essentialsaltes | (no subject)

Yesterday, I posted this story (Iceland: Mystery Basalt Pillars 'Not Formed by Trolls Fighting') to FB, and was delighted by my friends sticking up for trollism. It was also cathartic to respond in kind, saying things I would probably never say to a creationist (unless I had really been worked up into a tizzy).

Yesterday was also the Ham on Nye Debate (still available for the time being on YouTube - when Ham starts selling DVD's, the free stream will likely vanish.) I only listened with one ear (literally) at work, but Nye did better than I feared. Most people seem to think he won handily, though the actual number of changed minds is probably zero. I paid more attention to Ham, who did okay with his rhetoric, but he's no Duane Gish.

Some dude on Buzzfeed who was there gave creationists from the audience a pen and asked them to write messages to evolutionists. I find it odd that a couple of them refer to there being 'only 1 Lucy'. I dunno if that's something Ham said in the debate, but obviously, there are many A. afarensis fossils. Maybe they'd accept evolution if they only knew.

Anyway, I now feel the urge to translate all creationist arguments into Troll.

How do you explain a sunset if their is no troll?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

When I was a creationist, I clung to some pretty far-out, unscientific theories put forth by scientists who claimed to be Christians. Some of it was simply fringe thinking, but all of it lies with large dollops of logical fallacy. After I took an anthropology class and lab where we examined skulls of primitive man, it started to sink in, but I still held onto an "intelligent design" framework. It's tough, man. People like that are brainwashed. I was brainwashed. But the more exposure they get to real scientists, The better chance they have of breaking free.

But the more exposure they get to real scientists, The better chance they have of breaking free.

We would hope they would get that exposure in school, but obviously people are acting to eliminate or actively subvert science education.

A lot of people think Nye should not have debated Ham. That it gives creationism more recognition than it deserves. I understand the point, but I disagree, particularly since Nye is not actually a working scientist, and not a biologist. Yet he still has name recognition as a popularizer and educator of science. He's a celebrity. In that sense, I think this particular event was far better than if a biologist debated a creationist. Obviously, science is not settled by debate, and there is clearly no 'debate' within the scientific community on evolution. So if it can be framed as more of a stunt, or celebrity stunt-casting, it's a win for science.

Especially since the sad truth is that roughly half of Americans reject evolution at some level. They have been brainwashed and lied to. All they've ever heard about evolution came from a hostile pastor. This event may be some of the only exposure to what scientists actually think that they've received.

A hostile pastor and their parents, don't forget. Mom and dad play a huge role in our education. If mom and dad are brainwashed, chances are we won't be receptive to anything real scientists have to say. Strangely enough, however, I do remember my seventh grade science teacher talking about evolution. And in that insulated moment, everything else I had been taught was suspended. I listened and so did everyone else. Nobody gave him any lip for teaching Science, but he didn't push the subject either. I remember the discussion was quite limited. Maybe he knew who he was dealing with in our conservative school district.