Todd

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Were you able to see the recent special "Evolution"? Or do you not get PBS shows up there in the frozen north?

I was curious of what you thought about their decision to not include any Creationist arguments (they were mentioned, but not given equal time). The reasoning was that this was a straight-forward dramatization of Darwin and a documentary about the theory's past and present, and that Creationism did not offer a single supportable argument, and was therefore not credible enough to give any screen time.

I was wondering if you (or any Creationist who saw the show) felt that was fair?

 

[Purple Haze]

He was watching wrestling.

Dixon, I always find out about these documentaries after the fact and I miss them. Was that Ken Burns "Jazz" documentary any good. Been meaning to search that one out.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I saw bits and pieces of that, and I felt that, in sections, it was good. They seemed to spend a great deal of time on individual artists, like Louis Armstrong, which is right and proper, but given the amount of material to cover I'm not sure if the documentary was long enough, if you know what I mean.

I saw the "American Presidents" documentary a little while ago, and didn't enjoy it all that much. I found that "Seeing" the actors reading the words of the various Presidents to be distracting. Watching some young actors who looks nothing like Harry Truman read Harry Turmans words was weird.

I'm sure "Evolution" will be on again. I thought it was exceptionally well done, though I think I'd find an actual Evolutionist/Creationsit debate not only more interesting, but more useful in terms of education.

 

[Purple Haze]

Where are you gonna find an educated creationist?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

LOL

You'd be surprised. Many of their arguments are well researched and lucidly presented. They're all bad science with tremendous mathematical errors and full of out of context Origin of Species quotes, but their not raving-lunaticy or stupid sounding.

In fact, I think the reason some school systems give Creationism any truck at all is because of the reasonableness of Creations "Scientist" arguments.

I've been through a number of those arguments (with Todd and others), and no matter how many times I explain to them how they've been adding X to Z when they should have been multiplying A and B, their faith endures. The NEED to forward Genesis, and therefore God's ascendancy, is paramount to the faithful, and gets in the way of critical thinking, which is merely sloppy, not neccessarily uneducated.

 

[Azwed]

Some group at my university is having some Creation "sciencentists" come and give a presentation(read brainwashing) on creation and how it is right.

One of the preview areas in our studend center has lots of info about it. It is full of quotes from "Origin of Species" most of them are badly out of context and chopped up as well. Then there are 3 or 4 more quotes all from the same Women. Sally something. THey say she is a Doctor but don't say where she teaches, if at all, or what she is a Doctor of.

One of the quotes goes something like this:

No matter what anyone says about evolution it is a fact that all the evidence we have found to support it could fit in a single coffin.

Another one:
It remains a fact that even with all the fossils we have found there are still more sciencentists then fossils.



There are so other ones to, but you get the idea.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Azwed]

Yeah i like that CB. I can see their argument now.

Meanwhile in the offices of the Michigan legislature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must teach creationism because it deserves equal time alongside evolution.

But sir every religion has its own form of creationism. We can't teach them all nothing would get done in the class.

What no one cares about those "other" religons almost everyone in this state is a good christian and we can just sneak this past
their noses.

*blamo* Super heroin CB bursts through the door

Oh no you won't she yells.

I have over 100 letters with thousands of signatures agianst your bill. Your plan is foiled.


No no no no the right wing declares not again foiled by a mere minority. Damn you CB damn you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tune in next week boys and girls when CB challenges the evil Lord Ashcroft to a duel.

 

[Todd]

Nope missed it but if its like any good PBS show it will be rerun 70 times a month, so I will try to catch it.

As for the fairness factor, I never expect Television to give fundamental biblical christianity a fair shake at any topic.

As you said only in the reverse, Media loves to take the bible and quote it out of context or with out explaination.

Example: Watching a TLC program on Holidays took this paassage

Zechariah 2:6 ¶ Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

and said see here is the foundation of Santa Claus founded in Christianity.

Santa is from the north, god calls a man out from the north
Santa goes hoho the man goes hoho, the man is santa
the man is to go to the four winds NSEW.
Santa goes all over the world NSEW.

The guy sayiogn this was saying in a serious tone, exactly as if the christians and thier bible was all responcible for the santa myth

 

[Thumper]

YESSSSSS

There is a Santa Claus!

I fully expect to find April and Isabella and Cheyenne and Desert Amazon and Kitten Eyes and Simply Southern and every other female on this BB (I am all inclusive) under my tree....naked...

I have been a good boy...relatively speaking

I saw the last half of it Dixon...it was the one with the actors right...playing Darwin and others?

I liked it...

Right down the highway in northern Kentucky(where else?), the creationists are building a museum/teaching center entitled "Answers in Genesis" complete with the notion that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind...

Actually they do to this very day...we just call them Republicans

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Name of the show? Sounds far-fetched. Are you sure he wasn't speaking tongue-in-cheek?

And watch out for generalizations like "The Media" does something. "The Media" isn't a single organization with a set agenda (as opposed to "the Creation Science movement). Be specific.

I felt the show was fair as far as its goals were concerned...to present a history of the theory, and show how it has been supported and viewed today. I don't think it "ignored" Creation (in fact, it's discussed all the time by Darwin and his contemporaries), it just isn't given "equal time" as a viable theory, and I found that proper.

But I do see your point (often) about how many programs dillute or outright get wrong Biblical passages and basic ideas about Christian life.

In the interest of speaking clearly about issues --- I've read the Bible -- have you read Origin of Species?

 

[Calamity Jane]

Tune in next week boys and girls when CB challenges the evil Lord Ashcroft to a duel.

*grabbing some popcorn to watch the duel*

I grew up attending Kansas schools... the very ones that now don't have to teach Evolution... it's appalling to me that any school district thinks that a child can receive a well rounded education if they're receiving one in which a fundamental scientific theory is not presented. I'm not asking anyone to believe the theory (though I think you're a little loco if you don't)... but at least present it to the students!

i'm no rocket scientist, but even when i was in grade school, i knew enough to know that there is always more than one side to a story... and sometimes you have to seek out that other side all on your own... it's called getting your own education. since creationism has no place in the public schools (unless like CB said, they want to teach all the creation myths), then evolution should be taught and it's up to PARENTS to teach their children the other side of the coin.

I suppose the next debate will be about whether to teach that the civil war was only abut slavery... Oh, wait, they already do that.

 

[Guru]

 

[Todd]

In the interest of speaking clearly about issues --- I've read the Bible -- have you read Origin of Species?

Yes, as an athiest it was one of my, for the lack of a better term, Bibles.

I was always quite amazed at the difference between darwin's Darwinism versus the Darwinism as presented in schools in my high school years 90-93 unfortunately I haven't sat in class in the last 8 years so it may of changed again.

 

[Azwed]

I suppose the next debate will be about whether to teach that the civil war was only abut slavery... Oh, wait, they already do that.

Hmhh back when I was in HS we learned about the economic/cultural issues involved in the Civil war. This was in the normal HS american History class and the AP class i took senior year. That was only 4 years ago. I hope things have not changed that much. hmhhh well I did go to HS in VA maybe that was part of the reason.

 

[Todd]

Name of the show? Sounds far-fetched. Are you sure he wasn't speaking tongue-in-cheek?

I don't recall at the moment but knowing TLC it will be rerun to death. The guy that spoke that statement was one of the head honchos from your favorite organizations The Skeptical Inquiror{sp}. Hes a larger man but not fat balding but not completely bald and a greying beard and glasses. He represents TSI on all the TLc shows that bash anything Christianity.


Side Note: Although he seems to give some minor acceptability other world religions, but then again most of those shows do that. On one hand bash christianity yet with the other hand praise and coffle and nuture up the possibilities of the other reilgions. Hmmmmm, thiking that over some more.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Just a note -- The Skeptical Inquirer goes out of its way to NOT support any bashers of religion, so please be careful whom you indict. In fact, they don't even bash believers in the occult, but rather expect extraordinary claims to be met with extraordianry scrutiny. Like most Skeptics in the world (including me) they would dearly love to find proof of God, precognition, ESP and leprachauns, and we're unwilling to accept the bad methodoliges presented by the clergy, the psychotic and the fakirs.

I saw most of the second part of Evolution yesterday. There was much more about the Creationists this time (though, again, ther show focused more on the people and less on explaining in great detail the mathematical arguments the Creationists use).

Most fascinating was an American University debate (in the midwest somewhere) about giving Evolution more equal time in the Biology department. Fascinating because this was a Christian University, and, you know what? I don't have a problem with a Christian University ignoring Evolution. People choose to go there, after all, and as long as they don't take any Federal funding, well, this IS a free country after all. (I do think, however, that graduating seniors who leave a University that gave Genesis and Noah's Flood any real credibility would have a hard time finding a job.)

The professors, interestingly enough, must sign a paper saying that they support the Adam and Eve beginnings of mankind, so the professors are unable to engage in debate on campus. The students, therefore, brought the debate forward. Good Chrisitans who, like good skeptics, were sinply looking for more information and were unwilling to accept the dogma they learned as children as the last word.

Another segment dealt with a high school class that wanted Creationism to be taught alongside Evolution. They went to a school board meeting with a petition. They were bright, lucid,a nd impressive (and wore t-shirts quoting the First Amendment Clause regarding Congress and Religion). They were in no way enemies of Evolution, but merely wanted "both sides of the coin" to be represented.

The School Board listened politely, and then informed them of something that their science teachers have been telling them for years -- a high school is happy to introduce any theories on the origins of man that meet the scientific criteria. Evolution meets the criteria. Creationsim doesn't. It's really sad that bright, educated seniors in high school STILL don't understand what the criteria for "science" is.

Creationism is not the "other side of the coin". It's an entirely different coin without any biological value -- it's the slug of scientific currency.

 

[Cirrus]

Don't get me started on evolution. Really, don't. But since you have...

Creation is entirely possible, since science has not yet been able to synthesize life. But that is the point the 2 branch drastically off at.

The whole point of science is falsification. You prove an idea by trying to prove it wrong. If it cannot be proven wrong, then it is true. The thing with Creationism, is that it's impossible to argue it. "Where did life begin," ask a creationist. "Because God created it". "What about Cro-Magnon man; Neanderthal, etc? That's clearly evolution." The creationist will reply that evolution is God's plan.

The same thing is true if I were to say that you're all posting on this forum because I will it, or computers were invented because I willed it. There is NO SCIENTIFIC WAY to disprove that. Creationism is a cop out.

And Todd, I sincerely doubt you've ever read Origin of Species. I know several PhDs that can't get through it cover to cover...instead, they read key parts. The language is so antiquated it's very difficult to follow. Darwin illustrated his points by example, and on one point, there can be hundreds of them. Skim it, don't read it. I doubt you've even done that, Todd.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Hmhh back when I was in HS we learned about the economic/cultural issues involved in the Civil war. This was in the normal HS american History class and the AP class i took senior year. That was only 4 years ago. I hope things have not changed that much. hmhhh well I did go to HS in VA maybe that was part of the reason.

Like I said, I went to high school in Kansas. We learned all through school that the civil war (or, my personal favorite, the war of northern aggression) was about slavery, pure and simple. It wasn't until my junior year that there was another viewpoint presented. and that teacher was almost fired because he refused to use the 'approved textbook'.

here (in missouri) the war is presented in an economical light, which i believe is much more accurate. it's weird how 10 miles and a river changes the historical outlook.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Side Note: Although he seems to give some minor acceptability other world religions, but then again most of those shows do that. On one hand bash christianity yet with the other hand praise and coffle and nuture up the possibilities of the other reilgions. Hmmmmm, thiking that over some more.

Why is it that disagreeing with Christianity is considered 'bashing'? I've had people who haven't bothered to learn a single thing about any religion at all (other than their own, if that) tell me i'm going to hell for my beliefs... that i'm a satan worshiper, that i'm inherently evil because i don't accept christ as my savior. and THEY would think that they're just passing along the 'truth'.

Keep thinking it over Todd... most Christians would have us believe that there is only one road that takes us to our destination. The other religions are there for those of us who don't need tour guides.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The whole point of science is falsification. You prove an idea by trying to prove it wrong. If it cannot be proven wrong, then it is true.

Well, no. I understand what you're trying to say, but as the whole idea of what "science" actually is is behind the whole debate over what meets the criteria for biology study, we shouldn't generalize too much about "the point of science".

Just because you can't prove something wrong doens't mean you've finished the scientific method. You also have to prove your theories as well as possible, and be able to support that proof, and hold it up to scrutiny -- and the proof has to be both repeatable and testable.

As I said, any High School science teacher (many of whom are Chrisitans who believe God created man) will tell you that Evolution meets this criteria extremely well. Not only doesn't creationism do well with this criteria, it doesn't even come close.

Also interesting in the special was the newfound ability of scientists to observe evolution working by examining the various mutations of the AIDS virus. I won't go into it all here, but I found that whole section fascinating.

Also intriguing was the section regarding the human eye. Creationists have long looked upon the human eye, and astonishingly perfect and complex organ, as proof that humans could not have been fashioned by a progression of chance mutations, but had to have been created whole cloth. The human eye, they say, is proof of design.

The special went on to lucidly explain how a human eye could evolve in a few million years, and how each of the progressions still exist somewhere in nature. Very interesting.

 

[Young Knave]

Just a note -- The Skeptical Inquirer goes out of its way to NOT support any bashers of religion, so please be careful whom you indict. In fact, they don't even bash believers in the occult, but rather expect extraordinary claims to be met with extraordianry scrutiny. Like most Skeptics in the world (including me) they would dearly love to find proof of God, precognition, ESP and leprachauns, and we're unwilling to accept the bad methodoliges presented by the clergy, the psychotic and the fakirs.

I saw most of the second part of Evolution yesterday. There was much more about the Creationists this time (though, again, ther show focused more on the people and less on explaining in great detail the mathematical arguments the Creationists use).

Most fascinating was an American University debate (in the midwest somewhere) about giving Evolution more equal time in the Biology department. Fascinating because this was a Christian University, and, you know what? I don't have a problem with a Christian University ignoring Evolution. People choose to go there, after all, and as long as they don't take any Federal funding, well, this IS a free country after all. (I do think, however, that graduating seniors who leave a University that gave Genesis and Noah's Flood any real credibility would have a hard time finding a job.)

The professors, interestingly enough, must sign a paper saying that they support the Adam and Eve beginnings of mankind, so the professors are unable to engage in debate on campus. The students, therefore, brought the debate forward. Good Chrisitans who, like good skeptics, were sinply looking for more information and were unwilling to accept the dogma they learned as children as the last word.

Another segment dealt with a high school class that wanted Creationism to be taught alongside Evolution. They went to a school board meeting with a petition. They were bright, lucid,a nd impressive (and wore t-shirts quoting the First Amendment Clause regarding Congress and Religion). They were in no way enemies of Evolution, but merely wanted "both sides of the coin" to be represented.

The School Board listened politely, and then informed them of something that their science teachers have been telling them for years -- a high school is happy to introduce any theories on the origins of man that meet the scientific criteria. Evolution meets the criteria. Creationsim doesn't. It's really sad that bright, educated seniors in high school STILL don't understand what the criteria for "science" is.

Creationism is not the "other side of the coin". It's an entirely different coin without any biological value -- it's the slug of scientific currency.

Yes, its very simple, really. The supernatural has no place in a science classroom. Miracles, supreme beings, etc. are not valid scientific explanations for anything. Science looks for natural explanations for such things, tries to explain them in terms of the physical world. It's the very essence of science, what it's all about. Introducing supernatural events into a science classroom would be to take a step back in the direction of the Dark Ages.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Yes, which is why the terms "Special Creation" and "Creation Science" have been created. The Creationists and Fundamentalists know they will never get the "Designer" model of creation into the classrooms via theology, so they are attempting to present themselves as "alternative" scientists. They're staying away from the supernatural altogether, and employing mathematical models and debate rhetoric, trying (quite honestly, I think) to look at Creationism scientifically.

Unfortunately every Creation Science argument presented has been put through the mill of scientific scrutiny (the same mill, by the way, which Evolution had to go through) and not one of their arguments has held water. In fact, they all bespeak a serious misunderstanding not only of the scientific process, but of remedial math.

This is one of those "I don't understand why this is an issue" issues. The idea that Creationsim doesn't belong in a science classroom seems like a no-brainer. Unfortunately the No-Brainers of this world keep bringing it up.

 

[Young Knave]

How do you stay away from the supernatural completely if you are a creationist? Their view of how things happened comes from the bible after all. Even if you mix in some bad mathematics and scientific jargon, it doesn't change that. The body of evidence and facts that we have show that all the worlds species appeared gradually through time. It's overwhelming, incontrovertable. There is no debate here, no other side to be presented. We could just as well give equal time to the flat earth society for an "alternate theory" about the shape of the earth(and the Bible does claim at some point that the earth is flat, doesn't it?). I mean, these people think that dinosaurs and humans inhabited the earth at the same time! It's embarassing that our current president is one of these people, if you ask me.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

It's more complex than that. They don't ignore the "supernatural", they simply use other words for it, like "Special Creation". And they point out precedents for relgious education, like the fact that the Declaration of Independence mentions that the Founding Father rely upon "Providence", and argue (correctly, I think) that Jefferson, Adams, et. al. never meant for God to be excluded from the American Government. However, that's where their reasoning stops, because Jefferson, Adams, et. al. also made provisions that the government should not be able to define or sanction the character of God (which is where we get the separation of chruch and state).

In other words, they're not ignoring the supernatural, they're hoping to argue it down to the word "natural". Ttheir argument ultimately comes down to the educttional institutionalizaiton of what you'd call the "supernatural", but which they see, simply, as God.

But they know that that line of attack won't work. They're trying very hard to play within the system. By putting the word "Science" after "Creation" they're hoping to put Creationism on equal footing with Evolution. But it's like trying to put Astrology on equal footing with Astronomy. They aren't equal, not under a microscope.

At risk here is the very nature of the mechanisms we tell our children to use when studying everything from an amoeba to a nebula. What methodologies are acceptable to employ when making conclusions about the nature of the cosmos? Right now we use the process of science (which was invented by the Ionians and has worked for centuries) -- observation, hypothesis, theory, experimentation, repetition, testability and conclusion -- and not the process of faith -- if there's enough evidence and the Bible supports it then that's enough.