Feed on Posts or Comments 23 October 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 22 Feb 2012 12:31 am

Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Never Be Taught in the Science Classroom

Here is a very simple explanation for why creationism and intelligent design should never be taught in the science classroom:

Explanation

“We’re not going to have an evolution versus creation debate in this classroom, but it’s going to take me a few minutes to help you guys understand why.

Can anyone tell me what science is?”

(Long wait. Sometimes you have to make them look it up in the dictionary. Most definitions come round to, ‘A way of learning about nature.’)

“Right, it’s a way of learning about nature. By definition, any concept of a god involves the supernatural – that which is outside of nature. So by definition, it’s outside the scope of the topic. We can’t measure divinity. We can’t test divinity. We can’t falsify a hypothesis about divinely inspired creation. We don’t spend a lot of time on world history or diagramming sentences in a biology classroom, and we’re not going to spend a lot of time on creationism either -because it’s not science.

Science is not concerned with what you believe.

It is concerned with what you know – the best model we can construct from the evidence available in the natural world.
Science doesn’t deal with the metaphysical. Some of you will view that as a limitation, and that’s fine. You have to understand the appropriate uses and limitations of any tool you work with.”

You can potentially leave it here.

Or you can delve into ontological versus methodological naturalism, and talk about Karl Popper and the necessity of falsifiable hypotheses….

By teaching the topic this way (in a bit more depth) and having students understand what science is, I’ve had some amazing results.

I once had an extremely religious fundamentalist student who wanted to have a ‘debate’ the first time I said the word ‘evolution’. He was always very insistent on trying to get me to divulge my faith (or lack thereof). I always responded, “If you are ever able to determine what I personally believe, I’ve failed to be sufficiently objective. This is about knowing the material and understanding the models – not about personal beliefs.”

Baby steps.

First, they have to understand that what you are teaching is not a threat to their faith – or they’ll shut down and refuse to ever accept it.

Second, they have to know – academically – what evolution is and what the available evidence for it is. A proper understanding of the definition of evolution and the support for it leads almost inexorably to step three…

Third, once they know, then they tend to believe. They can’t help themselves. (They usually also continue to believe in their creation myths – but at least they can define evolution properly.)

In another comment, the same author explains:

‘Today we’re going to talk about evolution. Before we do, I’m going to ask you a question that you’re not obligated to answer. Just think about it.

Is there anything I could say up here that would ever change your personal beliefs?’

(Rigorous head shaking identifies the most resistant in the crowd.)

‘Good. And I would never want to. I’m not concerned with what you believe. I’m concerned with what you know. Remember when we talked about the definition of science – we’re dealing only with falsifiable hypotheses about the natural world, so it’s within that context that we’re having this discussion. Your beliefs are totally separate.

Now, what have you been told I would tell you in today’s lesson on evolution? Don’t be shy. It could have come from church leaders, it could have come from friends or relatives, it could have come from your parents. Or maybe you don’t know where it came from. But what have you heard about evolution?’

Students: ‘You’re going to try to turn us away from god. / Evolution says there is no god.’

Me: “You will never hear me say a single negative thing about your faith or your religious leaders. Let me repeat that. You will never hear me say a single negative thing about your faith or your religious leaders. Hold me to that.”

Students: ‘Evolution says we came from chimpanzees!!’

Me: “Not true.”

I would calmly answer each of the misconceptions, until students got exasperated. Eventually…

Student: “What is evolution, then?”

Me: “Glad you asked. That’s the topic of today’s discussion.
I just want to ask you one favor.

Like I said, I’m not going to tell you about your faith. Because that’s the business of your religious leaders, and I’m not an expert in their field.

In return, I’m going to ask that you take some time today to listen to an expert on science with an open mind as he talks about science.”

Then I introduce the notion of change over time, and changes in allele frequencies over time, pointing out that that – change in allele frequencies over time – is evolution.

I taught in a rural community, so it was easy to use examples from breeding cattle. The correlation wasn’t 100%, but it was common that the most religious kids also had some experience on the farm.

“If I want to make a lot of money at the cattle auction when I go to sell cattle, which cow do I breed to which bull out of my breeding stock?”

‘The biggest ones!’

“The next generation, is it likely that my animals will be bigger, on average, than they were in the previous generation, if I don’t allow the scrawnier stock to breed?”

“Well, yeah!”

“Based on what we’ve covered in genetics, why do you think that is?”

They end up stating (usually in a roundabout way) that the allele frequencies have changed.

“Do you believe that can happen?”

“Yes!”

“Congratulations. Go home and tell your parents that you believe in evolution. If they’re confused, explain it to them.”

62 Responses to “Why Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Never Be Taught in the Science Classroom”

  1. on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:51 am 1.Mitch said …

    “From goo to you by way of the zoo.” – Frank Peretti[5]

    • According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe — just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.[64]

    • However, scientists don’t really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.[64]

    • The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model of a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! – Wistar Institute, 1966[60]

    • Professor Edwin Conklin observed, “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”[87]

    • Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.[64]

    • Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
    • Scales had to have mutated into hair.
    • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
    • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.[64]
    • It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.[64]

    • Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.[64]

    • Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.[5]

    • Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example: Woodpecker, Giraffe and the beaver.

    For more facts as to why Darwinism is faith and not science go here.

    http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

  2. on 23 Feb 2012 at 3:01 am 2.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Pretty solid tactics. Nice post.

  3. on 23 Feb 2012 at 3:11 am 3.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Mitch your post is pointless and full of crap. “Boeing from a tornado” “Dictionary from an explosion” Really???

    Where is your proof for creationism, since one can be most certain that you follow that delusionary thought process according to your post.

  4. on 23 Feb 2012 at 4:35 am 4.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Mitch said …

    “The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil.”

    The probability of existence for the human individual known as Mitch is less than nil, yet here he is.

  5. on 23 Feb 2012 at 4:42 am 5.Lou (DFW) said …

    1.Mitch said …

    “Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747″

    Why is it theists embrace scientists who they think support their position, but reject the majority of scientists who don’t? Not to mention that Hoyle was more or less the “crackpot” of the scientific community.

  6. on 23 Feb 2012 at 6:49 am 6.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Meanwhile, the evidence for creationism is exactly zero. So, let them play their cherry picking games. This battle was won by science a long time ago. They have nothing more to lose and absolutely no chance of ever winning.

    Ignore them. These faux arguments only serve to give the delusional believers a false sense of relevancy. When they can prove the existence of the talking snake, that’s when we should talk. Until then, their arguments are just a waste of air and time.

  7. on 23 Feb 2012 at 6:33 pm 7.Chris said …

    Interesting article. I only wish that my science teacher had opted to explain things like that to me in the 8th grade where I was nodding along with a good half or so of the other students when he tried to teach us about evolution and some girl said “God created us all.”

    I’ve since come to my senses, but it took a few years.

    This is another good article on the Evolution vs Creationism debate that shares a lot of my own opinions. http://www.trade-schools.net/blog/post/Evolution-vs-Creationism-in-Public-Schools.aspx

  8. on 23 Feb 2012 at 7:40 pm 8.Biff said …

    They have it half right. ID is not religious and nature and should be taught. I know for a fact many schools do teach it and rightfully so. Evidence for design cannot be ignored and remain honest with kids.

  9. on 23 Feb 2012 at 8:13 pm 9.nibb said …

    interesting to mention honesty . Exactly what teaching children your fairy tale isn’t ! We should teach children what we can without all the superstition and let them make their own minds ur when they’re old enough. Face it there is not one shred of evidence for all of the religious beliefs you would like to brain wash them with and it has on place in our schools

  10. on 24 Feb 2012 at 12:10 am 10.Biff said …

    nibb

    Nice sentence structure. What finishing school was it you attended again?

  11. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:24 am 11.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.Biff said …

    “I know for a fact many schools do teach it and rightfully so.”

    Which schools?

    10.Biff said …

    “Nice sentence structure. What finishing school was it you attended again?”

    Hilarious stuff. The scientifically retarded admonishing someone’s grammar, especially someone who claims that atheism is a religion, but ID isn’t religious. ID is creationism disguised, and therefore it’s religious.

  12. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:27 am 12.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Biff where again is the proof for intelligent design?

  13. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:27 am 13.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Biff where again is the proof and/or evidence for intelligent design?

  14. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:45 am 14.DPK said …

    “Evidence for design cannot be ignored ..”

    hahahahaha….. Biff, is your evidence for design the same evidence for god that you never, ever provide? Do you know why Intelligent design is NOT recognized as a scientific theory by ANY mainstream life scientists and evolution is almost universally accepted? It’s because there is overwhelming evidence for evolution and NONE for intelligent design.
    Francis Colins, a christian and leader of the Human Genome Project had this to say,
    “Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant “gaps” in the progressive development of life’s complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now.”

  15. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:01 am 15.Biff said …

    “It’s because there is overwhelming evidence for evolution”

    OK, provide the steps and evidence for man evolving from the great ape.

    I think for myself, so I will need to see the steps and evidence before buying into it.

    Got to remember, science is wrong before- a lot and more skeptics now than ever If you can produce this request, I will agree.

  16. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:45 am 16.DPK said …

    sigh… are you really THAT lazy?
    Start here with the basics… or maybe audit a high school biology course.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    Now, please provide your cited “evidence” for intelligent design.
    Remember, religion has got it wrong before, let’s see, like every time, about let’s see, everything… and there are a lot more skeptics now then ever. If you can produce this request, I will agree.

  17. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:53 am 17.Biffinator said …

    Biff wrote:
    “I know for a fact many schools do teach [Intelligent Design] and rightfully so.”

    Yes, please, Biff, tell us the names of these schools. Please provide evidence for this claim. Better yet, don’t bother telling us. Forward it directly to the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation to save us the time. The courts already covered that. Those schools will be sued and will lose. If you don’t tell us, or them, eventually one of their students will. It’s only a matter of time.

    This process will continue until none of the schools teach Intelligent Design or other creation myths as science, and rightfully so.

  18. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:17 am 18.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.Biff said …

    “I think for myself (as well as Hor, Ben, Crum, Xenon, Asher, etc.), so I will need to see the steps and evidence before buying into it.”

    Then what’s your excuse for believing in ID/creationism?

    Read very carefully – nobody gives a flying damn what you “buying into.” It’s irrelevant that you are “buying into” evolution or ID/creationism. Both are irrelevant to the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god. Until you provide any, those of us who, unlike you, actually do think for ourselves, aren’t “buying into” your belief in an imaginary god.

  19. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:30 am 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.Biff said …

    “Evidence for design cannot be ignored and remain honest with kids.”

    That would be true if there was any such evidence. Even children can understand that. I did. Unfortunately, some people like you never grow beyond what they learned in bible school class, singing Jesus Loves The Little Children Of The World, when in fact millions of children were starving to death.

  20. on 24 Feb 2012 at 5:07 am 20.Slapnuts McGee said …

    I find it comical how these people make their claims of ridiculous religious things and then disappear without providing a shred of credible evidence. Come on people, quit shaming yourselves.

  21. on 24 Feb 2012 at 10:15 am 21.nibb said …

    sorry if my grammar wasn’t up to the high standards usually seen here. I’m surprised if poor sentence structure in this case made any material difference to the point being made …. is biff looking for a diversion?

    since s(he) can’t supply any evidence or defence as to his view that ID is a legitimate subject in our schools, he resorts to diversionary tactics to try and discredit his opponents. Is his argument really so weak, even in his own opinion, that he would need to resort to this?

    Once again, my apologies if my grammar is so poor that it interferes with comprehension.

  22. on 24 Feb 2012 at 12:20 pm 22.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.nibb said …

    “sorry if my grammar wasn’t up to the high standards usually seen here.”

    Don’t worry about it. Grammar misuse helps us identify Hor’s sock-puppets when he doesn’t reveal them with obvious gaffes.

    “Once again, my apologies if my grammar is so poor that it interferes with comprehension.”

    Nothing interferes with their comprehension in the way that blind religious faith does.

  23. on 24 Feb 2012 at 2:23 pm 23.Biff said …

    DPK

    Thanks for the wiki link.

    Let me return the favor.

    http://www.intelligentdesign.org/science.php

    B

  24. on 24 Feb 2012 at 2:58 pm 24.nibb said …

    irony . . . Bit beyond you?

  25. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:11 pm 25.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, “Biff”, why don’t you stop ducking questions and cut to the chase?

    Perhaps, you have nothing to offer so all you do is attack others and attempt the gish-gallop so that you don’t ever have to justify your position. Probably because it’s untenable. No gods, no proof. Seems a fair comparison to me.

    So, prove that you are not just an angry troll bitter because we’ve taken away your dreams of a loving god and a blissful afterlife. Why don’t you tell us what YOU consider to be the most compelling evidence that your god exists. While doing so, tell the attributes and powers this god posses.

    A simple, concise, explanation, can you do it? Here’s your chance for a mass conversion. Go for it.

  26. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:05 pm 26.DPK said …

    Biff, I was tempted to say, “nice dodge” put sadly, it wasn’t even that. It was a pretty obvious dodge.
    Tell us, why won’t you answer my questions? I answered yours.
    Gee, let’s look at the sources in your list of supposed “evidence” for intelligent design:
    William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Philosophy???
    Stephen C. Meyer is director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Discovery Institute?? Say no more. Also.. no degree or accreditation in science, only philosophy.
    Third link 404 error. Could it be it was so discredited it was taken down??
    Berlinksi?? Really? A cranky blow hard who offers nothing in place of “well, it can’t be that…” in order to sell books to simpletons like you.
    Need we go on? Why are there no biologists or life scientist in your list? In other words, people who actually know what they are talking about and don’t argue against scientific evidence on philosophical grounds? To my jaded western mind, facts trounce philosophy 20 to 1.
    If you are too lazy to do the reading, perhaps you could watch a video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ

  27. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:12 pm 27.Biff said …

    “Tell us, why won’t you answer my questions? I answered yours.”

    Then please provide a link to it. I’m too busy to play games with you.

    Stop your appeal to authority nonsense and give the steps asked for with supporting evidence please.

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

  28. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:26 pm 28.DPK said …

    Seriously? That nonsense again? That all you got Biff… 1st that’s not evidence, a list of name.
    2nd google “The List of Steves” and see where your silly list falls in your appeal to authority argument.
    Then go take a bath, you’ll need it after you crap your pants.

  29. on 24 Feb 2012 at 9:26 pm 29.Megabyte said …

    DPK you just said

    “1st that’s not evidence, a list of name.”

    But in #26 you said

    “let’s look at the sources” and proceed to list names

    Your evidence for human evolution is wiki link? You guys who believe something because a guy with letters after his name are a scary bunch. Try looking at the supposed evidence and then think, is this really evidence or an assumption? You will find you have been duped. Don’t ask others to think for you.

  30. on 24 Feb 2012 at 10:05 pm 30.DPK said …

    Megabyte, please read and think before you open your mouth.
    Biff asked for evidence that supported the idea of evolution via natural selection. This is a rather lame request as the world is FULL of information about one of the most widely and universally accepted scientific theories in existence, so I provided a wiki-link to get him started. It is not my job to spoon feed him information a high school student knows and understands.
    Then I asked for HIM to provide me evidence for intelligent design. What HE provided was an index of articles that basically said “Well, the evidence for intelligent design is just that we don’t like evolution and we can’t think of anything better” written largely by a bunch of theologians and philosophy majors… no one with credentials in the life sciences. No surprise there.
    So, my “list of names” wasn’t offered as “evidence” as you suggest, it was offered to discredit Biff’s supposed “evidence”. I suppose the distinction was lost on you, eh?
    “You guys who believe something because a guy with letters after his name are a scary bunch.”
    As opposed to you, who believe something written by primitives who thought gods and angels spoke to them in their dreams??? oooookayyyyy……..
    You are just tooooo funny.
    Hey, I’ll even take the word of a theist like Francis Colins on the subject before I’d take the word of a 2000 year old book of myths and fairy tales.
    Megabyte… let me ask you? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor, or a priest?

  31. on 24 Feb 2012 at 10:17 pm 31.Megabyte said …

    DPK

    I go to the MD when I am sick. This is science, it is proven and it works.

    I accept the parts of evolution that have been proven. Dogs produce other dogs with a variance in their genetic information. It is proven, it works and is measurable.

    I do believe in a designer like the Francis Collins you purport. So you are a theistic evolutionist? I can possibly buy into that theory since in order for man to evolve as claimed by many, only a grand creator could make it happen.

    That is ESSENTIALLY Intelligent Design DPK thus the name.

    Where do these guys come from? Hopefully not the US.

  32. on 24 Feb 2012 at 10:56 pm 32.alex said …

    “Hopefully not the US”

    excuse me? i hope you’re not from the planet.

  33. on 24 Feb 2012 at 11:35 pm 33.DPK said …

    and yet… Dr. Colins said:
    ““Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant “gaps” in the progressive development of life’s complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now.”

    So who’s right, you, or he? hmmmmm
    Biff, on the other hand, believes that ID should be taught in science class because the “evidence for design” is compelling. But where is the evidence for design? If it’s so compelling, you should be able to present something more than philosophy. Dr Colins says, “I do not see any significant “gaps” in the progressive development of life’s complex structures that would require divine intervention. ” So where is the evidence then that you say, in rebuttal to him, requires a supernatural designer.
    Wake up and smell the coffee… the fact that you don’t like evolution for philosophical or theological reasons isn’t evidence that it isn’t true.

  34. on 25 Feb 2012 at 4:40 am 34.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Still waiting on that evidence for creationism…

  35. on 25 Feb 2012 at 9:50 am 35.Gir said …

    Completely explains why evolution is wrong

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

  36. on 25 Feb 2012 at 1:52 pm 36.Scott said …

    Gir

    Thanks for that cartoon. I’m going to print that out and use it.

  37. on 25 Feb 2012 at 5:17 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.Gir said …

    “Completely explains why evolution is wrong”

    Great! Now explain why you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

  38. on 25 Feb 2012 at 5:18 pm 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Scott said …

    “Thanks for that cartoon. I’m going to print that out and use it.”

    It would make excellent toilet paper for you, especially considering how full of it you are.

  39. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:59 pm 39.DPK said …

    Well, I certainly agree that the comic book format is a very good choice for the mentality of anyone likely to find it convincing. I recommend you print it out and go around your neighborhood door to door. Let us know how that works out.
    D

  40. on 25 Feb 2012 at 9:02 pm 40.Great Gir In Boots said …

    35.Gir said …

    “Completely explains why evolution is wrong”

    What you meant to say here, actually, is “completely illustrates how a straw man can be superficially convincing to people unwilling to investigate more deeply.”

    It was a great cartoon for that point. We should probably all print it out and share it, if possible in science classrooms–where we can address each of the ridiculous points raised by the protagonist (creationist student) to our students so they can clearly see why rubbish like what appears in publications of the Creation Science museum does not qualify as science. Almost anyone that’s read even one university-level biology textbook can destroy essentially every point there. Anyone that’s read an elementary physics textbook can deal with the “gluon problem,” which was disingenuously raised in the cartoon to a biologist, not a physicist, who would have pooped all over Creationist Freddy there.

    I get abnormally sick of the creationist diversionary schtick of “address this.. now this.. now this.. now this.. etc.” until they hit upon something the person they are talking to can’t address, at which point the stuff a God of the Gaps in there and use it to jump the non sequitur straight to “Jesus Saves!”

    Get your creationism in a real scientific journal (no, kiddos, the “Answers Research Journal” is not a real scientific journal–it’s a total fraud) by presenting real science about it and people would listen to it. Sit there and ramble on and on about how evolution isn’t true and then play in a false-dichotomy sandbox to declare your theology, and you get nowhere. Even if someone were to disprove evolution (which won’t happen now… that’s why it’s called a theory, in fact), it wouldn’t contribute a shred of positive evidence for your religious claims.

    Speaking of those evidences for religious claims… weren’t some of you (Biff?) going to give us some?

  41. on 25 Feb 2012 at 9:22 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Completely explains why evolution is wrong

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

    Today I learned that God holds the nucleus of each atom together with his almighty power. The strong and weak nuclear forces have nothing to do with it. Praise Jesus!

    Can a Christian explain to me the last panels of the cartoon?

    “Right! Jesus came to earth to shed His blood and die on the cross for you, to wash away your sins, so you could have an eternal life with Him.”

    How does someone else’s death have any affect on the “sins” I might have committed? What does blood have to do with it? Why are Christians so obsessed with blood?

  42. on 25 Feb 2012 at 10:00 pm 42.Slapnuts McGee said …

    That comic has to be a joke, right? Seriously.

    Little Billy’s arguing points were all reached by SCIENCE (regardless of whether they are true or untrue). But I am sure the author of the comic doesn’t care about THAT, does (s)he? The bible is the only one and true word of anything and everything!

    “The first five are believed by faith.” Wrong again Little Billy. Faith and science are two different worlds apart.

    Again, where is the evidence for creationism?

  43. on 25 Feb 2012 at 11:46 pm 43.DPK said …

    Here’s another from the same site:
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1053/1053_01.asp?Store=True

  44. on 26 Feb 2012 at 12:34 am 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.Slapnuts McGee said …

    “That comic has to be a joke, right?”

    No, this the joke:

    35.Gir said …

    “Completely explains why evolution is wrong”

    And this the punchline:

    36.Scott said …

    “Thanks for that cartoon. I’m going to print that out and use it.”

  45. on 26 Feb 2012 at 1:05 am 45.ReligionIsStupid said …

    You can save yourselves some time, and theists some embarrassment, here

    Let’s get back on track. Even if that tract was true it has no bearing on making any other argument correct.

    So, let’s have it folks. Please present the evidence for creationism and, of course, this imaginary god of yours.

  46. on 26 Feb 2012 at 4:30 am 46.3D said …

    Overall a great summation, but I had to take issue with this line:

    “First, they have to understand that what you are teaching is not a threat to their faith – or they’ll shut down and refuse to ever accept it.”

    The problem is that it IS a threat to their faith. The Abrahamic religions rely on people believing absurd things in order to maintain their faith. A working knowledge of the scientific method and critical thinking are very much a threat to maintaining faith in religion.

    This is why so many people stop being religious after entering college.

    If I understand the author and what he is getting at, he is saying that they can do the coursework and still be religious at the end of it, and this speech is intended to get them to put aside their compartmentalized faith-based beliefs in order to do their homework. That’s fine, but in the long run science and religion can never really coexist. Either you have to ignore science, or you have to ignore the parts of the religion that don’t make any sense.

  47. on 26 Feb 2012 at 5:08 am 47.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Let’s get back on track. Even if that tract was true it has no bearing on making any other argument correct.”

    Correct. We’ve been over and over this before. Discussions about evolution and morality are nothing but diversions presented by theists to avoid discussing the fact that they have no evidence for their imaginary god.

    That makes theists intellectually dishonest. If there actually is an Intelligent Designer, then he would be most ashamed and embarrassed because of them. Not to mention all of the rest of his poor designs.

  48. on 26 Feb 2012 at 5:09 am 48.Anonymous said …

    > or you have to ignore the parts of the religion that don’t make any sense.

    What part of Christianity makes any sense, save for the obvious stuff like “don’t kill each other” that any third grader figures out on his own?

  49. on 26 Feb 2012 at 5:16 am 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.DPK said …

    “Here’s another from the same site:”

    HEY! They omitted the part about those evil spooks who dressed like catholic priests and molested children.

  50. on 26 Feb 2012 at 5:22 am 50.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.Lou (DFW) said …

    8.Biff said …

    “I know for a fact many schools do teach it and rightfully so.”

    “Which schools?”

    As usual, Hor’s sock-puppet Biff doesn’t answer a simple question about a “fact” that he claims personal knowledge, and morphs into another sock-puppet.

  51. on 26 Feb 2012 at 3:56 pm 51.DPK said …

    “HEY! They omitted the part about those evil spooks who dressed like catholic priests and molested children.”

    I wonder why Jesus didn’t protect all of THOSE kids like he protected the kids during the tornado in Joplin??? That Jesus is a funny guy, huh?

  52. on 26 Feb 2012 at 6:41 pm 52.MegaByte said …

    DPK

    You asked for evidence of ID and I just laughed. Give me evidence you have a mind! No seriously like you said above. Its not my job to spoon feed you things a HS student knows. Buy a book that, hold on now, Counters your presuppositions. That is what those who desire to learn do.

  53. on 26 Feb 2012 at 7:49 pm 53.DPK said …

    I couldn’t help but notice that, as usual, you just laughed, but also didn’t provide any evidence either.
    I wonder why that is? Got anything other than a comic book full of factual errors, racist illustrations, and nonsensical conclusions?
    Didn’t think so.
    Do you think there is a reason that courts have ruled, time and time and time again, that ID is NOT science? Lemme guess, it’s part of some giant atheist conspiracy to deny you of your constitutional right to cram your personal religious beliefs down everyone else’s throats, right?
    No one is demanding we teach evolution in bible study, why do you want to teach creationism in science class?

  54. on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:45 pm 54.Lou (DFW) said …

    52.MegaByte said …

    “You asked for evidence of ID and I just laughed.”

    Naturally, because you have no evidence of ID, no more than you do for your imaginary god.

    “Give me evidence you have a mind! No seriously like you said above.”

    Poor Hor, He really can’t disguise himself.

    “Its [sic] not my job to spoon feed you things a HS student knows.”

    Yet you reject the fact of evolution.

    “Buy a book that, hold on now, Counters [sic] your presuppositions. That is what those who desire to learn do.”

    For example, the bible?

  55. on 28 Feb 2012 at 8:46 am 55.Trx said …

    Can someone enlighten me please? I have 2 questions:
    1. If life started from different chemicals coming together, where did these chemicals come from in the first place?
    2. If mammals evolved from reptiles, have ‘transitional’ fossils been already found? (i.e. fossils of species with partial features occuring in successive order until the first actual mammal appeared)

    Happy if U could help. Thanks U all…

  56. on 28 Feb 2012 at 9:30 am 56.Anonymous said …

    Trx 55,

    Evolution of mammals:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34eKAm48LfM

    http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/earlymammals.htm

  57. on 28 Feb 2012 at 10:44 am 57.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Now “trx”, what does the above answer have to do with creationism and ID being taught as science?

  58. on 28 Feb 2012 at 12:39 pm 58.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Neil deGrasse Tyson on ID

  59. on 28 Feb 2012 at 1:49 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    55.Trx said …

    “Can someone enlighten me please? I have 2 questions:”

    I smell a sock-puppet.

  60. on 28 Feb 2012 at 5:41 pm 60.DPK said …

    1. If life started from different chemicals coming together, where did these chemicals come from in the first place?
    Hydrogen (and to a lesser extent helium) were created (or perhaps released??) in the big bang.
    Heavier elements were formed from hydrogen and helium in the cores of exploding stars. Then the heavier elements combine to form compounds…… didn’t you ever study chemistry?

  61. on 28 Feb 2012 at 6:39 pm 61.Asher said …

    Trx,

    The answer from science are as follows.

    1. We don’t know where the chemicals came from. We don’t even know how the first amino acid formed much less a cell.

    2.In no scenario do we have a series of transitional fossils leading to any mammal. It is all speculation and theoretical based on microevolution which can be observed and verified.

  62. on 28 Feb 2012 at 8:36 pm 62.Lou (DFW) said …

    61.Asher said … (SOCK PUPPET)

    Trx, (SOCK PUPPET)

    “The answer from science are as follows.”

    Now that you answered his questions, please answer this one – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply