Creationists -- unlike Darwinists -- are unafraid of exposure to opposing views
Creationism Students Visit Smithsonian --
Each winter, Liberty University Biology Professor David DeWitt brings his Advanced Creation Studies class to the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History.
=================================================
One of the biggest arguments raised against teaching -- or even mentioning -- criticisms of evolution theory in public schools is that such criticisms will "confuse" students and cause them to doubt evolution theory. The Darwinists are so phobic about any kind of criticism of evolution that they even pressured the Cincinnati Zoo into canceling a combo-ticket deal with the Creation Museum, even though teaching about evolution is not -- or should not be -- one of a zoo's primary missions! [1] [2] [3] However, it appears that creationists have no such fears of exposure to opposing views -- a Washington Post news article says,
.
Every winter, David DeWitt takes his biology class to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, but for a purpose far different from that of other professors.
DeWitt brings his Advanced Creation Studies class (CRST 390, Origins) up from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., hoping to strengthen his students' belief in a biblical view of natural history, even in the lion's den of evolution.
His yearly visit to the Smithsonian is part of a wider movement by creationists to confront Darwinism in some of its most redoubtable secular strongholds. As scientists celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, his doubters are taking themselves on Genesis-based tours of natural history museums, aquariums, geologic sites and even dinosaur parks.
"There's nothing balanced here. It's completely, 100 percent evolution-based," said DeWitt, a professor of biology. "We come every year, because I don't hold anything back from the students."
. . . .Creationists have been popping up in enough mainstream institutions that one museum has produced a creation-vs.-evolution primer to help volunteer docents handle their sometimes-pointed questions. When the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, N.Y., published its guide, more than 50 museums called looking for a copy, according to director Warren Allmon.
The article is two pages long, so don't miss the second page.
Sleazy PZ Myers' take on the article says --
In this case, young ignoramuses from Liberty University are filed through the Smithsonian Institution to practice closing their minds, while a newspaper reporter echoes their rationalizations. I hate these exercises in bad journalism: there is absolutely no critical thinking going on here, either among the creationists or the reporter writing it up.
Well, Sleazy PZ, at least these creationists -- unlike Darwinists -- are not afraid of exposure to opposing views.
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #5)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/11/2009 11:32:00 PM
10 Comments:
lol, PZ Meyers was not happy with the write up about the students, he's only pleased when there is something negative about creationists or creationism in general...
I agree, students are exposed to a variety of different viewpoints (which includes evolution) in addition to what is being taught in their creationist school than in what you see in a public school.
Actually I believe it's important for Christians who are creationists, being taught both sides and not just the basics either (like what scientists know and how they know it), but more of the advance levels too as science progresses.
Darwin-fanatics like PZ are uproarious. The guy professes to espouse critical thinking about everything, except conventional evolutionary theory and his other favorite doctrines...
In the late 1980's, Stephen Jay Gould supervised a creationist graduate student, Kurt Wise, at Harvard. Wise got his Ph.D (in invertebrate paleontology, I believe.)
Gould, who was an ardent Darwinist, materialist and Marxist, actually didn't object to that. But that was before ID emerged, and the zealous Darwinists began to feel really threatened.
Uh, you really think that this shows that they're not afraid to let their students see other views?
What I see is really persistent indoctrination. . .they're not going to the museum to look at the museum, they're going to the museum to prove the museum wrong.
I'd happily debate/attempt to prove them wrong, but they wouldn't listen, I don't think. I, on the other hand, have spent a fair amount of time looking at/analyzing/etc their arguments, and find them unconvincing, at their very core.
Erin says,
>>>>>>> . . .you really think that this shows that they're not afraid to let their students see other views? <<<<<<
Yes, I really think that. It is fairly obvious. What other interpretation is possible?
>>>>> I'd happily debate/attempt to prove them wrong, but they wouldn't listen, I don't think. <<<<<<
You Darwinists often don't listen to opposing views. Darwinists have told me that they won't consider or even post my ideas about coevolution until after those ideas are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or are approved by "experts."
"You Darwinists often don't listen to opposing views. Darwinists have told me that they won't consider or even post my ideas about coevolution until after those ideas are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or are approved by "experts.""
Thinking about things and coming to conclusions isn't science.
">>>>>>> . . .you really think that this shows that they're not afraid to let their students see other views? <<<<<<
Yes, I really think that. It is fairly obvious. What other interpretation is possible?"
I think the other interpretation is that they don't want their students there without them to absorb knowledge as it's presented. These tours, as I've seen them, tend to force a creationist view onto well presented science, usually by fallacy. They tend to dismiss any scientific evidence presented, and furthermore, dismiss the scientific method as a whole. This is why your Quote-Unquote Darwinists don't "listen" to you. Try science. I hear it works.
Erin barfed,
>>>>>> Thinking about things and coming to conclusions isn't science. <<<<<<
WHAT?????????
>>>>> I think the other interpretation is that they don't want their students there without them to absorb knowledge as it's presented. <<<<<<
Well, then the "knowledge" as it's presented must be pretty easy to refute.
>>>>>> They tend to dismiss any scientific evidence presented, and furthermore, dismiss the scientific method as a whole. This is why your Quote-Unquote Darwinists don't "listen" to you. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- I have followed the scientific method in my studies of coevolution.
">>>>>> Thinking about things and coming to conclusions isn't science. <<<<<<
WHAT?????????"
See, this is why scientists (and people who know about science) don't believe you. Thinking about things, coming to conclusions AND THEN TESTING THEM, is science. It's the testing that's important, just because you think of something doesn't mean it's science. Ponder on that.
">>>>> I think the other interpretation is that they don't want their students there without them to absorb knowledge as it's presented. <<<<<<
Well, then the "knowledge" as it's presented must be pretty easy to refute."
Except that it requires an interpretation from someone who is dead-set against it, and has spent quite a lot of time working together arguments (most of which can be dismantled by a scientist. . .easily, usually because they contain logical fallacies). Clearly it's easy to refute.
">>>>>> They tend to dismiss any scientific evidence presented, and furthermore, dismiss the scientific method as a whole. This is why your Quote-Unquote Darwinists don't "listen" to you. <<<<<<<
Wrong -- I have followed the scientific method in my studies of coevolution."
No, you used the same "think about it and decide you're right" theory that you've used for everything else. Science is where you look at lots of things, do experiments, observe as much evidence as you can find. Look at things without a theory, then develop one. Developing a theory and then looking for specific examples that fit your theory is called cherry picking, and. . .is not science.
What's ironic, and very amusing, is that the Darwinists, i.e., the retrograde apostles of conventional, mechanistic evolutionary doctrine, are actually helping the creationists.
They are doing that by trying to falsely claim that intelligent design is creationism; as when they ludicrously call ID "intelligent design creationism."
Actually, intelligent design arguments are scientifically very impressive. So polls show that ID is rapidly gaining in popularity and influence.
If people are persuaded by the Darwinist propaganda-machine that ID and creationism are the same thing, they are very likely to become creationists.
Hence it's no suprise that fundamentalist and creationist churches are rapidly growing, while those denominations that embrace Darwinism are plunging in membership.
Erin said,
>>>>>>> Thinking about things, coming to conclusions AND THEN TESTING THEM, is science. It's the testing that's important, just because you think of something doesn't mean it's science. <<<<<<
I do test things -- in my mind. And some things are not even possible to test experimentally -- a lot of things in evolution are like that.
>>>>>>> Except that it requires an interpretation from someone who is dead-set against it, and has spent quite a lot of time working together arguments (most of which can be dismantled by a scientist. . .easily, usually because they contain logical fallacies). Clearly it's easy to refute. <<<<<<
So far, no one has "dismantled" my ideas about coevolution.
>>>>>>> Science is where you look at lots of things, do experiments, observe as much evidence as you can find.. Look at things without a theory, then develop one. Developing a theory and then looking for specific examples that fit your theory is called cherry picking, and. . .is not science. <<<<<<<
There is nothing wrong with making a hypothesis and then looking for evidence to support it -- provided that one does not, as Darwinists often do, distort the evidence or stretch conclusions drawn from it.
Post a Comment
<< Home