funny, though, that the ones most often punished thus by God would be the churches' bell ringers. Oh well, who can know the Will of God?
   ​
4. Flies, maggots, and rodents spontaneously generate out of trash or old rags left lying about.
   ​
5. Bullets and cannon shot are directed by their targets by little demons riding on them. Hence, wearing a religious amulet and muttering the right prayers that would repel those demons would provide you with total protection from firearms.
   ​
6. Diseases are caused by demons, or by witches, or by bad smells. Dirt and filth have nothing whatsoever to do with disease.

Those were all "established facts" that were accepted on faith. And you are arguing that we must not reject them. Please do me a favor and think about that last one very long and very hard the next time that you or somebody you love is suffering from a bad infection that requires antibiotics. I don't think that you realize that until the middle of the 20th Century what would have started as a minor infection could very well end up killing you; that changed with the invention of antibiotics. Or the next time you get vaccinated against a disease. Or the next time your doctor washes his hands before treating you. Or the next time the dental assistant opens that tray of sterilized instruments and the dentist comes in and washes his hands and maintains the sterile field while working inside your mouth. Neither antibiotics nor vaccinations nor public sanitation nor personal hygene nor the establishment of sterile fields in medical and dental treatment would have been possible if we had restricted ourselves to "facts that have been established" and accepted them purely on faith to the point of never questioning them.Of course, if you want to go back to living (in a much worse manner) and dying (much, much sooner) by those "facts that have been established", then by all means do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Just don't expect us to let you drag the rest of us down with you. But actually, that is not at all true. Science did indeed have the old teachings to start from. But rather then accepting them unquestionably, science dared to decide to put them to the test and, finding that they failed those tests, knew that we could safely set aside those old false ideas. Keep the old ideas that prove to actually work (eg, when to plant crops) and lose or refine the ones that do not work. To prove absolutely, no, that would be virtually impossible. But then that is not what science tries to do. You are grossly misrepresenting science here.Now, disproving something is what science does quite well. Science can consider a number of different explanations for a phenomenon and then test them. As a result, some of those explanations will be found to be wrong and hence can safely be eliminated. What that process results in is the best explanation(s) that we have.To illustrate, I first saw Phillip Johnson, one of the founders and leaders of the "intelligent design" movement. Johnson was a lawyer and his book, "Darwin on Trial", "disproved" Darwinism by pointing out that it doesn't follow courtroom rules of evidence. The moment I saw Johnson (it was an episode of "Nova") say that, I knew that he didn't know what he was talking about. The analogy was completely wrong! Science is not a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. Clues and evidence is gathered, from which hypotheses are formed and tested, resulting in some hypotheses being discarded and others kept provisionally for further testing and refinement by considering new evidence. It is an ongoing process whose goal is to find the best solution to the mystery. And in both science and a police investigation, the most valuable provisional answers are the ones that rise more questions, questions that can then be used to guide the investigation, informing the investigators what other clues and evidence to search for.Your position is that none of the traditional "knowledge" may be allowed to be questioned or tested. Your position is for ignorance. Ignorance does not work! We know that ignorance does not work, because we have tried it far too many times. Obvious? Like the earth being flat? Like the earth being stationary and everything else revolving around it? Like a heavier object falling faster than a light one? Like a marble rolling down a spiral track continuing to fall in a spiral when it falls off the end of that track?That last one is obvious, because that is the answer given by most of the people to whom that problem was presented. It's by far the most obvious answer, but it is dead wrong!You should already know about all objects falling at the same rate, unless you were yet again just sitting in science class brain-dead when the story of Galileo's experiment from the Tower of Pisa was told and explained. The "obvious" idea that heavier objects fall faster is because of the factor of air resistance, which slows down a lighter object more. But air resistance is not as much of a factor with cannon balls, which Galileo used in his demonstration. In a more modern experiment, a penny and a feather were placed in a long clear plastic cylinder. With air still in the cylinder, the penny fell faster than the feather. With all the air pumped out of the cylinder, they both fell at the same rate, hitting the bottom at the same time. Another thing that was "obvious", and yet completely wrong.Education needs to work by presenting the best information that we have. Traditional "facts that have been established" that are just plain wrong would not be appropriate to use in education. Except as examples of things that we used to believe and here's how they were found to be wrong. Like the "caloric fluid" theory of heat. Or the luminiferous aether. As your own shins and toes and nose are being torn to shreds by constantly bumping into things all around you that you cannot see, things that we are able to see perfectly.

---

quote:

---

"It's been a long time since we've worn feathers."
Jos Lpez Portillo, Mexican President 1976 - 1982, in interview on "60 Minutes" circa 1980

---

Edited by dwise1, : small addition to blindness; added "dirt and filth"; dentist visit

Oh, those are not the only lies. And of course there's also his overall extreme dishonesty.First he claimed to be talking purely scientifically, denying any religious motive, only to finally reveal through his actions that was all a bold-faced lie. You will recall in one of my first replies I mentioned several creationists I have encountered over the decades who have done exactly the same thing, claiming emphatically that they were not creationists -- some of them even claiming to not be Christians -- , only to reveal in their later posts that they were died-in-the-wool fundamentalists and fervent creationists. Colbard committed that same lie, even though the exact nature of his particular form of religious pathology is not yet known; he appears to be some kind of neo-hippie or even a neo-Jesus-Freak (which is what many hippies devolved into circa 1970, which is why we have so many fundamentalists).Second, he lied about his age. Apparently he tried to claim that he's an 18-year-old girl, but Percy pointed out that he registered as being 30. Either way, he committed a deliberate lie.Third, there's the question of his gender. I've seen reference to his having claimed to be female. Given the history of his known lies and of his extreme dishonesty, I can see no reason to give that claim any credence at all.What is it about creationism and about fundamentalism that turns so many of them into pathological liars? Because lying is all that they have?

Yes, that is the primary question. And in particular, as per this topic, the primary question is whether religion should be taught in science class. And far more particularly, since this entire "controversy" has been created out of whole cloth and is being forced upon us by creationists, whether fundamentalist Christian beliefs should be taught in science class. And since this "controversy" primarily operates in the USA, questions about the First Amendment also come into play, mainly over whether a government agency and government agents (ie, the public schools and their teachers) may provide religious instruction while operating within their official government capacity.The answers are obvious:

1. The materials taught in every class should pertain to the subject matter of the class. Hence, in German class, we should not expect half the class to be devoted to Russian, any more than having half of trig class being devoted to analyzing poetry (a consequence of teaching love as the basic principle of everything). The subject matter of a science class is science and that is what should be taught in science classes. Non-science materials can and should be taught in the classes that cover those materials' subjects.
   ​
2. It is a violation of the First Amendment for government agents and/or agencies operating in their official capacities to provide religious instruction and indoctrination; that is clearly unconstitutional and hence forbidden.
   ​
3. While teaching religion cannot be allowed, teaching about religion not only is allowed, but should be done. Comparative religion classes should be the norm, as well as classes on the history of religions. When John Cleese was on Bill Mahr recently, he mentioned how in "public school" (the UK version of private school) they were taught all about the history of the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, but never what the difference was supposed to be between Catholics and Protestants. As our societies become more religiously diverse, it is both to our personal benefit and to the benefit of society as a whole to not be ignorant about each other. However, the place for such instruction is clearly in the social sciences classes (eg, history, geography, cultural anthropology) and not in science class (eg, biology, geology, astronomy, physics).

---

But while this topic is primarily concerned with the content of science class, we've been ignoring another question that is just as important if not more so:
How should we be teaching science?Basically, I've seen two ways in which science is taught. One way works and the other way doesn't. The first way produces students who understand science and how it works and more often than not end up liking science having found it interesting. The second way produces students who do not understand science, have practically no idea how it works, and end up hating the entire experience and even hating , students like Colbard.In both ways, we are presented with the conclusions of science. In the second way, that is about as far as it goes: you are presented with scientific ideas that are presented as arbitrary facts that you must learn to repeat, but of which you never gain any understanding, nor do you learn how any of those facts tie in with the others. This creates the situation described by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129):

quote:

---

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

---

The first way goes far beyond mere presentation of the conclusions of science. The class also covers the history and development of the major ideas of science, as well as learning and working with the scientific process and how it works. That includes many experiments, both as reconstructions of classic experiments and as demonstrations. These experiments are not only performed by the teacher (or in a film, which is necessary when the experiment is impractical, prohibitively expensive, or too dangerous to perform in a classroom setting), but also by the students as hands-on lab assignments. And in the process, the students not only learn how to analyze everyday events scientifically, but they also learn how those separate scientific ideas are actually interrelated -- eg, one of the most fascinating science lectures I attended was a basic "physical science" class in which we were taught not only how to interpret physics algebraic equations (eg, direct and inverse proportional), but also how to use them to derive other relationships, mainly through substitution of terms; instead of simply memorizing a lot of arbitrary formulae, we learned how they were derived and what they were telling us.It wasn't until later in life that I even learned of the existence of the second way of teaching. Like Slartibartfast, I have always been a big fan of science. My earliest memories include a fascination with living things, astronomy, and discovering how things work. My ex-wife was much the same way though less so, at least to the point where we both enjoyed the science shows on PBS and she was able to reason her way through scientific questions and be able ask the right kinds of questions. Both my sons grew up loving science, my younger son especially as he followed in my footsteps of overturning rocks to see what was living under there.I was shocked when my adult nephew told me that science was the class that he hated the most. He described his experience in those classes in a similar manner that Colbard now describes his misconceptions of science, misconceptions that other creationists seem to share and on which they base a number of their anti-science arguments. He found it very boring. All they did was to memorize a lot of unrelated facts with hardly any explanation of what they meant nor where they came from. He came out of that experience hating science.And now Colbard's anti-science rantings sound a lot like the attitude that my nephew had expressed in that one conversation (we live in different states and have very little contact), only not as extreme and rabidly neo-hippie as Colbard's. That indicates to me that Colbard had suffered a similar experience that my nephew had. And in creationist rhetorics, we also see similar attitudes. They treat science as a collection of arbitrary "facts" that have no basis in reality (at least not in their "reality") and are therefore being taught and held dogmatically. They have no concept of the interrelatedness scientific facts and so cannot understand that they cannot eliminate a collection of ideas they don't like without unraveling the whole of science.We do need to also look at how science is being taught. Even back in 1984, when I heard a presentation by Fred Edwords on the radio, he described one of the problems in science education as being the tendency to simply present the conclusions of science as facts, take them or leave them. He described that approach as leaving the students with no understanding of science and that it fuels creationist rhetorics.One reason for that approach is the lack of qualified teachers with backgrounds in science. Infamous creationist teacher John Peloza taught high school biology whereas his own educational background was in PE; he had started teaching biology in a small school district apparently because no one else was available to teach the class -- that is a frequent and recurring problem in all subjects for small and isolated schools, most commonly in rural communities. Even in mega-metropolitan regions; eg, my younger son's first intermediate-school science teacher was the home-ec teacher -- the other students kept coming to my son with their questions because he could give them better answers.The textbooks are another problem. After the passing of the "monkey laws" in the 1920's, anti-evolution groups maintained pressure on local school boards and on textbook publishers. As a result, the publishers self-censored themselves to include no "objectionable" subject matter. Also, primary and secondary science textbooks were not and still are not written by scientists, but rather by professional textbook writers. As a result, the textbooks contain many inaccuracies and perpetuate many misconceptions.In the late 1980's when California was considering new high-school biology textbooks, William J. Bennetta of The Textbook League, which appears to have been inactive for over a decade, enlisted the help of a panel of scientists to review the textbooks under consideration. They found all the textbooks to be filled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. They submitted their long list to the State School Board who passed them on to the publishers. The publishers made some corrections, but even the leading choice was still full of errors. This time the State Board went behind the scientists' backs and approved that textbook, inaccuracies, misconceptions, and all.I don't know what the situation is now, but I doubt that it has changed much. I think that some scientists have become more involved in writing textbooks; I think that Dr. Kenneth Miller has written one. Ironically, it was scientists getting involved in writing high-school textbooks that brought down the "monkey laws" and led to the creation of the "creation science" deception. The anti-evolution movement succeeded in keeping any mention of evolution out of the public schools for four decades, but they didn't hold any sway in the universities where evolution continued to be taught. Then after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 caught us unprepared, the USA launched into efforts to close the "science gap" by pushing for massive improvements in science and math education, including in biology, which included new and better textbooks. A result was the formation of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) in 1958 and the writing of new curricula by actual biologists. Since these biologists knew that evolution is the cornerstone of biology, these new curricula included evolution throughout and emphasized it. The Little Rock, AR, school district adopted the BSCS materials, requiring its biology teachers to use them. However, the Arkansas "monkey law" strictly forbade a teacher even mentioning the word, "evolution", in class upon pain of having your teaching credentials revoked for life. Caught between a rock and a hard place, teacher Susan Epperson sued the state which led to the US Supreme Court decision, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), that struck down the Arkansas "monkey law", leading to the complete dismantling of the anti-evolution movement's legal tools. That led to their repackaging their attempts to bar the teaching of evolution into the pack of lies and deceptions we currently know as "creation science", since rebranded as "intelligent design".Bottom line is that we need to do a much better job of teaching science.Edited by dwise1, : subtitle

Yes, I remember that fundamentalist sound-bite from their early-70's proselytizing propaganda. Though none of them ever presented it to me in person, so I was never able to offer my response:"If you don't question anything, you'll believe anything."My understanding is also that, since their beliefs are contradicted by reality, they must lie to themselves constantly. A friend at church used to be a staunch fundamentalist. He described how, while a fundamentalist, he had to turn a blind eye to the every-day things that contradicted his beliefs and had to maintain a constant state of self-delusion. Finally one day it became too much for him to keep up, so he examined his religion, especially in the light of the Matthew 7:20 test. Some things were good fruit, but too much was wicked fruit. So he hewed down his religion and threw it into the fire (as Jesus commanded in that test). He became a "complete atheist and thorough humanist" and ever since then he has felt so much more spiritually fulfilled than he ever had as a fundamentalist.Also, we have Faith's guidance in the discussion about biblical support for Trinitarianism that what's important is not what the Bible actually says, but rather what you can infer it to mean. We have long criticized creationists for how they grossly mishandle the sources that they cite as they go about quote-mining, but it appears that they truly know no other way. That's exactly how they treat the Bible as they quote-mine it to make it infer whatever they want it to.

---

"To question is the answer."
(UU catch-phrase)"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
(Andre Gide)"{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy."
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)"It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias."
Robert Colbert on NPR

That might be true, but with your record here of gross dishonesty how could I possibly believe what you say? You have thoroughly discredited yourself and this is one of the consequences of your persistent actions. Only you can try to correct this situation.

When any of our conclusions is shown to be wrong, then we correct it. That is one of the characteristics of science. And science busies itself with constantly testing its conclusions, which is another characteristic of science. In fact, scientists are very strongly motivated to test and try to prove wrong the conclusions of other scientists, because when your own research depends on the research of others, you want to be as certain as possible that those others' research is correct.As a result, science is both self-correcting and highly motivated to be self-correcting. In sharp contrast, religious dogma is extremely resistant to any form of correction and is highly motivated to prevent any testing and attempts at correction. The same is true of your own position of promoting a state of unquestioning ignorance.I have a page long under construction which contrasts the differences between scientists and "creation scientists" which explains that contrast above:
http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/cs_vs_sci.htmlIn fact, we want to be proven wrong. If we are wrong, then we want to have that situation corrected. Religion and the faith-based approach do not want to be proven wrong and will do everything it can to avoid being corrected. We are far more dedicated to truth and seeking truth than a faith-based approach could ever be.

---

quote:

---

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

---

In another article discussing Gentry's polonium-halo claims, Wakefield contrasted the difference between how a scientist and a creationist view a mystery (paraphrased from memory):

quote:

---

When a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve it. When a creationist sees a mystery he considers it proof of God, so he wants to keep it a mystery.

---

He has said a lot of things and has contradicted himself several times. Frankly, it is very difficult to read too much of his nonsense since it causes my eyes to both cross and roll at the same time.Somebody had mentioned that he was claiming to be an 18-year-old girl and Percy replied that when he registered he claimed to be 30. Somebody else's mistake or more misinformation from Colbard? That's a toss-up at this point.He still needs to straighten up and get his act together if he is to ever have any hope of restoring a modicum of honesty.

No, yet again you are completely lost.Rather 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." That's part of the Bible that you oppose. And stop misquoting us! Copy and paste what we actually wrote! Without changes! Damned dishonest creationists!

Test everything. Which you preach against. Why do you hate the Bible so much?

He has even admitted to committing troll-ful acts with troll-ful intent; in Message 745: Then in the same message he complains about being identified as a troll, after admitting to behaving as a troll for a troll's reasons. What hypocrisy! Haven't any of those idiots actually read the Gospels? Does their utter cluelessness also extend to how Jesus felt about hypocrites?

I think that it's mainly my moral outrage at creationism's deliberate deceptions and lies that keeps me involved in this issue even after more than three decades.Within a few years of starting to study "creation science", I learned that they were lying through their teeth. When I was a Christian (now half a century ago), lying was a sin, so I could not understand how these devout and very zealous Christians could deliberately lie as I saw them doing. My very first conversation with a creationist, a co-worker named Charles, started with my asking him whether Christian doctrine condones or even promotes lying in service of the faith. That question surprised him and he answered that, no, it does not and why did I ask. So I told about Duane Gish's false claim about the bombardier beetle and how Awbrey and Thwaites demonstrated that fact in front of Gish and their two-model class such that Gish had no choice but to respond and he admitted in public that that claim was wrong, but then he continued to use that same false claim (which is standing operating procedure among creationists). In the three decades since then, I have repeatedly asked the same question and only maybe two other creationists have ever offered any response, both times that lying for the Lord is not condoned, but none of them have ever continued that discussion. In Charles' case, he was sincerely surprised at Gish's dishonesty, saying that Gish was his hero.At first I thought that the followers of "creation science" repeating the lies just did not know any better and would realize that their claims were false when shown the truth and that then, since they were devout Christians, they would do the right thing and stop using those proven false claims. I was bewildered by their "unChristian" (according to my own Protestant schooling) and immoral response, the same type of responses that we have seen far too many times. I can understand their strong religious motivation to wish their claims to be true and I do understand the theological corner that they have painted themselves into by insisting that their faith and the very existence of God depends directly on their false and contrary-to-fact claims being true. But what I cannot understand is how they can justify their deliberate lies and deception, along with all the other mean, nasty, ugly crap that they feel the zeal to pull (Colbard's trollness being yet another example).Creationists' lies, deceptions, hateful conduct, self-delusion, etc, are all fruits of their theologies which either base themselves on "creation science" or at the very least vitally dependent on "creation science." Clearly, those fruits of those theologies are wicked. In the Matthew 7:20 Test, Jesus very clearly states that a good bush cannot produce any wicked fruit and that a bush that produces any wicked fruit is a wicked bush. And he very clearly commands that a wicked bush is to be cut down and thrown into the fire. Jesus' orders!