Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists

NoNukes writes: Astronomy is another area where the conflicts with a 6000 year old universe and reality is pretty stark.

Oddly enough with my curious nature, I never got that curious in the upwards direction - never studied the skies. I have collected some basic knowledge in that area just because I read science magazines etc, but no expert.

If you can suggest any threads or papers or books that would be knowledge appropriate I would appreciate it. Remember that even though my target audience is young adult, it can't be much more complicated math/science wise than middle or high school. These kids have no foundation whatsoever in this area.

Thanks again.

JB

Larni writes: Socratic questioning. It takes time an patience but allow somebody to arrive at rational conclusions is always the best way to go.

HUGE fan of the method. In fact I piss my friends off from time to time - they say "JB, I just ask you the question because I know you know -- just ANSWER IT!). LOL

Thanks Larni
JB

Dr Adequate writes: Please refer instead to the Wikibook I made out of the thread, Historical Geology. The links are better, and there are a few mistakes in the original thread that are fixed in the book.

Holy moly Dr -- what a resource that Wiki is going to be. I'll go through it this weekend and I'm sure I'll have questions. Wow, so cool.

Thanks
JB

Tangle writes: I think I'd start by talking about what scientists do, how they do it and what has been achieved by it. The basic method of having an idea about something, then trying to test whether it's right or not using hard evidence. Then if you can actually do a few little relevant experiments and match them to biblical beliefs, it might start a few thoughts going.

A really good way to lead off.

I've thought about starting with heliocentricity and how it was hypothesized and then demonstrated (and then persecuted). A Foucault pendulum is such an awesome and fun tool. Allows for Newton talks and some laws of gravity and motion discussions as well.

That Helio topic also allows me to make comparisons with biblical texts. While it's extremely rare to find a biblical geocentrist today, there was of course a time when the interpretations of the texts were essentially universal. I've already found quotes from heros of the reformation that these kids will know (Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, et al) that state believers in heliocentrism are devil possessed (Calvin) and quote the verses to support geocentrism. There is amazing parallel in that topic and YEC currently. Just as with Psalms 93:1 from 500 years ago, 5 centuries from now the default will be "Oh, Genesis 1? -- that was never meant to be literal". Lessons from history. :-)

One obvious one is gathering handfull of dirt, some sand and gravel, stick them in a something like a spaghetti jar, top up with water, shake the whole thing up and leave it overnight to settle.

YES! I've been thinking of that one. I mean, how hard is it to follow that lesson? I get that some things in science are hard, but after a few Mason jar lessons, how difficult is it to see that all layers don't come from one event?

Thanks Tangle.
JB

Quick question: Am I missing the typical "quote" button that bookends text with the quote tags? Can't seem to find one anywhere and it's a pain to type them in.

Somebody here typically gives new-comers a quick tutorial on the BBcodes used here. They're very much like HTML tags, only they use square brackets instead of angle brackets.

A quick and simple solution: if you see something in a post that you want to know how to do (eg, quote boxes), then click on the Peek button. That will display that message with the BBcode tags visible. Go ahead and try it with this message.

When it comes to layers here are some other threads that might help.

Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds)

Conclusion vs Presupposition

Lake Varve Sediments and the Great Flood

dwise1 writes: Somebody here typically gives new-comers a quick tutorial on the BBcodes used here. They're very much like HTML tags, only they use square brackets instead of angle brackets.

Thanks dwise. That peek feature is nice.

I'm actually familiar with the BBcode tags, but I'm wondering if on this forum you have to copy and paste what you want to quote and then type in the code tags manually. Usually there are buttons that allow you to highlight text and surround the selection with tags rather than type them in. Also, the behavior of the 'reply' button often includes quoting the post you are replying to so you don't have to copy and paste everything.

It appears that when you hit reply with this software, you get a blank canvas.

JB

Percy is the sole support for this board and actually even wrote all the software that runs it. Right now you have to type the codes but there are quite a few codes not often found on other boards.

We are all very adept though at delegating guilt (what's the point of even having guilt if you can't delegate it) so feel free to blame Percy.

Copy-and-paste is what I always do. But I do know what you mean by Reply buttons, though when I use them I still have to do a lot of editing and cut-and-paste to break it up into addressable chunks.

When you have written a message using codes, you should view it by use of the Preview button first so that you can spot and correct any codes that didn't work as you expected. You can always go back and edit your own messages, but it's better if you don't have to do that too much.

Edited by dwise1, : Using the Preview button.

Welcome. Very noble plan. Your personal qualities, having come out of that community, should make your contributions much more valuable than if you were an out-sider (more on this below). Some additional resource recommendations:

1. A few of our members have written tutorials on geology and other subjects and posted them here as topics. I'm sure that other members reading this will be able to point you more directly to them.

   Added: I see that Tempe 12ft Chicken has already referred you to Dr Adequate's geology tutorial.

2. Over a year ago there was a long topic started by Faith to advance her ad-hoc ideas about the geology of the Grand Canyon (to her, rocks = dry mud). There's a lot of information in there about the different types of strata exposed at the Grand Canyon, plus towards the end about igneous intrusions and how geologists are able to tell whether a horizontal intrusion had occured on the surface or between pre-existing layers. You needn't fear missing pertinent information, since we had to repeat everything over and over again since Faith steadfastly insisted on ignoring that information.

   Towards the end of that topic, there was another topic -- I think also started by Faith -- discussing speciation within basic created kinds. Contains a lot of discussion of nested clades, which exposes the creationist claim of evolution requiring dogs to evolve into cats as pure nonsense. Of note is that Faith's explanation of speciation within the feline "basic created kind" was a very good explanation of how macro-evolution (speciation) is just an extension of micro-evolution (variation within a species), but as soon as she realized what she had done she started redefining the world in order to continue to deny that simple fact.

3. Glenn R. Morton is a practicing geologist and a former young-earth creationist (YEC). It was the report of his presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism that first informed me of the threat that YEC poses to creationists' faith: he had hired fellow YEC geology graduates to work in the field with him and they all suffered crises of faith when confronted daily with rock-hard geological evidence that they had been taught did not exist and could not exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. That date also marked his own decade-long crisis of faith in which creationism drove him to the verge of atheism; he was finally able to work out a working harmonization that preserved his faith while still leaving him in opposition to YEC.

   His website contained a wealth of geological evidence that refutes young-earth and flood geology claims. Unfortunately, a few years ago he closed his site because he felt that atheists were using it to attack Christianity. Fortunately, some of it is still accessible thanks to Web archiving sites; eg, his autobigraphical Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism.

4. And, of course, there is my own website, cre-ev.dwise1.net, FWIW. I had started it mainly for my earlier postings to CompuServe and had then added on to it. Because of the stream of hate emails I have received from creationists who completely misunderstand what I'm saying, I have rewritten it several times, so it's in a constant state of revision. Basically, my position is that making your faith dependent on "creation science" is an extremely grave mistake and that you need to base your faith on what is true instead of what is demonstrably false. Despite the many accusations, my site does not attack Christianity nor the Bible in any way, but rather I do strongly criticize "creation science" as a false theology.

   Anyway, some of what's on my site may be of help. I have been involved in this subject since 1981, though you appear to also be well-read. I did independent research on the ICR's moon dust claim (at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/moondust.html) and on Kent Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim (ie, that 4 billion years ago the sun would have been massive enough to "suck the Earth in" -- I've not completed the write-up, but if you need to respond to that claim then I will share what I have with you).
   

As I said earlier, the fact that you have come out of the same community as your intended audience should make your contributions much more valuable than if you were an out-sider. You know from personal experience how they view creationism and its relationship to their religious beliefs. I had entered into the fray in the late 1980's thinking that they only needed to be shown that the claims are false and so was totally unprepared for the vicious reactions I got. I learned the hard way that they believe that their faith depends utterly on "creation science" claims being true, such that if the earth is shown to be older than 10,000 years then Scripture would have no meaning (ICR's John Morris as reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism). Unlike me, you are going in knowing what they think is at stake.

It is a sad fact that the majority of youth raised on fundamentalism are leaving the faith, often leaving religion altogether. I've seen estimates ranging from 60% to 80%. Going to college or even to a public high school is a major factor, though not for the trumped-up claim that those schools are "anti-God". My own conceit, which I believe you may share, is that exposure to what evolution and the other sciences really are and what they really say triggers the "creation science" booby-trap to destroy their faith. However, I have also seen it argued that the humanities, especially philosophy and English literature, are much more to blame, since they shatter the fundamentalist's belief that there is only one way to view the world and teach him how to start to see things from different perspectives. There are also the problems inherent in taking fundamentalist teachings too much to heart as teenagers so often will do; many of the testimonals in ex-Christian forums attest to the mental and emotional anguish they suffered not only from that life-style but also from the fears it creates (eg, what it meant for their own salvation that the Fruits of the Spirit were being withheld from them).

Whatever specific causes of that hemorrhaging of youth from the fundamentalist communities, it is clear that those communities' current inability to maintain a state of ignorance plays a significant role. I believe we are in agreement that their false teachings about the world (AKA "creation science", et al.) require that they keep themselves and their children in ignorance of the truth. Keeping themselves in ignorance is the easy part, since they have learned how to monitor and censor their own thoughts, knowing when they are getting too close to learning the truth so that their defense mechanisms can kick in and close their minds. But their children are at especial risk because they have no defense mechanisms yet. Their children trust what they've been told and they actually believe it, naïvely as all children do. The only way to keep their children's faith safe is to keep them ignorant, to shield them from the world. That used to be easy to do when those religious communities could isolate themselves geographically and block contact with the outside world, or at least be able to filter everything coming into the community. As you just testified to us, they chose everything that you were taught and blocked you from secular music and all sources of news from the outside (TV, radio, newspapers). But as they moved out into more integrated neighborhoods (ie, having neighbors of different faiths) and became more involved in society at large (eg, working for and with others), that became harder to do. Now with the Internet, they have lost far more control over what information and ideas their children have access to.

So then, as you have described, your older relatives have learned to avoid learning and to suppress any curiosity, whereas your younger relatives have not learned those necessary fundamentalist skills yet. As a result, your younger relative are more receptive and open-minded. But what will happen when they come to realize that they've been lied to all their lives? Or at the very least, after having been taught all their lives that if the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years then Scripture has no meaning, God either does not exist or should not be worshipped, and the only alternative is to become a hedonistic atheist (or similar fake consequences), what do you expect them to do? And given the outrageously false ideas that fundamentalists have about atheism and atheists, how would you expect them to behave as "atheists"?

So while you are trying to educate them about science and the truth about "creation science", are you also planning to discuss with them the consequences of them basing their faith on contrary-to-fact claims and what the real consequences should be as opposed to the nonsense consequences they had been booby-trapped with?

Just raising the questions in case you hadn't thought about that yet.

ThinAirDesigns writes: Am I missing the typical "quote" button that bookends text with the quote tags? Can't seem to find one anywhere and it's a pain to type them in.

The board software does have a "Reply with quote" option. But back in 2003 it was decided that its drawbacks outweighed its benefits. Since then it was tried again at least once, and once again it was decided to disable it.

There's even a relevant topic!!! - Reply Quote function button to be disabled.

Anyway, obviously you've figured out how to do it the hard way (which is the only way). There is no formal forum rule, but it has been customary to use the [quote] variation for quoting from outside sources and to use the [qs] "quote shaded" variation for quoting from forum messages. There is also the [qs=name or other text] variation, which attaches an attribute to the quote box (as I did at the top of this message).

In case you didn't already know, there are HTML and dBCode help links to the left of every new message or message edit form. You can also use the "peek" at the bottom of any message, to see how the formatting was done in that message.

Adminnemooseus

Also, the behavior of the 'reply' button often includes quoting the post you are replying to so you don't have to copy and paste everything.

Right. But then people tend to quote far too much. It is better to quote just a minimal amount to establish context. And that seems to work out well. Also the forward and backward links tie replies to earlier message, so often quoting isn't actually needed.

I do think this is some of the best forum software, in terms of usability. But don't tell Percy -- we don't want to over-inflate his ego.

nwr writes: Right. But then people tend to quote far too much. It is better to quote just a minimal amount to establish context. And that seems to work out well. Also the forward and backward links tie replies to earlier message, so often quoting isn't actually needed.

I certainly concur that a forum frustration is the guy who quotes entire 80 line posts covering 12 topics and adds"I agree."

Thanks to all for the forum tutorial (and history). Appreciated.

JB

dwise1 writes: Glenn R. Morton is a practicing geologist and a former young-earth creationist (YEC).

Yes, I found Glenn a few weeks ago through his Demon - so well described.

I learned the hard way that they believe that their faith depends utterly on "creation science" claims being true, such that if the earth is shown to be older than 10,000 years then Scripture would have no meaning

I was discussing this with a friend just a day or so ago. It's hard enough for any fundamentalist to let go of the YEC story, but if you know the 'niche' of the SDAs, they believe that they are the only true church because (among other minutiae) they keep the seventh day as the Sabbath. This they believe is commanded in remembrance of the seventh day of creation. If you let the 7 day creation story go, you lose your entire denomination from the name on down. The SDAs simply can't evolve on that one AT ALL.

A quote from an article in their church periodical "Ministry".

quote:

---

... if we abandon the 6,000 years, then we become vulnerable to the theory of organic evolution, and once evolution is adopted, the Sabbath will be abandoned and the Seventh-day Adventist Church will cease to be. The 6,000 years is the first in a series of dams extending from the head waters of a river to its mouth. If the dam farthest upstream breaks, then the cascading torrent will burst all the other dams along the course of the river.

---

Unlike other denominations, it's quite hard for me to say to these kids "You can accept the truth of an OE and still keep your faith and your church." - because they can't. Contrary to their programming, we all know that there is no reason one must give up faith in a God or the bible as a useful text, but they will HAVE to give up their church if they move away from YEC. From a social structure standpoint, the church is all these kids know -- literally. They've never been to a public school. They don't belong to swim teams or neighborhood basketball teams. They don't go to the YMCA or concerts with other kids. The church IS their life.

To bring my ramble back on point, Bristlecone pines MUST grow multiple rings per year - they HAVE to. RC dating MUST date live seals as 3,000 years old. Varves MUST be created by fast moving water (because that's been proven now). Science is a lie -- it HAS to be a lie. If not, then an entire life structure and value system falls.

My challenge is far more psychological than earth sciences, but I see light and cracks and curiosity.

JB

ThinAirDesigns writes: Science is a lie -- it HAS to be a lie. If not, then an entire life structure and value system falls.

It's interesting that they cling to their belief because they need it to shore up their other beliefs, not because it's The Truth. It's like insisting that the Big Bad Wolf MUST be real because if he wasn't, then Little Red Riding Hood wouldn't be real either.