Need help writing creationist paper for a college course.

[Fire Fly]

Since the evidence does not support the creationist's view point, you have to go for the philosophical and passionate approach. A Christian friend of mine is quite fond of the following arguments whenever we talk about religion:

1. Science has demonstrated that there exists a logical consistency about the universe, therefore, there must be some sort of a god.

2. There exists no such things as absolute truth. Just because evolution has more evidence does not necessarily mean that creationism could be wrong; I would agree that evolution is probably right but if people want to research creationism, let them do it and they will probably fail.

3. Censoring creationism is unethical. Censoring any idea prevents you from getting to the ultimate truth.

[Darth Wong]

3. Censoring creationism is unethical. Censoring any idea prevents you from getting to the ultimate truth.

I hate the way these assholes claim that "not teaching it in school as if it is a valid scientific theory" is the same as "censoring" it. Freedom of speech means that you can say it. It doesn't mean you can force it into science textbooks.

[Junghalli]

The more I think about this, the more I think you should write a parody of the YEC and ID claims. The FSM should suffice for ID, however, you could always do a bit of research and find a non-christian YEC. Babylonian for example, and find evidence for it.

It would actually be quite funny to write a paper describing all of the horrors, cruelties, and laughable outcomes of nature (all the nasty stuff that happens in reality, but which purveyors of the "natural harmony" meme ignore), and then declare that this proves there must be an evil intelligent designer, because random chance could not produce such horrors.

I totally endorse these suggestions, if you can get away with it. I'd love to see the look on the Professor's face when he reads an apparently completely serious paper making as good a case for the ancient Greek or Babylonian creation myths as was ever made for YEC.

[Adrian Laguna]

It would actually be quite funny to write a paper describing all of the horrors, cruelties, and laughable outcomes of nature (all the nasty stuff that happens in reality, but which purveyors of the "natural harmony" meme ignore), and then declare that this proves there must be an evil intelligent designer, because random chance could not produce such horrors.

The Exile's Schoepenhauer Awards would be perfect for that, mostly because they kind of make the same argument.

[Junghalli]

The Exile's Schoepenhauer Awards would be perfect for that, mostly because they kind of make the same argument.

That intestinal roundworm would be a great example to use for ED (Evil Design).

"It burrows out of your intestines and into your lungs, where it gives you a cough, all so it can get coughed into your throat and go back to where it started, for no apparent reason. This migration makes no biological sense, but it makes perfect sense as a deliberate attempt to increase the host's suffering. This feature cannot possibly have evolved naturally: it could only have been created by a sadistic Evil Designer."

That should totally go in that paper somewhere.

[Rye]

It would actually be quite funny to write a paper describing all of the horrors, cruelties, and laughable outcomes of nature (all the nasty stuff that happens in reality, but which purveyors of the "natural harmony" meme ignore), and then declare that this proves there must be an evil intelligent designer, because random chance could not produce such horrors.

Ah, you mean an article describing organisms that look designed with irreducable grotesqueness in mind?

[wautd]

The Exile's Schoepenhauer Awards would be perfect for that, mostly because they kind of make the same argument.

That intestinal roundworm would be a great example to use for ED (Evil Design).

"It burrows out of your intestines and into your lungs, where it gives you a cough, all so it can get coughed into your throat and go back to where it started, for no apparent reason. This migration makes no biological sense, but it makes perfect sense as a deliberate attempt to increase the host's suffering. This feature cannot possibly have evolved naturally: it could only have been created by a sadistic Evil Designer."

That should totally go in that paper somewhere.

I think you're on to something

[Setesh]

Hey, I had something very similar to this project. Granted I didn't care about passing the course since it was an extra class I signed on for to fill the 3 hour gap in the middle of my day. As such you may not want to risk my solution. I turned in a paper about why Evolution/ID/YEC couldn't be reconciled and why attempts to due so are not only intellectually and morally dishonest but dangerous. He passed me for original thinking and a well written argument.

[ray245]

Each paper will consist of:
1-2 pages Introduction to the problem-Collaborative.
8-16 pages representing the different viewpoints (2-4 pages per student)
1-2 pages summary explaining how the positions can be accommodated (or not).-Collaborative.

What the hell kind of drugs go into the creation of a PHILOSOPHY course which attempts to locate any sort of presumed mindless middle stance to a SCIENTIFIC issue? I can't even *think* about the kind of laughter that would result if I proposed such a concept to any number of scientists I know.

I'm guessing the prof wants his students to come to the "enlightened" conclusion that scientists and religious people are equally logical, but they simply start from different premises. Scientists start from the premise that physical evidence is the only reliable kind of evidence, while religious people start from the premise that "revelation" is just as valid as physical evidence. That's how a lot of pseudo-philosophy windbags rationalize their religious apologist bullshit.

Of course, the fact is that physical evidence is objective, while "revelation" is nothing more than a fancy word for "something I made up", so the two can hardly be equated in any meaningful sense, but that's how people like this tend to think.

Well...couldn't he write it like a histrotical essay, where you need to bring up both point of view, then make a comparision which one is more creditable?