ARGH! Project for Hist of Sci:Prepare for Darwin v Creation Debate Mon!

[thom1102]

We are staging a debate on Evolution vs Creationism tomorrow for my History of Science Class, and none of us knows which side we will be taking until tomorrow, so we have to come to class prepared to argue either side! ZOINKS! As a devout darwinist, I am having difficulty reading through some of the creationist rhetoric. These people don't understand the difference between religious doctrine and science. They don't offer a scientific alternative to evolution, they merely poke holes, or point out holes in evolution theory. I have no problem in admitting that there is still a lot we don't know about how we got here and what happened before we figured out how to write things down, but that doesn't change the basis of the arguement... CREATIONISM IS NOT A SCIENCE BACKED UP WITH LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE, and THEREFORE CAN NOT BE TAUGHT SIDE BY SIDE IN THE CLASSROOM WITH EVOLUTION. If you want to take your ankle biter to Sunday School and teach him that we are the result of some all powerful being's week in "Woodshop", then fine, but don't expect me as a science teacher to push that bunk on everyone elses kid. Sorry, an entire afternoon of rightwing christian dogma brought out that response in me. Rant over.

[DavidMS]

1. This should help...

http://www.skeptictank.org/

Good luck. I hope you get to arge for Reasion.

[Kamika]

2. damn that's harsch

I can't come up with ANY argument as to how creationists can back up their theory , atleast not over darwinism

[ProudGerman]

3. That oughta be quite the mental excercise

If, unfortunately, you are picked to argue the side of creationism. Trying to convince the other side of your view, all the while knowing every word coming out of your mouth is utter bullshit.

I don't know if I could spew unadulterate bunk, without laughing hysterically at the same time. I don't envy you.

[NoPasaran]

4. Tough gig

I'd rather have to argue against that Copernicus nonsense!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Is it just me or is there's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with this?

I mean, debating for whatever position regardless of your true opinion? Isn't that, effectively, teaching how to be a good whore?

Wrong.

[Djinn]

15. no it's debating

that's kind of the whole point - it's about learning to reasearch and to effectively communicate, refute and reiterate. It's not about the topic per se.

That said I would have asked for a different topic, religious mythology shouldn't be taught in a science class even if it's only to debate - in an english/humanities class maybe where debvating is useful.

[Astarho]

6. Reminds me of something a Buddhist friend suggested

to me once. he said to take an idea and try to convince yourself of the exact opposite, ie there is no god convince yourself there is or we have souls and then convince yourself we don't. etc. he said there are some thing you will not be able to convince yourself of.

My advice if you have to argue the Creationist side, just stick to poking holes in Evolution rather then argueing for Creationsim itself.

Let us know how it goes (and which side you have to argue).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. STOP THE PRESSES! I had an idea!

Watch this video:

http://www.fes-net.com/_lob/video/gamow.wmv

What about taking on satire if you get Creationism?

[Endangered Specie]

9. Oh, that is funny!

[Endangered Specie]

8. I would rather fail than support creationism...

Are they forcing you to take sides?!?, I would talk to the principal about that, tell them its against your religion, cause Im sure that would be acceptable if a fundie didnt want to have to argue for darwin. I hope you fight it, call the ACLU!!

[thom1102]

12. It is a college level History of Science class for Science Ed Majors...

No principals to complain to. I think the idea is actually to prepare us for the fundie parents we are bound to experience as educators. I think that sides will be decided by the professor. I am just tired of sifting through the fundie sites looking for support for thier loony ideology. I need five articles for both sides.

[Edge]

10. You think that's bad?

I have to do a presentation about ANWR...and it's in a "town-hall" meeting fashion, and get this: I have to be on the side FOR drilling in ANWR! I'm way against it, yet I have to be on the side for it. Sigh.

I'll trade ya debates....

[thom1102]

13. I would take that trade...

I can probably fake believing that the oil in ANWR could make us energy independant better than faking believing in Creationism... I am a disgrace to my Darwin Fish!

[starroute]

11. If it's History of Science, can you do it in historical terms?

Tell them you're Bishop "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce and than use only the arguments that he rolled out against Darwin and Huxley in 1859.

Or maybe say you're William Jennings Bryan and argue as he did against Clarence Darrow at the Scopes Trial.

It might be a little thin as far as debating goes, but perhaps you'd earn some brownie points with the professor for your sense of history.

[thom1102]

14. LOL... That is what started all this...

We had to read, in the Ten Greatest Feuds in Science "Darwin's Bulldog vs Soapy Sam" and they touch on both the debate with Soapy Sam and Huxley and the Scopes Trial.

[Scottie72]

16. Here is another GREAT site!

This is probably one of the most comprehensive sites. It debunks most of the creation myths.

[moof]

17. Endangered Specie is right, this is not a debate

There is no way anyone should be forced to argue either side since there is nothing in dispute. If asked to defend " creationism " vs Evolution state the obvious, there is no scientific evidence to support the "conjecture" of creationism.