Science Strikes Back

[neadods]

Perhaps you've heard of the textbook inserts? There's a lawsuit in Cobb County, GA about stickers stating evolution "is a theory, not a fact." Similar stickers have shown up all through the Bible Belt states. Well, Swarthmore College's Natural Science Dept has a few textbook inserts of its own. The very first one is the sticker that they're objecting to. The ones after that get incrementally sillier...

There's a link to a Cafe Press shirt with them all on it, and blanket permission to make individuals into T-shirts for yourself. Oh, so tempting!

Comments

[madshutterbug.livejournal.com]

I just have to make one for myself! Too fun.

[vampry.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

Unfortunately, I have to cop to living in Cobb County, Ga. I'm not proud of it but I do love those stickers.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

You have my deepest sympathies!

[vampry.livejournal.com]

I just realized: I don't mean that I love the "evolution" stickers the school board wants to use; I mean I love the others. Sigh.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

My turn to clarify - I was actually sympathizing that you have to live among folks who would do this kinda thing.

[havocthecat]

"I don't want the Bible taught in the classroom. But there is a wealth of science that would support intelligent design, and that is not taught," she said. "There should be a marketplace of ideas."

Well, bring it, then. Bring out your proof on intelligent design and tell me how that's not a religious belief based on faith. Because it is. And it's okay if you want to believe in it as long as you admit it's a belief based on religion rather than science.

There is no scientific proof that God exists, only philosophical debate about the nature and existence of such a deity.

*ahem* Sorry. I get soapboxy about this.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

I'll bet you $20 that if you could get her to produce such "evidence", it would prove to be at best based on junk science and at worst flat-out fraudulent. But you'd have to be a professional biologist to spot some of the flaws -- they're fond of pulling stunts like using studies which have already been superceded by fresh data to back their spurious claims.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

The real fun is using creationist arguments against creationists; last time this came up (on a Beauty & the Beast list, of all places!), I used Answers in Genesis' "Arguments We Think Creationists Shouldn't Use page as part of my rebuttal. There's not too much someone can do when they're presented with proof that even people on THEIR side say they're wrong!

But you'd have to be a professional biologist to spot some of the flaws

Or a lurker on talk.origins, where most of the arguments and rebuttals come around on an annual basis.

My personal favorite argument is to redirect. Many of the creationist arguments get into ad hominum attacks on Darwin, as if evolution would fall if he were discredited. So I always bring up Alfred Russel Wallace, who was a publication date away from being the one hung up like a pinata by religious reactionaries.

[havocthecat]

I don't doubt your assertion, sadly. *beats head against desk*