Creationists' Guide to Evolution

[Surlethe]

I've been working over the summer on an idea for a website that introduces creationists to the theory of evolution. It's not an attempt to win them over, but rather to get them to discard their defensive misconceptions about evolution and win them over. Of course, once they begin to understand the ideas behind evolution, it's that much easier for them to see how they're wrong.

Anyway, the meat of the website is done, though there are a couple of essays I deem less important that still need to be worked on. I'm interested in feedback from y'all, if you don't mind giving it. Important questions to answer (though I will turn down no criticism): Does it make sense? Is it correct? Is my presentation okay?

The Creationists' Guide to Evolution is here.

[Xess]

I've read your introduction, I'm working on the rest. The format is good, I personally find the background a bit straining on my eyes but that's entirely my eyes and monitor talking not the site.

Your statement of your own faith is a good way to go. Your honesty is clear in the words and knowing that it's a fellow Christian talking would get me listening if I were a creationist. Good work.

[Haruko]

The navigation is simple enough. I'd rather the text be set against a white background, though.

[Netko]

Its a good overview, simple enough for anyone to understand.

A few minor nitpicks though. If your goal is, as you say, to simply expose creationists to an untwisted explanation of evolution, you might want to soften a bit more some of the examples of the wrongness of creationism. You need to keep them from going into "corrupted heretic is wrong" mode and filtering your arguments out in favor of their stock answers. Focus on what evolution is, why is it an elegant theory, and why it fits, instead of showing the wrongness of creationism. In the same vein, ditch the math and equations (like the one on the first page). Some people start to gloss over stuff upon hitting the first mathematical expression - I would be willing to bet that among creationists that number is much higher then in the general population.

[RazorOutlaw]

I'm not sure if this would fit into your web page Surlethe, but I glanced over the Top Ten Highlights for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and it was stated that medicine and agriculture owed nothing to evolution. And neither did biology.

It seems to be a new avenue of attack, acknowledging that many of today's advances are because of...er...scientists except for that evolution stuff. I have read all of the pages you have created, and I'm sure that you've covered how the scientific process works. But I think the claim that biology and evolution don't mix might need to be looked at.

Oh, and I might as well post the Highlights too:

Top Ten Highlights of The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
2:25 PM PDT, June 27, 2007
A top ten list from my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

1. The root of the controversy is not evolution, but Darwinism. Evolution can mean simply change within existing species, a fact that people have known for centuries. But Darwinism claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided natural processes such as random mutations and survival of the fittest – and that what appears to be design in living things is just an illusion.

2. Intelligent design is not religion, but science. Intelligent design maintains that we can infer from evidence in nature that some features of the universe and living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes. It is not biblical creationism, but empirical science. Darwinists claim it is not scientific because it is untestable – but they also claim they have tested it and proven it wrong.

3. The evidence does not support Darwinism. First, the fossil record turns Darwin's theory upside down. Second, no matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo, the only possible outcomes are a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly; no Darwinian evolution. Third, comparisons of molecules such as DNA do not provide support for Darwinian theory, but lead to conflicting conclusions. Finally, no one has
ever observed the origin of even one species by Darwin’s process of variation and selection.

4. Darwinism has made no valuable contributions to biology. Darwinists boast that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," but the major disciplines of biology – including anatomy, botany, embryology, genetics, microbiology, paleontology, physiology and zoology – were founded either
before Darwin or by scientists who rejected his theory. Agriculture and medicine – the two disciplines that have provided us with the most practical benefits – owe nothing to Darwinism.

5. Biology and cosmology both provide evidence for intelligent design. The computer-like code in DNA, and the complex molecular machines inside living cells, cannot be produced by unguided processes but point to a designing intelligence. So does that fact that Earth is unusually well suited not only for life, but also for scientific discovery.

6. Darwinists do not want students to learn critical thinking. The U. S. Congress has officially endorsed teaching students "the full range of scientific views" about Darwinian evolution. Yet some public school districts that have asked their students to approach the subject with an open mind have been sued by the ACLU for unconstitutionally teaching religion – and federal judges have sided with the ACLU.

7. Darwinism corrodes traditional moral values. Some Darwinists argue that conservatives should embrace their doctrine because it provides a scientific basis for traditional morality, but Darwinism has been used historically to justify social evils such as eugenics and racism.

8. Darwinism is anti-Christian. Like Marxism, Darwinism is a materialistic philosophy that is routinely used to attack religion. Indeed, some Darwinist professors at publicly supported universities have stated that Christianity should be confined to cultural zoos and that the pope is "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." U. S. taxpayers' money is now used to promote religious denominations that favor Darwinism.

9. Darwinists are now behaving like their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. When Stalin’s government sided with Darwinists against their critics eighty years ago the result was Lysenkoism, which obstructed scientific progress for decades. Lysenkoism is now rearing its ugly head again in the U. S., as Darwinists use their government positions to destroy the careers of scientists who criticize their doctrine.

10. But the good news is that Darwinism will lose. First, Darwinists will lose because the scientific evidence is against them. Second, they will lose because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. Finally, Darwinists will lose because they are relying on a tactic always guaranteed to fail in America: censorship.

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incor ... 50-8503939

[McC]

I really admire it, and have already passed it along to someone who desperately needs something like this.

However, I disagree with Netko. It's not simple enough for anyone to understand. Your concepts and such are, don't get me wrong. Your language, however, is far, far too advanced for the average creationist.

Let's take an early example:

More seriously, the answer lies in making a distinction (seeing the difference) between two subtly different, but very similar, propositional functions. To refresh your memory, a propositional function is, represented symbolically as p(X), is a proposition regarding a variable. For example, t(X): "The time is X" is a propositional function, as opposed to t: "The time is 5:00", which is simply a proposition. (This entire passage is going to be almost incomprehensible to someone uncomfortable with math. The phrase "to refresh your memory" probably won't even be applicable to the average creationist. This entire section should be re-written from the standpoint of someone who has never once in their lives heard the term "propositional function".) The two propositional functions we want to contrast are:
"X exists", and
"X probably exists".

When they're written like that, you probably don't see how they can be easily conflated (considered similar). However, I assure you, you do it all the time. In fact, your brain is wired to treat the second proposition ("X probably exists") as the first ("X exists"). This is why people who hallucinate treat their hallucinations as reality, a propensity used to great effect in (which was shown to great effect in the movie) A Beautiful Mind. John Nash, Russell Crowe's character, believed his college roommate, that roommate's daughter, and his employer were all real precisely because his mind obeyed the rule of thumb "If it very likely exists, then it does exist." This is the rule of thumb science is based on; indeed, it's the rule upon which we base all of our lives.

I've bolded the various phrases that strike me as being far, far too advanced for Joe Average Creationist and written suggestions in italics. Feel free to disagree, of course, but if you're making a serious effort to write a guide to expose your run-of-the-mill Creationist to the ideas of science and evolution, you need make it more simply worded in order to succeed.

[Galvatron]

Along similar, I think the Berkeley website put together a fantastic tool for teachers to use when teaching evolution. Check it out...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

[RazorOutlaw]

Ghetto Edit: I have not read all of your pages.

[Paradox244]

I haven't read it all yet, but it is probably to complex for most people. Starting off with propositional functions is not the best idea. The concepts are simple enough, but the termanology could be confusing.

[Enola Straight]

God created Biblical Laws.
God also created the laws of Mathematics, of Physics, and of Chemistry.

One example of Truth written in a Book... many interconnected and cross-confirmed examples of Truth written in the substance of Creation itself.

Test of your Faith...your unwavering belief in what you're told?

Accepting one Truth means rejecting another.

Example? Einstein's theory of Relativity indicates an expanding universe ( a finding confirmed by astronomer Edwin Hubble) Two independent sciences...theoretical physics and astronomy...pointing to a universe billions of years old instead of merely thousands.

[Darth Wong]

I wish I had something to offer, but as an atheist, I probably have very little that I could contribute to any discussion of how to best talk to creationists in an attempt to actually change their minds, as opposed to simply picking apart their bullshit for public display. All I know is that the typical creationist is an incredibly illogical, often shockingly ignorant, and yet simultaneously rather arrogant person, and hence the absolute worst kind of person to try and convince of anything, never mind something that threatens his entire worldview. Even face to face, they are so goddamned hyper-sensitive that the slightest verbal misstep causes them to immediately take offense and become deaf to all further conversation, and in printed form, I doubt one would encounter any more willingness to entertain foreign ideas.

[NomAnor15]

I haven't read it thoroughly, but it seems excellent to me. Simple, straightforward and informative, without getting bogged down in details and excessive text.

[Stark]

I'm not sure if this would fit into your web page Surlethe, but I glanced over the Top Ten Highlights for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and it was stated that medicine and agriculture owed nothing to evolution. And neither did biology.

It seems to be a new avenue of attack, acknowledging that many of today's advances are because of...er...scientists except for that evolution stuff. I have read all of the pages you have created, and I'm sure that you've covered how the scientific process works. But I think the claim that biology and evolution don't mix might need to be looked at.

That list of highlights is AWESOME.

[Surlethe]

Thanks for the comments, guys. I hope to have some time this weekend to sit down and work on it some more. I'll especially keep your comments in mind, McC.

[McC]

Thanks for the comments, guys. I hope to have some time this weekend to sit down and work on it some more. I'll especially keep your comments in mind, McC.

I feel special.

[Eleas]

Looks good content-wise, although I've yet to read it in its entirety. The reason for that is that the margins are all but nonexistent. Margins are a staple of layout for good reason; they facilitate transition from one row to the next without losing track of where you are. Too wide a text area will force the reader to move his head from side to side. This is uncomfortable and will ensure that the reader is irritated, even if the reason for this irritation is not readily apparent.

Otherwise, I applaud the lack of bells and whistles. You have a simple message. A clean presentation emphasizes this.

[Darth Wong]

I think it's well-written, but it reads like a first-year professor's lecture. That's not particularly advanced, but if you're serious about trying to reach creationists, I suspect you have to treat them like an even younger audience, like high-school kids for example.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Unless you're expecting a heavily Catholic audience that still uses the Latin Mass, I'd avoid expressions like scientia gratia scientae, at least without English translations immediately visible. Even then, it might come across as a little condescending. Fundies do not appreciate displays of learning, though they may be impressed by them if you're arguing for their viewpoint, or are knowledgeable in theological or biblical esoterica.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Minor spelling error under Respect for Science on the second page:

Is reduplication of the event itself a requirement of scince?

[Surlethe]

I've updated the page, read over several of the completed ones (especially the introduction to the scientific method), and transitioned from page-specific HTML to CSS directory-wide formatting. Hopefully this at least partially solves the margins and obscure language problems.

Thanks again for the suggestions, guys. Keep them coming!

I think it's well-written, but it reads like a first-year professor's lecture. That's not particularly advanced, but if you're serious about trying to reach creationists, I suspect you have to treat them like an even younger audience, like high-school kids for example.

There's only so far the concepts can be boiled down, I think. The whole site could be rewritten in first-order predicate logic, but that might be making it too bare-bones. Seriously, though, I'm not really sure how to distill it down more without drawing crayon pictures.

Hmm. On second thought, pictures and flowcharts might be a good idea to illustrate better.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

On second thought, pictures and flowcharts might be a good idea to illustrate better.

Definitely. Besides illustrating some things graphically, pictures and charts might also help to break up the page visually into more easily digestible chunks if distributed well. And you underestimate the power of crayons in the right hands.