Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Reason and the Battle of Creationism and Evolution

"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.


  1. 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.

  2. 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".