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."

Comments

They are even dumber than they seem.

[cfulton]

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.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[Hatta]

Until your misinformed spawn grow up and vote. Then we have a real problem.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[erroneus]

If they want a "living fossil" they only need to look in a mirror.

If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.

I wonder what "the dark ages 2.0" will be like. With so many people like this out there, we can't be too far away from another knowledge and development extinction event.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[preaction]

You're talking about "abiogenesis", which does contradict creationism. Evolution is a process that can exist with or without creationism or abiogenesis. Of course, nobody cares about this distinction, but I believe that is the distinction that GP is trying to make.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[mr1911]

If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.

It is obvious - they are spelled differently.

OK, seriously. Religion is what you believe. Mythology is what "unenlightened" people that believe differently than you believe.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[alexo]

The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.)

An absence of belief in god(s) is not the same as a belief in their absence.

Re:They are even dumber than they seem.

[bky1701]

"The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)"

"Agnostics" saying this more does not make it more true.

Courtesy of the scientific method and burden of proof, a positive claim is false until proven. That doesn't imply ignorance. God does not exist until god is proven to exist. Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so god is extremely unlikely until some sort of proof starts showing up.

Here's a test. When it comes to elves, do you say you are "agnostic?" Elves have just as much proof as god. In fact, both Icelandic and LOTR elves have the exact same proof; so you should be agnostic to them both coexisting. Yet no sane person would say "I am not sure" - they would say, "no, elves do not exist."

That's the problem with agnostics. The word means nothing. Atheists ARE agnostics in the strict sense: if god were proven, we would have to accept that god exists (even if that god is evil/incompetent). Until then, we do not say "well, god MIGHT exist, so we should use a special word to make it look like we're not against religion, just in cane," just like you do not say "hmm, well..." when asked if you believe Middle Earth is literally located in New Zealand. The difference that I see existing between atheists and self-proclaimed "agnostics" (most of whom are actually deists trying to sound more intelligent) is that one understands logical processes and probability, and one does not.

Please stop insulting people using your misunderstanding of common words.

Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[tekrat]

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.

Failed argument on all counts

[Kurt Granroth]

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?

Not the same

[KingSkippus]

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.

Re:Brace yourselves! It has begun!

[Gr8Apes]

To the editors - surely you can automate a spamcatcher for this type of spam, and automatically kill it?

Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie?

[kidgenius]

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"

Re:Was Jesus riding Nessie?

[iluvcapra]

Sadly, no, the fundamentalists are not trolling, they honestly believe a fairy tale disproves science.

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.