Need help writing creationist paper for a college course.

[Vehrec]

Yeah, this is gonna take some explaining. I am currently enrolled in Evolution Ecology and Oranismal Biology class number 710 Creation and Evolution: Differing World Views which is described by Ohio State University as a "Philosophical and historical survey of the controversy over evolution theory and creationist viewpoints." Had I known that I was getting into a class that would wind up forcing me to write from the creationist and ID viewpoints, I might have reconsidered.

The professor seems obsessed with locating the middle ground on this subject, if only to search for it. As a result, I have a writing assignment for this class that requires me to write on the evolution of the human eye from the viewpoint of an Intelligent Design Creationist. I am not thrilled.

I come before you all to ask for resources that will allow me to make the arguement that I will present as authentic as possible. Know a website that ID people like to quote a lot? Put up a link. Want to read drafts? Send a PM. Any help that you can provide will be taken in stride. As will the inevitable mocking. This arguement doesn't really have to stand up to critics, it just needs to be made convincingly. Please, help me make it sound as authentically ignorant as possible.

PS. I've also got a field trip to the Creationist museum in Kentucky as part of this class. If I can, I'll get pictures for people's entertainment.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, this is gonna take some explaining. I am currently enrolled in Evolution Ecology and Oranismal Biology class number 710 Creation and Evolution: Differing World Views which is described by Ohio State University as a "Philosophical and historical survey of the controversy over evolution theory and creationist viewpoints." Had I known that I was getting into a class that would wind up forcing me to write from the creationist and ID viewpoints, I might have reconsidered.

The professor seems obsessed with locating the middle ground on this subject, if only to search for it. As a result, I have a writing assignment for this class that requires me to write on the evolution of the human eye from the viewpoint of an Intelligent Design Creationist. I am not thrilled.

I come before you all to ask for resources that will allow me to make the arguement that I will present as authentic as possible. Know a website that ID people like to quote a lot? Put up a link. Want to read drafts? Send a PM. Any help that you can provide will be taken in stride. As will the inevitable mocking. This arguement doesn't really have to stand up to critics, it just needs to be made convincingly. Please, help me make it sound as authentically ignorant as possible.

PS. I've also got a field trip to the Creationist museum in Kentucky as part of this class. If I can, I'll get pictures for people's entertainment.

It's easy to simulate creationist thinking. Simply take one of the key things that you need to prove (such as "complexity = design"), assume it is true, and then go on to base an entire long-winded essay on that assumption.

In short, assume that A proves B, and then forget about establishing why A should be assumed to prove B. Just run with the assumption and then spend all of your time documenting the voluminous evidence for A. Anyone can write like a creationist; all you have to do is act like an imbecile.

Really, the difference between creationists and scientists can be distilled down to their different premises. Scientists use physical evidence as their premises, whereas religious people use intuitively derived "truths" as their premises. "Truths" like "if something is complicated, then it must have been designed". A logical person would point out that this "truth" is actually an unfounded proposition, but your professor is clearly not the logical sort.

[Alyrium Denryle]

first off, your professor is an idiot and is asking you to do something that is intellectually dishonest. There are rules that regulate professors. Look them up.

Second. In an effort to preserve intellectual integrity, I would write a second paper and attach it to the first, ripping apart your own paper.

As for the paper itself, basically all you have to do is reject all evidence and reason. Then drink a bunch of coffee or smoke some pot so you can get really passionate about bullshit (stoner philosophy) and you should be good to go.

[Darth Wong]

As for the paper itself, basically all you have to do is reject all evidence and reason. Then drink a bunch of coffee or smoke some pot so you can get really passionate about bullshit (stoner philosophy) and you should be good to go.

That's sort of true, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In order to write a very authentic-looking creationist paper, you must simply assume the truth of an unfounded proposition, and then make logical deductions from that "truth".

You can make any manner of ridiculous arguments if you simply start by assuming X to be true even if you know it isn't, and then craft all of your arguments around that assumption. For example, if I started an argument in favour of cutting off all immigration by assuming that immigrants are all immoral and diseased, I could make all sorts of logical deductions from that initial premise, and create what appears to be a quite logical argument. The problem is the initial bullshit premise.

[Molyneux]

Write a well-reasoned but ignorant, impassioned plea to the establishment to allow your pet theory the courtesy of open debate.

Then soak it in dog piss for about three months. Should be ready to hand in by then.

[Vehrec]

That's sort of true, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In order to write a very authentic-looking creationist paper, you must simply assume the truth of an unfounded proposition, and then make logical deductions from that "truth".

You can make any manner of ridiculous arguments if you simply start by assuming X to be true even if you know it isn't, and then craft all of your arguments around that assumption.

So would a good bullshit premise be like "The various pigments and chemical mechanisms of the retina are too complex to be anything but design by a designer"? Like any good ID tool, this arguement won't be instantly irrefuteable, unlike my next assignment which I pull six-day creationist for. That one, I'm just going to quote the bible as truth and reject all other sources.

Then soak it in dog piss for about three months. Should be ready to hand in by then.

It wouldn't get the soak time saddly, I need to hand this in in four weeks.

[Surlethe]

I wonder how sarcastic you can be without hurting your grade. I know that if I were in your shoes, I would be tempted to write the paper in such a way as to highlight the question-begging without actually being blatant about it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's sort of true, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In order to write a very authentic-looking creationist paper, you must simply assume the truth of an unfounded proposition, and then make logical deductions from that "truth".

You can make any manner of ridiculous arguments if you simply start by assuming X to be true even if you know it isn't, and then craft all of your arguments around that assumption.

So would a good bullshit premise be like "The various pigments and chemical mechanisms of the retina are too complex to be anything but design by a designer"? Like any good ID tool, this arguement won't be instantly irrefuteable, unlike my next assignment which I pull six-day creationist for. That one, I'm just going to quote the bible as truth and reject all other sources.

Then soak it in dog piss for about three months. Should be ready to hand in by then.

It wouldn't get the soak time saddly, I need to hand this in in four weeks.

Please tell me this asshole is making you write a pro-evolution paper at some point. Otherwise he is making you write a counter-additudinal essay which is actually one of those nice little steps to brain washing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As for the paper itself, basically all you have to do is reject all evidence and reason. Then drink a bunch of coffee or smoke some pot so you can get really passionate about bullshit (stoner philosophy) and you should be good to go.

That's sort of true, but it's a bit more complicated than that. In order to write a very authentic-looking creationist paper, you must simply assume the truth of an unfounded proposition, and then make logical deductions from that "truth".

You can make any manner of ridiculous arguments if you simply start by assuming X to be true even if you know it isn't, and then craft all of your arguments around that assumption. For example, if I started an argument in favour of cutting off all immigration by assuming that immigrants are all immoral and diseased, I could make all sorts of logical deductions from that initial premise, and create what appears to be a quite logical argument. The problem is the initial bullshit premise.

Oh I know. If I assume a priori the truth of the conclusion "Hitler Wasnt So Bad" I can easily write a paper to justify it. But for such a paper to be really convincing, because I try to be intellectually honest, I would have to be on something. I just couldn't get into it otherwise. Unless I was writing a parody

[Vehrec]

So would a good bullshit premise be like "The various pigments and chemical mechanisms of the retina are too complex to be anything but design by a designer"? Like any good ID tool, this argument won't be instantly irrefutable, unlike my next assignment which I pull six-day creationist for. That one, I'm just going to quote the bible as truth and reject all other sources.
It wouldn't get the soak time saddly, I need to hand this in in four weeks.

Please tell me this asshole is making you write a pro-evolution paper at some point. Otherwise he is making you write a counter-additudinal essay which is actually one of those nice little steps to brain washing.

The deal is that this paper is just part of a larger paper that is supposed to represent four 'worldviews' of 6-day creationism, ID, Theistic Evolution, and Evolutionary Biology and try to reconcile them to some degree.

From the syllabus:

Collaborative Position papers representing all viewpoints: You will be required to collaborate with three other students on two position papers. Student groups will be allowed to choose two of the following four topics. Each paper will have four viewpoints represented 1)Evolutionary Biology 2)Theistic Evolution 3)Young-earth Creationism 4)Intelligent design. You will take a different viewpoint for each of the two papers. . .

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.
....
Topic 1:Evolution of the human eye
Topic 2: Macroevolution and transitional fossil forms
Topic 3:The Origin of Humans
Topic 4: Is there such a thing as Irreducible Complexity.

[Surlethe]

"Reconcile" them? Theistic evolution already exists for most religious people as a satisfactory accomodation of evolutionary theory, but it's a religious position and has no bearing on the science. Reconciling science and YECism, on the other hand, is just not possible. Your prof probably thinks that in any conflict, it's possible to reconcile the two sides into a greater, more illuminating synthesis; that's bullshit. Mutually contradictory positions can never both be true at the same time.

[Surlethe]

So would a good bullshit premise be like "The various pigments and chemical mechanisms of the retina are too complex to be anything but design by a designer"? Like any good ID tool, this arguement won't be instantly irrefuteable, unlike my next assignment which I pull six-day creationist for. That one, I'm just going to quote the bible as truth and reject all other sources.

If you want to really get in-depth, check out presuppositional apologetics and the likes of Francis Schaeffer. You start by assuming (without saying so!) that there is no mechanism to determine between different sets of assumptions, and then declare that Biblical literalism is true. The philosophical handwaving, if you're clever about it, should take up a couple of pages in and of itself. Then you can start developing the consequences of Genesis like we here do with Star Wars.

[wautd]

Do you have to make a Christian-creationist viewpoint? If not, try Pastafarianism

[Vehrec]

The papers are pretty specific. 6-day young earth creationism and ID are the only creationist options on the table.

[wautd]

Pastafarianism is a form of ID. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is clearly intelligent

[Surlethe]

Remember that professional ID never names the "designer". It's an open secret that "intelligent designer" really means "God", but ID-ists are very careful to never actually mention the name of the preferred deit- err, designer..

[Lagmonster]

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.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

The papers are pretty specific. 6-day young earth creationism and ID are the only creationist options on the table.

That's the beauty of ID. The whole deal behind ID is to leave it as ambiguous as possible as to who the Intelligent Designer is ( God) in order to make it seem a rational argument for the average person. So Pastafarianism is as a valid position to take as Norse "mythology " .

[Rye]

Do what's required to get the grade, but wipe the backs of all your sheets of paper on your balls before you hand it in.

[Darth Servo]

Remember that professional ID never names the "designer". It's an open secret that "intelligent designer" really means "God", but ID-ists are very careful to never actually mention the name of the preferred deit- err, designer..

Exactly, so once you've got your creationist paper written, you've also got your ID paper written. Just substitute 'ID' everywhere 'God' appears in the original paper. Came with 'creation' and 'design'.

As for the OP, to be a truly authentic creationist, do a google search for flaws on evolution and then just say that therefore creationism wins by default. Oh, and don't forget how people like Hitler and Stalin were obvious evolutionists, therefore evolution is evil, therefore we should return to creationism.

On a side note, we're all familiar with how creationist morons wank over the Piltdown man fraud, even though the fraud was discovered by scientists, not creationists. How many 'Splinters of the True Cross' have been "found" over the years? People still believe the Shroud of Turin is Jesus' actual burial cloth, even though carbon dating pegs it to around 1350 AD. Oh, but I forget, carbon dating is part of the great evolutionist conspiracy.

[Darth Wong]

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.

[bilateralrope]

You could try asking your professor for advice on where to start because you can't see any way to do an intellectually honest work here. Then shred every suggestion he brings up.

I'd also suggest talking to one of the Biology professors and getting some advice from them. Though that advice is probably going to be along the lines of how you should complain about this.

[Covenant]

If I had to do this, I'd just make it a creationist farce of a paper. The arguements don't need to be good or well-reasoned, because they are not. If there's any backlash from the teacher, offer to write a paper refuting all of HIS claims, just to prove it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

EX: Dinosaur fossils are really the bones of the demons formed by Tiamat which were slain by Marduk

[Darth Wong]

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.