Now, it’s nice and all that Jen over at Diary of 1 “saw the teacher in question, Kris Helphinstine, in church yesterday”, and it’s all well and good that she feels the need to “put in a good word for him”, but to claim that “[t]he reporting is not accurate” and that he “was not teaching creationism” shows only that the other side in this debacle has no interest in actually reading the facts. Which, of course, should come as little surprise.
“He has a master’s degree in science from Oregon State University,” says Jen, “and obviously knows what evolution is; he is a Christian, and obviously knows what Creationism is.”
Which is precisely why he knew damned well what he was doing when he distributed to his students a creationist tract about poodles and presented PowerPoint slides straight out of the creationist playbook.
This is what happens when The Bulletin out in Bend publishes an incomplete depiction of what Helphinstine did. So, in that sense, Jen is right when she says that the reporting isn’t accurate. But it’s inaccurate in a way that reinforces her own misconceptions as to the facts of what happened.
Jen also links to Heidi over at Pebble Chaser, who shares Jen’s complete misunderstanding of what occured. If Jen and Heidi truly believe this was just about “critical thinking”, then perhaps they ought to drop their hypocrisy and actually read the truth of what Helphinstine did in his science class before spouting off about it.
Sadly, the Bulletin didn’t have this covered nearly as well as the associated press or even the blogging community. They had a big chance to really do something right that would benefit their paper, but didn’t (my guess is all the editors there actually believe in the guy’s views). I personally stayed out of the debate (I try to avoid religious debates for a variety of reasons), but I agree with what you say here.
What do you think of this argument also on the same blog as the one you were arguing against?
http://www.diaryof1.com/2007/03/26/scopes-in-reverse/#comment-47
This is what it says:
Chris, on March 27th, 2007 at 6:53 pm Said:
I find it so interesting that many evolutionists (not all, indeed many friends of mine do not hold my creationist views) are so zealous about the academics of evolution and yet have the audacity to typecast anyone who does not see things their way. Their argument is often that anything other than evolution promotes ignorance and intolerance, they scoff and throw verbal charges towards anyone who dares question the virtue of their flimsy little theory… very tolerant indeed, very academic.
To Tim I would ask, where is the proof? If your way of thinking is indeed so obvious and provable, and I am so ignorant, where is the mountain of evidence to prove evolution? The truth is it isn’t there. We have never seen one example of species “transforming”. The best evolution can point to, like black peppered moths during the industrial revolution or the finches of the Galapagos Islands or supposedly evolving super-germs, are all very explainable to even the dimmest of minds, and do not in any way show one species evolving to another. Further consider, as Jennifer pointed out, that we have no fossil records to back up this supposed phenomena. If billions and billions of years of time and random genetic defects on the order of millions of bad to even one good is the engine that fueled our existence, then we should have literally billions of skeletal remains for each and every species we evolved from. But they are not there. A bunch of crappy anthropological guess work exist in our museums, which evolutionists like to take a bunch of pretty pictures of and point to as “proof” but they have time and time again been shown as either hoaxes or incorrect, usually constructed from little more than a bone or two and often found in differing locations.
The truth is that evolution has to evolve its own theory in order to keep from being embarrassed. Creationists simply do not see the evidence of how things came into being on their own. Creationists believe that something bigger than ourselves could have had something to do with our existence. Physicists today recognize the mathematical improbability of nothing being able to create everything. Just simple questions like, “where did matter come from?” or “how did energy become?” or “how could an asexual organism reproduce while evolving into a sexual organism?” are all complex questions that deserve consideration beyond just telling anyone who doesn’t agree with you to “shut up and just believe this theory - it is absolute truth!”
Be offended, be appalled, be dumbfounded to know that others do not agree with your supreme academic superiority. But also know that there is a sea of intelligent humans on this planet that have college educations, masters degrees and doctoral degrees who have been through the depths of evolutionary indoctrination and still do not believe. The emperor has no clothes and we’re not afraid to say so.
I’d respond quite simply: The science we have backs evolution. No science that creationists have backs creation — if for no other reason than you can’t scientifically prove that God did or did not do anything.
Hence, creationism isn’t science, and does not belong in the science classroom.
Everything else is just creationist chest-thumping and obfuscation of the fact that they want non-science to be considered valid material for a science class.
b!X, You are right about one thing. Creationism isn’t science. BUT, neither is Evolution. They are both explanations for something that happened when we were not present to see it. Science predicts what will happen based on laws, like the law of gravity, entropy, etc. That is science. One thing is for sure. To say that from Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen and millions and millions of years we have our planet and all its life forms out of total random mutations and transformations defies logic, the law of entropy and any other science law we have proven. Actually, to believe Evolution takes even more faith than to believe that one man took the sin of the world away through crucification. You see b!X what you believe is equivalent to saying that if a tornado hits a junk yard you will end up with a 747 jet airplane. Now that, my fellow human, takes faith.