Okay folks, I'm writing a letter to the editor in response to a creationist. I'll give the creationist's letter first, and the my reply. Please give me advice on what I should add, take away, etc.
First, the opposition.
The creationist wrote:Why are evolutionists afraid of the mention of creation/intelligent design in schools? Evolutionists claim that creationists and those who favor intelligent design are intolerante when they are the ones who are practicing intolerance. Research being done by the brilliant scientists at the Institue for Creation Research as well as others is largly ignored. Why? Because they are not evolutionists. Their findings won't see the light of day in the media.
Are they afraid because evolution is not based on scientific facts or evidence and creation science is? To set the record straight, evolution is just as religious as a belief as creation or intelligent design. The Humanist Manifesto, written by secular humanists, states that evolution is a tenet of Humanism and that Humanism is a religion. This means that evolution is a religious tenet.
Perhaps it is because "subtle morphing" or intermediate forms have never been found in the fossil record. Perhaps it's because all their "missing links" have been exposed as frauds. Is it because evolution cannot explain the beginnings of life on Earth? Even the amazing cell is beyond them.
I believe the real reason is a fear that if students are only given the facts and the real evidence and told to decide for themselves, they will most likely choose to believe in intelligent design. Evolution cannot survive in a fair marketplace of ideas. It must be artifically sustained. That is pathetic and dishonest.
And my reply:
The letter writer from November 24th claims he wishes to set the record straight, but does the exact opposite. He claims that research done at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is ignored because they are not evolutionists. This is not true. Their “research” is ignored because it is not legitimate science.
According to ICR’s FAQ page, the Bible is infallible in all ways, and the creation story in Genesis is literally true. They dismiss any scientific findings that contradict the Bible. They are starting with conclusions and then only accepting evidence that supports the conclusion they wish for- not scientific at all. But even if we were to ignore this, their claims are still unscientific, because their claims are unfalsifiable and untestable, since they require the presence of supernatural processes.
There is then the claim that evolution is a religious belief because it is part of the “Humanist Manifesto, written by secular humanists.” But the letter writer seems to have forgotten the definition of the word “secular”- because it means an absence from religion. Humanism is an ethical philosophy, not a religion.
The writer continues with misguided claims (from ICR’s website and literature) that no intermediate fossils have ever been found (a gross falsity- all fossils are intermediate forms, and there are many well-documented intermediate forms throughout the fossil record, including the ancestors of Homo Sapiens), or that evolution does not explain the origins of life (the origins of life are no more relevant to evolution than to plate tectonics).
Creationism is a pseudoscience, and creationists cry “Intolerance!” when denied from science classrooms. So too do Holocaust deniers cry “Intolerance!” when their pseudohistory is denied from history classrooms. “If only the real facts were presented,” both parties shout… but it’s the real facts that they disagree with.
Suggestions, critiques, etc? Please keep in mind I only have 300 words- also, I'd like to mail this in the next day or so.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Well, I need to explain it somehow, I feel. Just making claims doesn't feel right.
How to add them without parentheticals, then?
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
"The writer continues with misguided claims (from ICR’s website and literature) that no intermediate fossils have ever been found. This is a gross falsity - all fossils are intermediate forms, and there are many well-documented intermediate forms throughout the fossil record, including the ancestors of Homo Sapiens. He also contends that evolution does not explain the origins of life, however they are no more relevant to evolution than to plate tectonics."
If you can fit it, add "It is abiogenesis that deals with the origins of life. Evolution explains how primitive life became modern life."
If I were to write such a letter, I would say that on the contrary, I have no problem with creationism and ID being brought up in the science classroom - as prime examples of unscientific garbage to be dissected, destroyed, and ridiculed.
DPDarkPrimus wrote:Well, I need to explain it somehow, I feel. Just making claims doesn't feel right.
How to add them without parentheticals, then?
Yea, that's what I meant. They could all be done with normal punctuation since they're all directly related to their host sentences, like with Adrian Laguna's post.
You might consider adding on to the end in that paragraph so it reads something like: "[...]or that evolution does not explain the origins of life; the origins of life are no more relevant to evolution than to plate tectonics because evolution concerns itself with the adaptation of life to fit its surroundings, not origins; that would be a question for bio-chem."
Revised letter. I'll be emailing it sometime tonight, so get any last critiques in quickly please.
The letter writer from November 24th claims he wishes to set the record straight, but does the exact opposite. He claims that research done at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is ignored because they are not evolutionists. This is not true. Their “research” is ignored because it is not legitimate science.
According to ICR’s FAQ page, the Bible is infallible in all ways, and the creation story in Genesis is literally true. They dismiss any scientific findings that contradict the Bible. They are starting with conclusions and then only accepting evidence that supports the conclusion they wish for- not scientific at all. But even if we were to ignore this, their claims are still unscientific, because their claims are unfalsifiable and untestable, since they require the presence of supernatural processes.
There is then the claim that evolution is a religious belief because it is part of the “Humanist Manifesto, written by secular humanists.” But the letter writer seems to have forgotten the definition of the word “secular”- because it means an absence from religion. Humanism is an ethical philosophy, not a religion.
The writer continues with misguided claims (from ICR’s website/literature) that no intermediate fossils have been found. This is a gross falsity -there are many well-documented intermediate forms throughout the fossil record, including the ancestors of Homo Sapiens. He also contends that evolution does not explain the origins of life, however they are no more relevant to evolution than to plate tectonics
Creationism is a pseudoscience, and creationists cry “Intolerance!” when denied from science classrooms. So too do Holocaust deniers cry “Intolerance!” when their pseudohistory is denied from history classrooms. “They are so close-minded! If only the real facts were presented!” both parties shout… but it’s the real facts that they disagree with.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.
Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
This is a gross falsity -there are many well-documented intermediate forms throughout the fossil record, including the ancestors of Homo Sapiens.
The bolded area should be "falsity - there". Remember to put a space on both sides of that little horizontal line if you are not using it to join words toguether like in "well-documented".
Pretty sure they would have corrected that before printing it, anyway.
I'm going to email at 9 CST, or after my pizza's done and I've eaten it, whichever comes last.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
^But that's what really adds some spice to the closing paragraph. Readers like this kind of controversy, and if anything, it encourages them to read the newspaper. Only the most asstastic fundies boycott a newspaper because it contains opposing viewpoints. Hell, they consider a boycott to be the equivalent of a surrender. If they don't respond to these points, they are just like the scientists who refuse to debate them in public.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
wolveraptor wrote:^But that's what really adds some spice to the closing paragraph. Readers like this kind of controversy, and if anything, it encourages them to read the newspaper. Only the most asstastic fundies boycott a newspaper because it contains opposing viewpoints. Hell, they consider a boycott to be the equivalent of a surrender. If they don't respond to these points, they are just like the scientists who refuse to debate them in public.
I agree it drives home the entire point right there, but most papers won't print that because it's too agressive and most readers will only remember the last sentence and rearrange it in their stupid heads to be "ID = Holocaust denial". Maybe his paper has some editorial balls, but if he want's it published, nixing that sentence will increase the chances.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Even if they do misinterpret it as such, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll stop reading the paper.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Sad as it is, I think letters like this attacking ID NEED a catch line like that. ID people are full of catchy, illogical but logical SOUNDING quotes that they use to end their arguments on a happy and smothering note.
Something pointed like an anology to the Holocaust deniers IS something the average joe can understand and use to relate the rest of the argument to.
That's the true horror of intelligent design. It's such a simple sounding idea, and it seems quite reasonable at a casual glance. The reasons for its dismissal are above the majority of the public, and catchy phrases give it an appeal to the common mind. Bloody stupidity...
I've gotten letters published before... so maybe they won't mind as much?
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
I've been trying to think of a quick 'n dirty but rhetorically effective quip for ID, and here's what I came up with:
If Intelligent Design were a real scientific theory, it would explain how God created Man, rather than just pointing a finger at Him and telling us not to ask any more questions.
After all, if you don't know how God created Man, then you have to propose ideas ... like Evolution.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
People who support evolution lose the public battles because its difficult to squeeze something as complex as evolution into a single, dumbed down catchy phrase or sentence and lets face it, catchy phrases are what wins the public battles. Stupidity such as "no transitional fossils" or "evolution is a religion" catches on far faster than the Theory of Endosymbiosis or the iron sulfer-theory. You just can't fit something that might take up entire pages to explain into a sound bite. Even a marketing expert would be hard pressed to do so.
I don't understand why pro-creationists are so threatened by science. The only thing science has ever sought is the truth to the universe. Is it better to live in darkness of to live in light? Quite frankly, to walk out of darkness and not to be afraid, to reach for knowledge is something that Jesus would advocate.
"No one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden, or under a bowl. Instead he puts it on its stand, so that those who come in may see the light."
Fire Fly wrote:People who support evolution lose the public battles because its difficult to squeeze something as complex as evolution into a single, dumbed down catchy phrase or sentence and lets face it, catchy phrases are what wins the public battles. Stupidity such as "no transitional fossils" or "evolution is a religion" catches on far faster than the Theory of Endosymbiosis or the iron sulfer-theory. You just can't fit something that might take up entire pages to explain into a sound bite. Even a marketing expert would be hard pressed to do so.
Complex answers are for people with complex minds. Unfortunately, the public is dominated by people who have simple minds. This would not be that bad except that they are arrogant and refuse to admit that scientists are smarter than they are.
I don't understand why pro-creationists are so threatened by science. The only thing science has ever sought is the truth to the universe. Is it better to live in darkness (or) to live in light?
According to creationists, it's better to live in darkness. Why do you think their number one educational priority is ensuring that certain kinds of information (namely, science and sexuality) are either suppressed or watered down?
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment! "This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
The pro-creationists seem to forget that religion begat science. Many of the earliest scientists were very religiously devout and they wanted an answer as to why their deity made things worked they way they did. That's what science answers: why things work the way they do. Copernicus and Kepler didn't just accept "because God made it so." They sought the means as to why God made it so and how God made it so. Religion offers a quick explanation, science offers a detailed explaination.
It's even worse than that. People don't want to know the why of things.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
Welll, after a long turnabout, they've published my letter. Well, most of it. As I'd feared, they truncated my scathingly-accurate comparison to Holocaust deniers.
The last paragraph was revised to something like "Creationists cry "Intolerance!" but creationism is just pseudoscience, and has no place in the science classroom."
Also, below my letter was some dumbass who said "If evolution is true, we might as well all act like animals. Why even bother passing laws against child molestation?"
Yes, that's what he said.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest "Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
