Our Substitute Biology Teacher (by Mike Adams)

Townhall.com ^ | September 19, 2004 | Mike S. Adams

[Dimensio]

I found it believable, because the level of evolutionist reasoning I heard in high school was pretty much what he describes.

You mean that your high school Biology course presented you with out of context quotes from biologists in an attempt to lie about the intended meaning of their statements and create a false impression that they had doubts about evolution?

[whattajoke]

Chick rules. In looking for the Halloween one Dimensio mentioned, I came across, "Boo." It rules... "Satanic human sacrifice" and everything!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0058/0058_01.asp

[sevry]

asked questions about their unquestioned beliefs.

That's it. Unquestioned. Political correctness is there to prevent the questions from being asked, or at least to allow the lib to avoid having to answer.

[Tax-chick]

Cute :-).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'm making two jokes. The obvious dan rather joke, and a more cynical joke about the level of science education.

That anyone would fall for this type of fantasy article is joke enough for a Friday.

[RadioAstronomer]

"Codswallop" is marvelous, though

Hehehe! Flapdoodle works pretty well too. :-)

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! The Lord Hates Halloweenies!

Come to the Dark Side!

[Blzbba]

""Satanic human sacrifice" and everything! "


And it all takes place at 'Camp Basil Bub'!

That's about as close a nod to my handle as I'm gonna get, so I'm taking it!

[Tax-chick]

I admit to being humor impaired ... it comes from having all these children, I think.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks. It pays to increase your word power.

But while I've got you on the line ... I readily admit that my belief in Creation is a religious faith. Creation obviously can't be observed, since it's done, and can't be repeated or tested in the lab.

However, macro-evolution, and particularly the origin of life *without* Creation, also can't be observed or duplicated. Doesn't that make acceptance of the theory also a matter of faith?

[whattajoke]

"However, macro-evolution..."

Am I to impart that you do accept so-called "micro-evolution?" Kindly tell us how the process magically shuts off at the micro/macro line? Do not many micros equal one macro?

However, macro-evolution, and particularly the origin of life

Evolution, macro, micro, or macaroni, has nothing to do with the origin of life. Please, avoid this strawman.

Doesn't that make acceptance of the theory also a matter of faith?

Not in the least. Scientific theories are based upon facts, not faith. Simple as that.

[Tax-chick]

Evolution, macro, micro, or macaroni, has nothing to do with the origin of life. Please, avoid this strawman.

I appreciate the correction. In future, I will make a point of addressing those topics separately.

Not in the least. Scientific theories are based upon facts, not faith. Simple as that.

I didn't say the theory was a matter of faith. I suggested that "acceptance of the theory" seemed to be a matter of faith.

I will look forward to RadioAstronomer's addressing my question, as he is civil, and conducts a discussion in the terms in which it is presented.

[PatrickHenry]

I suggested that "acceptance of the theory" seemed to be a matter of faith.

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you accept the theory of OJ Simpson's guilt for those two well-publicised murders a few years ago. That theory is based upon your understanding of the physical evidence -- the time sequences, the blood, etc. Okay, tell me then, is your "acceptance of the theory" of OJ's guilt a matter of faith? Or might there be something else involved? Hint: I'm thinking of something called reason.

[whattajoke]

I suggested that "acceptance of the theory" seemed to be a matter of faith.

In light of this, I suppose our definitions of "faith" are vastly different. I don't have "faith" that I won't float away into the stratosphere; I have certainty, and yet, the fact that I stay grounded is only explained via the theory of gravity. Faith, to me, invokes the supernatural.

I will look forward to RadioAstronomer's addressing my question, as he is civil, and conducts a discussion in the terms in which it is presented.

Indeed he is. However, I'm at a loss as to what I said that wasn't civil. Perhaps we differ on the definition of that as well. C'est la vie, have a good weekend.

[Tax-chick]

That seems like apples and oranges ... You "reason" a belief in O.J. Simpson's guilt based on things you can see. You "reason" a belief in evolution based on things you can't see. It's not the same.

The public schools, and popularized "science" like the Discovery Channel, are still saying that a camel-sorta-thingie wanted to eat leaves from higher up in the tree, and so it streeettcheed its neck, and was more successful than the other thingies. And then the offspring of the stretched guy streeetcched a little more, so they had necks just a little longer, etc., etc. And then there's a giraffe, don'tcha know.

Mike Adams may seem to you and your group to be discussing "straw men," but that's just because you're orders-of-magnitude more informed than the general public. He is addressing what the average man-on-the-street believes about "evolution."

[Tax-chick]

You have a nice weekend too! Watch out for Ivan :-).

[Palladin]

No, Dr. Adams proves that there have always been bratty kids who love to drive substitute teachers nuts!

This proves evolution.

[Palladin]

Monkeyshines.

[Tax-chick]

"Monkeyshines" is good, too. "Flapdoodle" got my daughters' attention, when they told me they'd put their shoes away in their closet.

The article is, indeed, fiction.

[jennyp]

Mike Adams may seem to you and your group to be discussing "straw men," but that's just because you're orders-of-magnitude more informed than the general public. He is addressing what the average man-on-the-street believes about "evolution."

No, this article illustrates exactly what the average creationist thinks happens when a creationist student starts asking standard creationist talking points: The teacher has no comebacks, gets flustered, and slips into their natural mode of Marxist slogans.

It's creationist soft-porn.