…. Have you ever had this happen: You are minding your own business, teaching your life science course, it’s early in the term. A student, on the way out of the room after class (never at the beginning of class, rarely during class) mentions something about “carbon dating.” This usually happens around the time of year you are doing an overview of the main points of the course, but before you’ve gotten to the “evolution module”…
The student is talking about 14C dating and how it “has problems.” But you are a life science teacher and can’t think of a single point in your class that you really touch on the 14C method. Dating in the evolution section does not involve 14C. 14C is for later time periods, more in the area of archaeology, and you know nothing about it. So you brush off the question but are left with an uneasy feeling.
Next class, probably just after class, the same student, again at a moment that gives you zero warning and usually no time to think of how to respond, mentions something about the Laws of Thermodynamics. This question you find more interesting and possibly even useful as the starting point of a “teachable moment…” The nature of life itself includes the fact that life works, in some ways, upstream against entropy. Life organizes energy, stores it, traps it, uses it. That one utterly mind-blowing aspect of life is really all you need to define life itself. If that was the only thing you used to define life, you would have very few non-life entities or events accidentally included. If you can truly understand … I mean really, really truly at a detailed level understand …. how the heck life works against the gradient of entropy, at the intracellular level, then you will understand a LOT (like, at the MA level, at least) of what is going on. To get a believable and reasonable level of understanding of this, you must get more than just basic cell function … it is not good enough to just say “The mitochondria are the tiny little powerhouses of the cell” because you have not explained how that works. You need to know about ATP and stuff. Really, you even need to know why cells use ATP as energy but none of the other obvious forms of energy that they could use … the phylogenetic effect at a very basic level indeed.
Now, the creationist reading this will say, “Aha! The teacher is annoyed at the creationist, and the great Doctor of Evolutionary Biology is disturbed that such difficult questions come from the mouth’s of babes … these simple honest questions that are in fact impossible to answer! The Evilutionists would prefer if these questions were never even asked….”
BZZZZZZZZGGGGKKKKKZZZZZTTTG
That was the “oh please, cut out the crap” buzzer going off.
This student is not an innocent child asking legitimate questions. Child? Yes. Innocent? That needs, in my opinion, to be demonstrated, but from a teacher’s perspective, OK, you can assume innocent until proven nefarious. But wait and see what happens. Yesterday it was C14, today it was Thermodynamics. Tomorrow it will be intelligent design at the cellular level, later on it will be missing transitional forms, then it will be teaching the controversy, and so on. The student might or might not tell you … perhaps as an admission, perhaps as a proud statement (“See, I researched this.”) that these questions are mostly coming from the Answers in Genesis web site.
Did this student find the web site through a private initiative, or perhaps by accident? Did a parent point this student to the web site? Did a Sunday school teacher or pastor tell the student about it? All of these things tend to happen, but the latter two are the most common. There is a pretty good chance that this student has been put up to this, but most likely willingly. Little 10th graders can be the strongest crusaders. Jeanne d’Arc was in tenth grade, if I remember correctly. So this is not going to end quietly.
The student will eventually start to bring these issues up during class, not just after class or before class. Most likely several the other students in the class will get annoyed and protest to the student directly … they are, after all, there to learn the biology for their own reasons (like getting a high school diploma or passing a test or whatever) and regardless of their own religious views, they are not interested in this disruption. Even if they did want to get a creationist or religious perspective, they probably don’t want to hear it from this kid even outside of the class. Jeanne d’Arc might have been a tenth grader, but most tenth graders, regardless of the level of their zealotry, are not Jeanne d’Arc. Their discourse does not tend to capture the audience and they are unlikely to make a credible case that they have been visited by The Virgin.
Teacher, listen to this: There is a wide range of possible responses to the situation outlined above (or some other similar situation). Only some of them are legal. Only some of them are ethical. There are things you can do that may make perfect sense but that will significantly enhance the probability of your school or district being successfully sued.
Whenever I blog about this sort of thing, I get a lot of helpful, hopeful comments from well meaning allies of education providing suggestions as to what to do. Those suggestions are diverse in nature, often humorous, sometimes very good. Commonly, we are told “Just do X” or “Just do Y” and the problem will go away quickly. But, I’m as a teacher you already know that there is not really an easy way to handle this.
When Pastor Bob arms your student with creationist claims and sends him or her into your classroom, he is creating not just a disruption or an annoyance, but a professionally dangerous situation for you. Most likely he knows this and is doing this to generate trouble. He is, obviously, using this child as a pawn in a game that he feels he is prepared to play and maybe win. He knows he is getting points with god by doing this (as does the pawn-child) and he cares not one bit about you or your career. He sees disruption of your science class, and thus of the science education of the other students in your class, as a good thing. This may, indeed, be his primary objective other than his own salvation from sin.
While it is true that almost no teachers are prepared through formal training to handle this sort of situation without risking career or the school’s legal budget, or losing control of the class, or losing the pawn-child, most teachers can avoid trouble by keeping a few guidelines in mind.
You can’t talk about religion in your science classroom. This means you can’t have a conversation about creationism in your classroom. You may have to pull the student aside and indicate that this discussion will not happen. The student will object, indicating that “intelligent design” is not creationism. You must very firmly indicate to the student that according to the current, standing law, intelligent design IS creationism, and creationism IS religion, and religion cannot be discussed in any way whatsoever in a science classroom without risk of breaking the law. It may be necessary to indicate to the student that continued attempts to bring this conversation into the classroom have to be seen as a disciplinary problem.
Let’s talk about that angle for a moment. Have you ever had a student who will not stop talking about sex or related anatomy whenever an opportunity arises in class… blurting things out and disrupting class? Think about that scenario for a moment. The student is not special ed or special needs. The student is a junior in high school. He blurts out a profanity and/or sexual or anatomical reference four or five times per class, giggles with his buddies, attempts to recruit those around him into this shenanigans even if you keep moving him, etc. This is a disciplinary issue, and you have ways of addressing it as a teacher. This is why archetects, when designing schools, but the hallways right outside the classrooms, for you to have little conversations with your student. And, somewhere down the hallway is a principal or dean to which you can send him when the conversations have been tried but have not worked.
A student who has been informed that there will be no discussion of creationist claims from AIG (Answers in Genesis) or anywhere else in the classroom, that ID is creationism, etc. but continues to do so is no different than the student who can’t stop with the dick jokes. As a teacher, and as a particular teacher in a particular classroom, you can’t be told by me or anyone else how to deal with this, but you must deal with it properly. But most likely there will be a conversation after or before class, in the hallway, or in an admin’s office.
And if anyone in the admin, your department head or any colleagues tell you to lighten up, that the students can express their religious views in class because of the first amendment, etc. etc., then you are on the next level of difficulties, beyond what we can do here in this one blog post. Seek outside help. Drop me a line. Contact NCSE. Get a lawyer. If this happens, your administrators have just done a bit of violation of professional practice and probably law on their own, and they need some seroius education on the matter. It is not possible for you, as the teacher, to do that without risking your job.
I want to end with a very specific idea that I’ve seen suggested many times among teachers, and it is something that you CAN NOT do. You can’t do this. There are books out there, such as and especially Ken Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
The truth is that the legal protections supporting the teaching of real evolutionary biology in the classroom do not arise because real evolutionary biology is … ah … real, and creationism is not. The importance and veracity of the science itself is only part of the argument, even though it should be, and I think could be, the only argument. We don’t have slack-jawed yokels sneaking onto the school board so that they can force Language Arts teachers to tell the students that “i aint got no George Strait tunes, you gotta brang soma his CD’s over, ye’hear?” or to insist that the shop teacher tell the students “you know, these safety devices … especially the ones on electric saws … really are a pain in the ass, so the first thing we do every semester is learn how to disable the safety devices” and so on. Those are arguments about quality, and you can make arguments about quality all you want regarding life sciences in the classroom and no one will care even a little. Creationism is not allowed in the classroom because it is religion, not because it is stoopid. Which is a great convenience for you as a life science teacher, but rather shameful, at the broader social and political level, when you think about it.
At the beginning of every school year, I try to post new and “the best of” blog posts specifically written for teachers. If you want to see this year’s “back to school special” posts in a list, click here. I’ll be posting these items through the month of September. There will likely be one or two items new every day.
Please feel free to send a link to all your teacher friends so they know about it!!!! And, if there is something you’d like to see discussed, let me know.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Yo Greg-
Re. thermodynamics:
What you posted under that heading sounds like science to me: dissipative structures, that also include some odd chemical reactions that have little or nothing to do with biological processes.
Are the creationists using this as an arguement for creationism?
BTW, I don’t know about MA-level stuff. I figured this one out on my own in highschool in the late 70s: the critical difference between nonliving matter and living matter is the difference between entropy and syntropy respectively. Evolution works uphill on the entropy gradient: increase in diversity and complexity over time, both of organisms and of the ecological relationships between them.
Then in college I read (on my own) Prigogene’s _Order From Chaos_ where he laid out his theory of dissipative structures: configurations of matter (mostly living but some nonliving) that capture energy from ambient entropy-flows in order to produce increased local complexity.
Seen at the global ecosystem level, this is convergent with Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, that *only* claims that ecosystems develop and utilize negative feedback loops to maintain favorable conditions.
None of the above requires invoking a deity as a causal explanation. Nor does the most basic rendition of the anthropic principle, that *only* claims that the only universe we are capable of observing will be that which is favorable to our own existence in it.
If one wanted to make a theological assertion in respect to any of the above, it would translate to simple animism, not to an Abrahamic deity. But those who wish to invoke a deity as a primary cause, are welcome to send their kids to private schools whose teachings agree with their own beliefs.
This is probably why so many teachers confine evolution to one unit and ignore it the rest of the year.
Every creationist argument about thermodynamics that I’ve ever seen relies upon not making a distinction between open and closed systems.
I was briefly one of those kids whose uncle gave him a book that was anti evolution. I still remember the teacher telling me after class that she would not allow a debate between science and religion in her classroom. She also said the segment would be over in a week and then the rest of the semester would involve less controversial material – so chill it for just a couple more days.
Discussions with my chemistry teacher my senior year in high school was like a gateway drug to understanding evolution and slowly abandoning my ignorant ways. He had a background in biology and kept a copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species in a glass cabinet in his classroom. He probably said some things that would have gotten him in trouble today like pointing out if the church is so great what about the torture and terror carried out by the inquisition.
BTW – the counter to entropy is the energy from the sun. The biological food web has a never ending supply of energy thanks to photosynthesis.
I just want to point out that when I first wrote this post (or on some reposting of it) a relatively well known evolutionary biologist read it very quickly (and ineffectively) and assumed that the discussion of energy was in some way appeasement to a creationist thermodynamic argument, and yelled at me for it. That was a classic case of what I call “uncritical skepticism” which is, sometimes, where a term or phrase that happens to be a creationist (or denialist, or whatever) dogwhistle is spotted, mis-interpreted as such, and leads to a knee jerk reaction.
The fact that we who study life can do so entirely through the study of energy transfer, storage, and loss is not going to be adulterated by the misuse of these concepts by creationists. Or at least, not ’round these parts.
The thermodynamics argument against evolution is one of those things that’s so mind-numbingly idiotic on its face that I can’t believe it even continues to be used. Even if you totally discount evolutionary processes, is it not obvious that all living things take in energy from the environment and use it to grow and reproduce? Or does that not count as ‘order from chaos’ in loopy creationist world? And even if you try to treat living things as a privilieged case, have they never seen a disorderly cloud of water vapor coalesce to less-chaotic water, which in turn can freeze into exquisitely ordered snow crystals? That’s a natural process producing order from chaos and you don’t even need to put in energy to make it happen.
Yo Greg- “uncritical skepticism” I’ve seen that attitude around, and I call it “materialist fundamentalism.” Another variant is the “cold cruel universe” school, with every bit as much bias as the “warm fuzzy universe” crowd, though they will assert absolute objectivity and deny that they’re anthropomorphizing and using emotion-words for nonliving physical phenomena.
I never thought in my wildest million years, that religious extremists would start using thermodynamics. But there’s a way to get at this one: Just ask a few questions, same as any smart 9-year-old would, starting with, “So, where does the energy come from?”
The best that can be hoped for in most cases is that they’ll go through the Q&A and then assert that there’s still a black box where a miracle happens.
That’s OK just as long as they recognize that there’s a difference between faith (which is personal) and science (which is public), and that they can’t teach faith in public school science classes.
(Personally I think they ought to teach comparative religion in highschool and it ought to be mandatory. Excellent way to deprogram kids who have been raised to hate people who have other religions or no religion. But that’s a different topic for a different day…)
Wow. I stumbled on this totally by accident, but feel I must make a comment. So what I hear you saying is that any kid that asks a question junior high and up, is just a “pawn” for someone else. We want our kids to be intelligent thinkers and ask questions so they can learn and your feel inconvenienced b/c you find it disruptive? Hmmm. As a science teacher of 21 years, I don’t find that disruptive at all. It might be that they ask at inappropriate times, but as a “professional” teacher, you should have the maturity and classroom management ability to say “hey, that’s an interesting question-now is not the time, but if you’d like to stay after class, we can discuss that” or “I’m not allowed to talk about religious teachings in this class or I’m not an expert on that particular field of study or concept, so you might talk to your pastor or parents about your question”. Squashing them and ridiculing does nothing but make you look dumb. As a teacher I find it disappointing that an educator is upset that a kid asks a question! Science is supposed to be about investigation. There are legitimate questions out there about evolution and certain gaps and to say that everything is this way b/c I said so is assinine! It’s interesting to me that so many educators think they are so brilliant b/c they have a masters degree or higher that they become intollerant of people who really want to learn. How sad. If intelligent design is so wrong or off base, it should not be a problem because you should be able to support all aspects of evolution with evidence and facts. What’s the problem?!
kim, I don’t think you actually read the post. It isn’t about a kid asking “a question.” The whole thing is about what to do about repeated disruptions of this sort.
You listen to your students better than that, yes?
Kim, Stephanie is right. You either did not read this post at all, or you are a sham. Please come to the table with more respect for me and my readers than that.
It is very common for creationists to pretend to be indignant non-creationists insisting that the creationists be given a voice. I assume you are doing that.
Now, get back to work. Government employees should not be promulgating religious appeasement on work time.
I am a parent who has just found this interesting post. As a parent who sends his kid to Catholic school I am finding that no matter what the archdiocese says the teachers are terrified of going against the students, parents and religion teachers who want nothing to do with teaching evolution. The opponents feel that if it has to be taught then it should be as little as possible and as boring as possible. I give a hardy thanks to those teachers that who despite the resistance teach their students how exciting evolution and all the other sciences are. You are my heroes.
Well, I like too much debating about God, evolution, religion, so on but, I think (for experience) that nobody is qualified for talk about it. I mean, if you are a Biologist, can you talk about Theology? (you should not)… if you are a theologist, can you talk about Biology? (you should not)… I talk a lot with atheists because I love debating but I should not do that because I’m not theologist.
In summary, if you are a biologist and somebody ask you about a topic that is not your specialization, the right answer is: Sorry, I don’t know, it’s not my specialization, that way you will be humble and wise.
Honestly, I don’t how any science teacher negotiates the turf in our public schools these days. Too many guns pointed your way, so to speak. And far too many competing voices, happy to muddy the waters and confound any attempt to deal with the subject at hand.
“…according to the current, standing law, intelligent design IS creationism…”
Are you referring to the Dover, PA, case? Does Judge Jones’ ruling have standing elsewhere?
Pat Dennis
You need to explain your question about standing more clearly.
Yes, I’m referring to the Dover ruling. That ruling confirmed the previous already well established case law, added the more or less superfluous bit (in retrospect) that Yet Another form of creationism is still creationism, and applied to to Dover.
Thank you. I needed this today after the student plopped his bible on my desk and TOLD me I needed to read whatever verse he had it opened to. This is the second incident in the same class when another student wanted us to pray together as a class. They are feeding off of each other. Its very annoying and now after reading this and the establishment clause again, I feel better prepared to deal with the situation tomorrow. I did handle it by saying “This ain’t happening!”
Brimshack: You have it correct. And in the backwaters of Oklahoma where creationist ministers are busy poisoning the minds of young people daily, its tough.
Oh and our legislators are busy trying to pass the “controversy” law in our state right now. EVEN THOUGH THERE’S NO CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTIONARY THEORY YOU DUMB WITS.
So, if someone raises hard to answer questions, seek legal help?
… Wow.
Robert: I’m pretty sure no one has said anything here that could possibly led to this question of yours. Perhaps you posted this comment in the wrong place.
To be clear about the point of the post, in case you didn’t read it carefully, which is another explanation for your strange question: Bible thumping students are not asking hard questions. They are willfully disrupting the classroom.
So if a students asks ‘how can life come from none life’ because of the Laws of Cause and effect; that’s just disrupting the class?
What is an example of a hard question to Bob* here?
Because mostly what creationists and their ilk see as hard questions in class are actually timewasting irrelevancies. Such as “Where did life start” in a discussion about biological evolution.
And if someone were to ask me as the teacher, I’d say “Nobody knows, but only the religious lie and insist they do.” and if they wanted to ask more, I’d let them spend time after class to ask all the questions while I do the marking.
Just because they’re asking questions doesn’t obligate me to answer them. And if they do not appear to want to hear answers, there’s nothing lost by not answering them. But there’s no reason why they can’t sit in a classroom asking questions at me while I mark papers.
*Isn’t it short for Kate? See if you get the reference…
“And if anyone in the admin, your department head or any colleagues tell you to lighten up, that the students can express their religious views in class because of the first amendment, etc. etc., then you are on the next level of difficulties, beyond what we can do here in this one blog post. Seek outside help. Drop me a line. Contact NCSE. Get a lawyer. If this happens, your administrators have just done a bit of violation of professional practice and probably law on their own, and they need some seroius education on the matter. It is not possible for you, as the teacher, to do that without risking your job.”
So lets say I ask how can life come from none life, and how something dead cannot give something else life. According to this post, you need to get a lawyer unless the school helps you squelch the student itself.
I don’t see how an honest question as a Law of Science is equivalent to a fart in a classroom, and I really don’t comprehend why the law needs to get involved.
Note: I posted before #21 appeared.
How did life arise from non life is irrelevant to biology, since that is the study of living organisms. How they got there is immaterial. Chemistry doesn’t deal with life at all. So what course are you doing that requires knowing that? If you really care to know, become a biologist, study hard enough to get your higher education, study even more to get to a good university for their biology class and then take abiogenesis for your postgrad course.
Nobody will stop you finding out for yourself, “Bob”.
Forgive me, but how is that not part of Evolution? We’re talking about how the whole process starts. That’s like telling me ‘ look at those 3 racers, they are neck and neck’ but don’t let me see the start of the race where one of this racers might already be lapping the other.
If you are stating everything based off the middle of the race, isn’t it purely speculation (faith) if you will, about everything that happened before it?
“So lets say I ask how can life come from none life, and how something dead cannot give something else life. ”
I’ll keep marking the questions of students who want to learn rather than just JAQ off in front of me, Bob.
“Forgive me, but how is that not part of Evolution?”
Because evolution is what happens to living organisms. Non living organisms don’t evolve.
Or, more pedantically, the theory of evolution only deals with the evolution of living organisms. Feel free to make a theory of evolution for non living organisms.
This is a law sir, a law of the ‘science’ you claim to be promoting in your classroom. If you posit an idea that is impossible according to the laws of science, then I have every right to legitimately question it.
Are you aware that it is a law? In that Life has never been demonstrated to come from None-Life? And it would be a violation of Cause and Effect if it did?
Is that really science?
“According to this post, you need to get a lawyer unless the school helps you squelch the student itself.”
No. You’d have to get a lawyer to force me to answer you, bob. I don’t need to answer, even as your teacher, and therefore I need neither a lawyer nor the school’s help. For no other reason than I’m not squelching the student.
“This is a law sir”
I heard that in the tone of Foghorn Leghorn. Because you have no idea if I am sir or madam. But pompous windbag aside…
“a law of the ‘science’ you claim to be promoting in your classroom”
Nope, it’s not a law, it’s far far bigger and more proven than a mere law, it’s a theory. It’s like the difference between an equation and a proof.
And abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to know how abiogenesis can happen without god, you are 100% absolutely free to pursue the higher education that has abiogenesis as an elective course for students. It will almost definitely be post-graduate biology, so that BSc would be a pre-requisite.
Going strictly by Evolution, I could also ask what is the mechanism for new Genetic Instructions? This was asked by a Nanotech Chemist Jame Tour, who his research has sealed a rats severed spine… So his ability to perform science has been tested and found effective.
You also face the problem that of the 5 types of mutations, the majority of them are corrupting. Mutations are a loss of information, not a gain of additional information. Further, our bodies have defenses to filter out most corrupted code.
“Are you aware that it is a law?”
It is not a law. It is two letters denoting a metasyntatic variable that is intended to denote a reference to a previous singular assertion that can unambiguously replace the word “it”.
And if there are multiple things to be replaced, “it” is meaningless dribble.
Can you prove that Loius Pasture’s Law of Bio-genesis isn’t a law?
I ask because according to me knowledge, no breach of life ever creating life has taken place. And it is necessary for your theory to get off the ground.
“Going strictly by Evolution, I could also ask what is the mechanism for new Genetic Instructions?”
Yes, you could.
This, unlike “where did life come from?” is part of biology. It is also not a hard question and has been comprehensively answered for something around 60 years.
“Can you prove that Loius Pasture’s Law of Bio-genesis isn’t a law?”
Can you prove it is? And not tautologically. the name “Law” may be in there but it only proves the name “Law” is in there.
“no breach of life ever creating life has taken place”
Meaningless dribble again. Did you a word, bob?
“A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.”
All repeated experiments show that life always comes from life… That’s the definition of the word Science law.
“You also face the problem that of the 5 types of mutations”
Nope. No problem there.
“Mutations are a loss of information”
Incorrect. A corruption adds information. The existence of corruption is information.
” not a gain of additional information.”
Incorrect.
“Further, our bodies have defenses to filter out most corrupted code.”
No problem there either.
My theory is, that students equipped with the means to counter Evolution are backing teachers into a corner with questions they can’t answer. Since they cannot handle the argument, their first resort is to isolate the student…which the article speaks about by appealing to other teachers for help.
And then, going to the law. Because if a student knows what they are talking about, and taught properly – they can easily counter the idea that things get better with time. That’s not what we observe, once something runs out of usable energy, it decays.
“A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe.”
And this too is not a problem. It’s only a problem for someone who does not wish to comprehend what experimental observation is.
We observe evolution. And its test can be repeated and observed again. And therefore it is scientific.
“All repeated experiments show that life always comes from life…”
Prove that life cannot arise.
Quite hard given we already see life around us.
Would you care to give an example of observable Evolution? Something I don’t have to take on faith?
“My theory is”
Not a theory.
” Something I don’t have to take on faith?”
Why do you have to not take it on faith? Is it proof that the claim is wrong, if all there is to support it is the need to take it on faith, “bob”?
That’s an illogical conclusion. For example, if I have apples – I can give you apples because I have them. If I don’t have apples, I likewise can’t give you apples.
Likewise, if i’m dead – i cannot give you life. I don’t have life to give.
“their first resort is to isolate the student”
Incorrect.
The first thing is to continue with the lessons.
I never FORCED the student to ask questions and stay back to do so. I only refused to let them disrupt the class for the sake of their stupidity and rudeness.
“That’s an illogical conclusion.”
That is a blank assertion in relation to nothing, Bob.
And, no, giving your teacher an apple doesn’t mean you get to disrupt the class for all the other students who are not dumbasses trying to shout down reality.
I could just do the logical thing and operate only in science that comports with reality, that makes more sense. And I think students should have a right to opt out of secular religious beliefs like Evolution. But if they want to learn about someone elses opinion of the world, they can take the class.
Just like I wouldn’t force kids to take a class on how Zeus is the source of thunder and lightning, i’m not going to force them to listen about something dead making something else alive.
“Because if a student knows what they are talking about”
They wouldn’t ask such a stupid question.
Of course if they DON’T know what they’re talking about, then they can ask dumb questions and cry that they’re being ignored because they don’t even know what the class is about.
“I could just do the logical thing and operate only in science that comports with reality”
Go ahead, Bob.
Evolution does just that: comports with reality.
Our accusation is your the one denying reality, and the laws of science seem to be on our side. Matter Cannot be Created or destroyed, that makes the start of a universe from a Singular Expansion quite difficult. Entropy? That causes things to break down, even in an open system you need a system that can actually make use of the energy itself, plants can convert the suns ray into food; humans can’t. You can’t shine a sun on someone and keep them alive, but a plant you can.
Your theory violates most of the known laws of science. Thus, it’s not a disruption to shine light on that kind of religion.
” i’m not going to force them to listen about something dead making something else alive.”
Nobody is, “bob” and thinking biology is that, or that teaching is going to force someone to listen to that sort of BS is precisely why you do not know what you’re talking about.
School teaches you biology and evolution, not dead things “giving life”.
“Our accusation is your the one denying reality, and the laws of science seem to be on our side. ”
Well, not denying at all. Just flabbergasted at the stupidity and willful ignorance that would lead you to make that claim in contravention of all reality, bob.
“Matter Cannot be Created or destroyed”
Ah, you want the Physics department who will tell you that you’re wrong, bob.
Go learn some physics.
That’s all, we’ll keep pumping out Creationist. Have fun with your endless game of wack-o-mole.
“that makes the start of a universe from a Singular Expansion quite difficult.”
Since “that” was wrong, this claim likewise falls over having lost its “support”.
” we’ll keep pumping out Creationist.”
And the poor kids will learn how dumb you were when they become adults and many of them will decide to stop being creationists and start being sane people living in the real world.
“Entropy? That causes things to break down”
Physics again. And, no, this too is wrong.
Please enroll at your physics classes and not the Biology department.
“Your theory violates most of the known laws of science. ”
Only someone who doesn’t know the laws of science would say that and actually believe it. Only someone talking to the creationists who already WANT to believe this (you only have problems believing science without proof. Odd that. Just believe science without proof and you’re golden) would believe that this could even vaguely work.
“endless game of wack-o-mole.”
Thank you for admitting to your intent to use fallacious arguments (the fallacy of repetition), proving you know that you’re making only crap arguments.
Mr. Sharkey displays multiple items of ignorance: a garbled idea of “scientific law”, denial of the basics of evolution, and a tangential reference to misunderstanding of physics. Creationist lack of knowledge all the way down.
Yet he thinks the issue is students “countering” evolution.
Any guesses on the chance he’s also a climate change denier? Anti vaccination loon?
“He is, obviously, using this child as a pawn in a game that he feels he is prepared to play and maybe win. He knows he is getting points with god by doing this (as does the pawn-child) ”
So the pastor is, unsurprisingly, in the child pawn industry.
Is that really YOUR theory (which is not a theory in the scientific sense) or something taught to you at Liberty University?
Explain the Laryngeal nerve.
As an evolutionary ecologist, I both cringe and laugh at people like Robert Sharkey. I read Doug Futuyma’s Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution’ years ago – it was written in 1982 – and in the Foreward Futuyma incredulously said that he was shocked that by that time there were still people who believed in creation and its subtle twin intelligent design. More importantly, he said that he felt compelled to write the book as an evolutionary biologist in order to counter creationist nonsense coming out of the Reagan administration, and that he was disappointed have to be writing a book defending what by then was already hard fact: evolution.
So fast forward 35 years and creationist gibberish is still doing the rounds. I am sure that Futuyma is as shocked as anyone. There are still simpletons lacking and of the relevant expertise – like Robert Sharkey here – spewing out utter non-scientific bullshit that barely deserves to ge in a sandbox. No wonder many scientists around the world read articles like this with utter contempt. The Flat Earth Society is making a comeback as I write. I am sure that Sharkey is one of them as well.
” with questions they can’t answer.”
It’s also false.
I can quite easily answer ANY question such a student posed. At least to the same standard as the religious nuts use to prove their claims which they have no problem with doing.
Sure, I might not be able to hand over evidence and proof other than “It’s written in this book”. But if htey complain the book was written by humans, then I’ll point out so was the bible. Unless god gave them its personal copy it created out of nothing. Because I’m pretty sure their bible has a list of the printer who printed that version and it won’t be “God. Heaven. Year 0”. If they point out that the books of biology changed, I’ll point out that god’s words as written in the holy books have changed, and that they merely accepted one printed version of it. They may point to bits that science has “proven wrong”, but I’ll just do like they do and say it’s allegorical or that they have not the proper comprehension in the book to make correct inferences, therefore their claims are merely their problem.
And if they ask if I was there, I’ll answer “Yes”. If they refuse to accept it, I will inquire if they were there to see who was, if they have proof I was not there.
Above all that, there will be many cases where there is abundant and irrefutable independent proofs too. Which is more than their religion has.
So on the balance of believability, my answers are better than theirs.
It’s even easier to answer every question a solipsist gives you. Just accept their terms of reference. Say you have proven their answer and if they do not, ask them how they know you have not given the proof?
Then punch them in the mouth and when they complain, say “No I did not”. If they disagree, then point out that there is no way to know reality and that they could be punching themselves. So punch them again and tell them to stop punching themselves.
Point out that if there is no objective reality there is no way to claim that they have not imagined being punched in the face a few times.
Oddly enough, very few solipsists will accept their precepts when it comes to pain that their mind has imagined has come from another person. They seem to be unable to accept that reality is merely an assumption when it hurts and they have an idea that asking someone else to stop will end the pain.
If you’re small, get a couple of friends to hold them down.
After all, in trying to imagine being hurt by another they will clearly have to imagine some bigger people holding them down for this to work, else they would not be able to keep up the pretense of coherent reality which is merely a fantasy. Clearly they imagine that you have friends, just like they imagine you’re not a figment of their imagination.
But you can just avoid the second bit. It really only amuses, it never really actually gets the solipsist to accept that there is a coherent true reality and that the bleeding of noses and breaking of teeth can be used to determine this really is happening.
Just telling them you’ve given the proof is enough to work. They then have to prove their precepts incorrect to prove you have not.
Which is amusing in itself. Just a lot easier for them to accept the loss and pretend it never happened.
I suspect our creationist mole has scurried off having entertained himself with a drive-by. What a deluded ‘piece of work’!
Copped to it in its parting shot. Which was still grammatically incorrect. “That’s all, we’ll keep pumping out Creationist. Have fun with your endless game of wack-o-mole.”.
My only reason for maybe disbelieving evolution is that people keep comparing the other side to global warming deniers, and I see how the science is messed up in that field.
Well your vision is faulty. That is all I am saying about this OT twist.
The words “denier” and “denialist” apply to folks who express your opinion because, in the end, the person being referred to is denying, for no reason, scientific results (this refers to people like you who say the results are not correct not because of any valid reason or competing theory still discussed by scientists, but simply because you don’t like the results).
anti-vaccination = deniai
doubting evolution = denial
doubting relativity = denial
doubting climate change = denial
The words fit.
“My only reason ..”
Is not even a reason, just petty revenge.