›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Strengths and Weaknesses: The New Creationist Ploy

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited June 2008 in News
They couldn't get Creationism taught in schools. They are crashing and burning with Intelligent Design. Now they are trying out the ploy of asking that the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution be taught. That's reasonable right? Why wouldn't you want the weaknesses of your theory taught? Do you have something to hide?

What would you expect from these people? Their "weaknesses" are the same things we've heard before so many times - things like "irreducible complexity", the Cambrian explosion, and so forth.

Comments

  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    They couldn't get Creationism taught in schools. They are crashing and burning with Intelligent Design. Now they are trying out the ploy of asking that the"strengths and weaknesses"of evolution be taught. That's reasonable right? Why wouldn't you want the weaknesses of your theory taught? Do you have something to hide?

    What would you expect from these people? Their "weaknesses" are the same things we've heard before so many times - things like "irreducible complexity", the Cambrian explosion, and so forth.
    As always, if anyone wishes to present a valid science-based criticism of evolutionary theory, they're more than welcome to.

    The problem here is that they're mistaking a lack of explanation for "weakness." Evolution certainly could explain the Cambrian explosion; we're looking at the mechanisms that caused it. It's simple enough to posit the idea that organisms with smaller genomes (pre-Cambrian) see a higher rate of evolution, as changes to a smaller genome have a broader impact on the organism in question. Such organisms also had short generation times, leading to increased rates of genetic recombination. That's why evolution is so readily observed in bacteria and other organisms with short generation times.

    Again, an inability to completely explain a phenomenon is not a weakness in a theory; it's a place to investigate. You don't throw out the whole theory if one small bit can't be explained; you explain the small bit and modify the theory with your new evidence. A lot like evolution, really.
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    AH-CHOO! Oh, I'm sorry. I'm allergic to bullshit.
  • UsagimaruUsagimaru
    In a Christian summer camp I was at once they talked about how a science teacher was fired because he taught some weaknesses evolution. I'm sure the teacher was making up some bullshit that the people in the camp didn't go in to. This camp also talked about reasons why carbon dating isn't reliable, which was completely wrong.
  • NeitoNeito
    If these are real weaknesses they're talking about, then fine. There's no harm in that. If it's the bullshit that they've been pushing so far, then fuck them.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why not just call the class "Religion" and get over it? That is what they are teaching.
  • BantaBanta
    I checked out the site http://strengthsandweaknesses.org/ and it doesn't tell you a damn thing about either strengths or weaknesses. Seriously, what the hell? How am I, or anyone for that matter, supposed to decide to support or protest this group when they don't tell the public anything?
  • Alex LeavittAlex Leavitt
    edited June 2008
    Weakness in evolution leads to natural selection.

    By the way, in that quote from C.S. Lewis near the top of http://strengthsandweaknesses.org/, did they just add in "[evolution]" to make the quote relevant?
    Post edited by Alex Leavitt on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I checked out the sitehttp://strengthsandweaknesses.org/and it doesn't tell you a damn thing about either strengths or weaknesses. Seriously, what the hell? How am I, or anyone for that matter, supposed to decide to support or protest this group when they don't tell the public anything?
    I think they just updated their site to bitch about the NYT article.
  • ΣπεκωσποκΣπεκωσποκ
    edited June 2008
    Why don't people teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of relativity? The strengths and weaknesses of the atomic theory? The cell theory? The germ theory? The probability theory?
    Post edited by Σπεκωσποκ on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited June 2008
    The entire argument against evolution is based on the "gaps/unknowns" excuse. ID supporters only believe what they do because they think that god is in the gaps in the knowledge we already have. "We don't have the answer, therefore god exists". It's bullshit logic and basically they're again bringing absolutely no supporting evidence for their claims that "god did it" other thank "science doesn't have an answer that's good enough for us.". There will always be some unanswered question, and that's where science and religion differ. Science sees a question or a problem and goes "Hey, neat! I'll poke it with a stick until I get a good answer." while religion says "I have no clue and I can't imagine one, therefore god exists and science is stupid.".

    For more halarity on the subject of so-called 'proofs' religion uses to 'prove' god, go here.

    The one I found applicable is :

    ARGUMENT FROM ARGUMENTATION
    (1) God exists.
    (2) [atheist's counterargument]
    (3) Yes he does.
    (4) [atheist's counterargument]
    (5) Yes he does!
    (6) [atheist's counterargument]
    (7) YES HE DOES!!!
    (8) [atheist gives up and goes home]
    (9) Therefore, God exists.

    EDIT: Also, that website is located in Texas and is about the Texas educational system, which means they don't deserve any real attention. I said it once already, Texas schools and textbooks are fucked up already because of these people.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Why don't people teach the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of relativity? The strengths and weaknesses of the atomic theory? The cell theory? The germ theory? The probability theory?
    They have a special distaste for evolution. I think it must be because their faith is so fragile that they can't deal with the idea, or they can't compartmentalize and think, "Over here is the way the world really works and over there are the stories I tell myself for moral instruction and comfort in the face of anxiety and despair."
  • Magnum_OpusMagnum_Opus
    edited June 2008
    Its kind of funny, scientific theories gets attacked constantly by religion without any retaliation. Sure people speak out and defend what is attacked, but I don't know of any incident of legal action against religion, probably because of the 1st Amendment.

    The real thing is that when Time had their 2007 Person of the Year it was Vladimir Putin, and in the article it had a section on a new university that had a class that warned against fundamentalism. The US should have a classes like this since fundamentalism seems to be on the rise.
    Post edited by Magnum_Opus on
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    Its kind of funny, scientific theories gets attacked constantly by religion without any retaliation. Sure people speak out and defend what is attacked, but I don't know of any incident of legal action against religion, probably because of the 1st Amendment.

    The real thing is that when Time had their 2007 Person of the Year it was Vladimir Putin, and in the article it had a section on a new university that had a class that warned against fundamentalism. The US should have a classes like this since fundamentalism seems to be on the rise.
    Read The God Delusion by Dawkins. He addresses this issue specifically.
Sign In or Register to comment.