Posts
"Our students are given both sides...They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion."
Quote from here. It's taken from Dr. Patricia Nason, who has a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University and serves as the
chairwoman of the science department at the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas.
Seems REASON (or at least reasonableness) does exist in the debate over creationism and evolution. Note which side of the argument it's found on. How can one object to her statement, that is, unless they are biased both in the process and the outcome.
3 comments:
What is next? Teaching both sides of the Holocaust (the Jews were out to get Germany)? For a theist who appears to believe in absolute morality and absolute truth this is an amazing concession to relativism. Or are you asking for people to not bother fighting for the truth because you think it doesn't matter?
The problem though is worse than that. You can explain why Hitler thought the Jews were out to get him, where antisemitism in Europe can from and how it evolved- by contrast creationism is simply "god did it". That's it- it doesn't go deeper than that. It doesn't even meet the minimum standards for a theory- it isn't falsible, it isn't testible, it isn't predictive and it isn't quantative or qualitative.
In short, it isn't even science. The stork theory has more science behind it than creationism.
Your position assumes Evolution is proven and Creationism is false which has not been proven even though many like you like to think and argue that it has. Your argument (along with others such as Hitchen's etc. who seek to claim victory upon the presupposition that the view of the others side is not only wrong but inadmissable is not only circular, but a sign of ignorance and arrogance.
Not only that, but there's are difference in comparing this debate with the Holocaust... for example:
1. I'm not afraid of those who would teach the other side of the Holocaust because truth does not need to be protected as if it can't stand the test.
...before you falsely assume or assert this means I think various views of the Holocaust should be taught, continue...
2. While the number of those who advocate or believe in another view of the Holocaust are infinitesimally small in comparison (and the overwhelming superabundant preponderance of the evidence so small and weak and their side);, creationism along with it's advocates, arguments, evidence, etc, arguments are not only historically important, continuous and significant; but serves as a significant issue theologically, scientifically, culturally, etc., in our world today not only in the class room and scientific community, but in the public sphere including some of the major debates today be it on the internet or even in the presidential debates. For anti-creationists to fail to see this only points to another area of their blindness.
3. Unlike the Holocaust, where the it's proponents seek to provide foundational answers to support their arguments (even though they are wrong), whereas you state in your other post " Well, we keep on finding ways to justify x without god- we have finished of many in the science category, but people are starting to hit more in the philosophy category- conciousness for starters. Or morality, the fate of the universe, the start of the universe, etc...", I disagee. You have not provided foundation answers (short of either "we don't know them and we don't need to be ashamed, we're still working on them" or "Unknown evolutionary forces DID IT").
Swordbearer, you have a lot more patience for replying to nonsense like this than I do.
Mr. Skinner, are you even familiar with logical fallacies? Because your reply here is a textbook example of a whole litany of those fallacies. Just a quick scan reveals equivocation, question begging, ad-hominem, appeal to nature and petitio principii.
We are still waiting for an actual argument somewhere, like showing that God didn't do it, and that that conclusively proves that "evolution did it".
Post a Comment