Slashdot Mirror
Fundamentalist Schools Using "Nessie" To Disprove Evolution
The debate between creationists and proponents of evolution isn't ending any time soon, but now some creationists have a secret weapon, "Nessie!"
Certain fundamentalist schools in Louisiana plan to teach children that the Loch Ness monster is real in a bid to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. From the article: "One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: 'Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the "Loch Ness Monster" in Scotland? "Nessie" for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.' Another claim taught is that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur. It's unclear if the movie Godzilla was the inspiration for this lesson."
Finding a live dinosaur does not in any way disprove evolution. It would simply mean that some very few dinosaurs lived through the extinction event. These Christians really need to take a class in evolution. That way they would know what they need to disprove.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
OK seriously, if they are teaching that Nessie is real, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? And how about all the other urban legends, such as the Jersey Devil, Flying Saucers/Roswell, Bigfoot, Yeti, Dragons, Unicorns, Mermaids, Hobgoblins, and Trolls?
Yes, I know that Trolls are real, we feed them all the time on Slashdot.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This reasoning fails in at least three fundamental ways.
First, the Loch Ness Monster simply doesn't exist. No reputable scientist would claim that it does, or even that it could exist in the way that it is commonly portrayed.
Second, it's not even necessary for dinosaurs to still exist to support their argument. There are already well-known animals alive today that have been virtually unchanged since the dinosaur times. Alligators and crocodiles are the best examples I can think of, off the top of my head.
Third, as the existence of alligators shows, even if dinosaurs did still exist, that doesn't in any possible way "disprove" the Theory of Evolution. I'm not entirely certain what reasoning would have to apply so that their existence would matter at all.
Really, this mostly just goes to show that any "debate" on the topic is fruitless when one side thinks that an argument like this completely invalidates proven scientific fact. How can you argue against that?
I think their line of "reasoning" here is probably similar to the "argument" that "if humans evolved from chimps, why are there still chimps around?"
They're trying to go "Look, dinosaurs still exist! So how could anything new have evolved since them if they're still around, eh?"
It's a failure to realize that evolution is a branching of the tree of life, not the creep of one single vine of life or something.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Hopefully some kid in one of those wing-nut schools (which are absolutely not representative of American education) will raise their hand and ask:
"Um...how can we find a static shipwreck on the floor of the vast North Atlantic, 12,000 ft underwater, but we can't find a huge moving sea monster in a lake with less than 2 cu mi volume, less than 450 ft average depth?"
And hopefully their teacher actually thinks about the question.
Lake Tahoe, which has 20 times the volume of Loch Ness, marketed a "Tessie" monster for a while. They had cute plush toys, stickers, buttons, a little museum, and all that. But it was just a joke, like Nessie.
The best lessons to teach kids with this, are in gullibility, and tourism marketing.
I'd agree with your "don't lump all christians in with this lot" statement. Most of my friends and family are Christians, and they are perfectly nice, well-adjusted people, and I don't make a habit of going around arguing with people.
However, please do not try to set up an equivalence between belief in the existence of God and belief in evolution. Christians cannot provide direct proof of the existence of God. They cannot even provide any compelling evidence, except maybe some philosophical thought experiments that pretty much break down when one simply asks, "are there any other alternatives that could explain this?". Evolution, on the other hand, has vast libraries of direct observations, repeatable experiments, and scientifically testable outcomes that support it. There's a huge difference.
Look, I don't have a problem with Christians. If I did, living in the Bible Belt South, I literally wouldn't be able to talk to hardly anyone. You believe things on faith, I get that, and honestly, as far as religions go, it's got some good parts to it that I respect. But please, just admit it and be at peace with it, don't try to either 1) build up your beliefs with misguided scientific "proof" of things that cannot be proven, or 2) tear down bodies of scientific proof for things that can.
All the current, known "living fossils" can be traced through fossils in multiple sediment layers. Logically, because they were alive during the years those sediment layers were laid down.
But that contradicts their "theory" that the sediment layers all formed during the same period (the "Flood").
So if they can find a single species that still exists but where the only fossils are in a specific sediment layer then it must "prove" that the Biblical account of Noah and The Flood is correct and evolution is wrong because "God did it".
That is because it would "disprove" the scientific theory (despite all supporting evidence) that the sediment layers formed over hundred of millions of years. Because they were all laid down within several weeks.
And , therefore, evolution is a lie. God did it.
To the editors - surely you can automate a spamcatcher for this type of spam, and automatically kill it?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Sadly, no, the fundamentalists are not trolling, they honestly believe a fairy tale disproves science.
Would you areee that in a million years it is possible, via the mechanism of evolution, that a housecat will teach mathematics at a college level.
I await your response.
Future descendants of cats may or may not teach mathematics; intelligence is not a directed goal of evolution. Nice try, but your oversimplification didn't win me over to the "goddidit" side.
Sure. As long as there would be a selective pressure for such a behavior. There are however some caveats: cats do not have the best "starting material" (like hands) to evolve into something that would benefit from such things (crows on the other hand could be a rather interesting bet...). There are tons of examples of how sub-optimal evolution really is (how our eyes for example evolved from a proto-eye which limited the possible end result, whereas other independently evolved eyes have much better "design") because it builds on a previously existing part (adapted for something else). After writing this answer I realized that I missed pointing out the most obvious: the "housecat" will be long dead when the "university math professor evolved from housecats" exists just like the proto-apes that were the ancestors of us and the other modern apes are long extinct.
If god is real, I am pretty sure I don't want to meet him, given all the crap that happened over the course of history in his name. He must be either evil or incompetent.
Great Intellect...
What is a/the goal of evolution?
There isn't one. Evolution is a process. It is not sentient. "It" isn't trying to achieve anything. It just explains how things happen, not why.
Indiana Jones explained it best:
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. "
Replace "Archaeology" with "science"
I don't have anything against people practicing a particular religion. I do have problems with advocates of a particular religion latching onto an urban legend (or rural legend, in the case of Loch Ness), suggesting there is evidence to support such a myth which can then be referenced to support their own agenda for the origins of species and the universe, all the while dismissing mountains beyond mountains of evidence that could possibly conflict with their own view of creation.
There is a difference between having faith in what you don't fully understand and just closing your eyes, putting your hands over your years and saying over and over "your wrong! your wrong! I know 100% what I believe is true. All evidence to the contrary is fabricated by Satan. I will not be deceived by your vile lies."
I have to take small "acts of faith" every day. I presume that the dollars I earned this week will still be worth about the same by the time I get the chance to use them. I trust that when my doctor asks for my social security number that he or his staff isn't going to steal my identity. I could be wrong about any of these presumptions, but you have to weigh the risks against the rewards. I don't fault a person for fearing his or her own mortality and living a life based on the faith that if their religion is true they will enjoy an afterlife. Those who desire a better afterlife so much that they ignore the problems of this world, or crash planes into buildings - I do have a problem with that.
As for myself, I actually attended one of these fundamentalist type schools during middle- and high-school. It took several years after leaving to un-warp my mind. Textbooks in the early 90's also had a small paragraph along with a picture of the dead thing pulled up by the Japanese fishing boat. My favorite was a sketch explaining how "evolutionists" used circular reasoning:
Student: "how do you know how old that fossil is?"
Scientist: "because I found it in a particular geologic layer"
Student: "how did you know how old the geologic layer was?"
Scientist: "because of the fossils we found in it"
Acting in the name of God is the utmost of arrogance, and doesn't indicate that God was on their side, just that they believed it so.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
It's not about "proving" anything, it's about giving young people a compelling story until they get older and grow out of dinosaurs, and into Thomist exegesis and pre-Tribulationist doctrine.
It's not about evidence, it's about conditioning children to accept fairy stories as valid epistemology. Once that's done, the story is changed to suit whatever purpose is required.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
At the core, Fundies are pure White Trash and never forget it. They wallow in their degenerate backwardness like the Taliban. They are perfect examples of what religious thinking produces.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Though if such a god cared, you'd think he'd do something to defend his name. It isn't like he'd be new to the smiting game.
But all you've managed to do is prove just how unpleasant a christian ideologue can be.
Science is not a threat to Christianity, friend. Ignorance, on the other hand, almost certainly is.
If you want to cast your lot with those that say "Science can't be right because it disagrees with Genesis" then you prove ignorance of both Science and Christianity. Remember, Jesuits played a big part in establishing the geological record that is used to prove the account in Genesis is meant as creation myth, not as historical record. It's only recently in the past century that there is a movement in pop-christianity to categorically deny science, because for pop-christians, all of reality is a threat to their desire to get people to believe anything they say.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sorry, but the contents of this article ARE what Christians teach. It's just like how it's true that Americans do actually drive around in silly jacked-up pickup trucks. The catch is, not ALL Christians believe this stuff, but the people in this article really are Christian (you only have to believe Jesus was the son of God to be a Christian), and they really do believe it. You don't get to claim they're not "true Christians" just because their beliefs are different from yours.
Christianity is a very large and unorganized religion (certain sects are organized, but not the whole thing), and its members believe in many widely diverging things, such as creationism, snake-handling, that you'll become a god of your own planet if you're a good person in this life, etc.