|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2007 : 03:38:21
|
This is for the younger folks amongst us. They're the ones that would find it the most useful, although some of our not-so-young creationists could benefit from it.
So, my lovely children, do you sometimes get writing assignments that do not agree with your YEC beliefs? Are your teachers a gang of evolution-faithful, potential Nazis that sneer at the Garden of Eden and find the Great Noachian Flood an excuse for hilarity? Do you despair of ever getting a decent grade in science class because your writing, however turgid with Old Testament references, are arbitrarily dismissed as "unscientific" and "arrant nonsense?"
Yes, I can see from your bitter, scowling faces that you have faced it all and more, and that's ok. I understand. You need a little help and I am going to give it to you. Here, from none other than Answers in Genesis, are instructions on how to weasel through an essay: Every school year, students wanting to do a paper on ‘Creation vs. Evolution' contact Answers in Genesis for our advice and insights. In reply, we share the following points with our studious enquirers.
General advice in writing your paper
If you are assigned a specific topic, please be sure to stick to the topic given. For example, if your set topic is ‘antibiotics', then it is worth explaining antibiotic resistance and why this is not an example of particles-to-people evolution because no new information is ever generated. But it would not be appropriate to discuss religion vs. science or the age of the earth in such an essay. Or, in a report about rock formations, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss evidence of catastrophic formation of the rocks, but not the evolutionary basis of Nazism.
If you have not been assigned a specific topic, please be aware of the following. Because the ‘Creation vs. Evolution' issue covers a wide range of areas, it is too broad to be dealt with adequately in one paper. Therefore, we suggest choosing one aspect of this debate to focus on—particularly, an area you may find interesting.
Do not say ‘evolution is just a theory'. While you probably mean ‘evolution is unproven', the problem with calling evolution ‘a theory' is that scientists use the word differently from laymen. A ‘theory' in science means a well-substantiated explanation of data. The evolution conjecture should not be called a ‘theory', because this gives it unwarranted respectability by association with the Theory of Relativity, Newton's Theory of Gravity, the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes, etc. All these theories have strong experimental support (although Newton's theory has been augmented by Einstein's). In contrast, evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support.
|
And so forth; see how easy it is if you give it only a little thought?
Now I realize that thinking is hard work, but you must do some in order to get through your education. Afterward, you can give it up altogether; it will no longer be necessary as long as you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Unless, of course, you get into or start up an organization such as the esteemed AiG. Then you might be required to think just a bit as you write definitive works such as the one we've just looked at.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 10/16/2007 06:40:26
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 06:22:52 [Permalink]
|
"evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support."
Does the Theory Of Evolution say anything regarding life coming from non-living organisms? In my ignorance I thought Evolution dealt with already living organisms and how the best adapted survived and reproduced passing their genetic load to the offspring. |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 06:46:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by perrodetokio
"evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support."
Does the Theory Of Evolution say anything regarding life coming from non-living organisms? In my ignorance I thought Evolution dealt with already living organisms and how the best adapted survived and reproduced passing their genetic load to the offspring.
|
Yours is the correct ignorance. The mentioned ignorance in the article is a creationist twisting of the facts outright lie that they must tell ad nauseum because if they don't, then they have to deal with biological evolution as it really is, and they have no irrefutable argument against it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/16/2007 06:50:11 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/16/2007 : 08:04:57 [Permalink]
|
| Or, in a report about rock formations, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss evidence of catastrophic formation of the rocks, but not the evolutionary basis of Nazism. |
I wanted to make some comment on this but I am left speechless! 
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 08:07:36 [Permalink]
|
A fine primer for budding pious liars. Thanks for making us aware of this, Filthy!
That article is a key to understanding specifically the Ken Hamm/AiG style of Creationist lying, but it also has applications for other styles of prevarication.
Kent Hovind, for example, could have improved his bullshit presentation greatly by heeding some of the cautions and caveats found in this article. But Kent's problem is that he is a stupid man. Kent himself is as much a credophile as a pious liar himself. He made the astounding mistake of not only collecting lies, but believing them (as with his tax "theories").
Another example is the Discovery Institute. Though the Wedge Document shows DI was founded to promote Dominionism by sneaking Creationism into science, ID proponents have often been too divorced from science itself to recognize when they are taking a tactical position on an issue that is indefensible (ie, the supposed impossibility of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.)
Probably because he knows he's lying, Hamm is wiser. He's more agile on his feet than either the Piltdown class of YECs like Hovind who collect shiny fake evidence like magpies, or that more "scientific" class of second-class academics, the pious liars of the DI, who attempt, with little skill, a series of guerrilla actions against a scientific establishment they both loath and fail to comprehend.
Hamm simply backs off cautiously from anything that looks like trouble, always knowing that the refrain "the Bible is the ultimate source of truth" will serve him better than making an Alamo stand defending Paluxy River footprints or "irreducibly complex" flagella.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/16/2007 16:27:37 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 12:16:50 [Permalink]
|
I especially liked this part:
| Do not say ‘evolution is just a theory'. While you probably mean ‘evolution is unproven', the problem with calling evolution ‘a theory' is that scientists use the word differently from laymen. A ‘theory' in science means a well-substantiated explanation of data. The evolution conjecture should not be called a ‘theory', because this gives it unwarranted respectability by association with the Theory of Relativity, Newton's Theory of Gravity, the Debye-Hückel theory of electrolytes, etc. All these theories have strong experimental support (although Newton's theory has been augmented by Einstein's). In contrast, evolution of life from non-living matter and from one basic type of organism to a different type has not the slightest experimental/observational support. |
Right. Even though the fact of evolution is tested every day in the lab and the field and has yet to be found wanting, it is still "unproven."
Even though the fact of evolution is supported by the fossil record and genetic testing, it remains "unproven."
Even though the Theory of Evolution is accepted by virtually all of the biological sciences, it remains "unproven."
Actually, science never proves anything, merely compiles evidence in favor or otherwise, and the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming. But it's still "unproven."
"Creation scientists" are the laughingstock of the scientific world, producing little of value, and yet the work generations of legitimate researchers remains "unproven."
Ham, you have no more than a speculation written out in a book that has nothing to do with science and is therefore suspect as a reference. You claim that there were eyeball witnesses to creation because it says so, more or less, in that book. And to verify it, you go to the book and that's about as circular as anything you'd find short of a ferris wheel.
You & others of your ilk have invented a science of your own, that of apologetics, to cover the blatant ignorance of all science in the book, and that is nothing but lies to cover that ignorance. You lie to your followers and you lie to the public. You even lie to those whom you know won't buy it!
Sonny, you're a despicable human being and your "apologetics" ain't hittin' on shit!
There. I feel much better now.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
How to write a creationist essay......
