This link is to an article on a recent example of ongoing human evolution. It's a month old, so many may already be aware, but I post it to point out that in the debate with IDers and Creationists, we who suspect there's something to evolution are too often caught…
This Comic strip often takes a pointed view of popular perceptions. For example, today's Cow and Boy strip: This seems all too familiar. One side framing an issue for debate, and the other sidestepping the frame because it doesn't fit their world-view. We see a lot of this out in…
Here's a short video that takes you deep into a fundie lecture hall to be taught by the likes of Ken Ham. I learned of this video by visiting a well-written science blog, Pharyngula (written by biology professor Paul Z. Myers). Watching the video is startling, disturbing and depressing. The young children are…
I’ve recently been digging into the family of blogs that goes under the umbrella name: scienceblogs.com. Here’s the general mission: Our mission is to build a community of like-minded individuals who are passionate about science and its place in our culture, and give them a place to meet. The Science Blogs are…
Here’s a site for scientists looking for help in presenting the need to vigorously teach evolution, when confronted by anti-science types.
I keep falling into the trap that this should be easy to convince people to study evolution in light of the abundant evidence in support and the elegance of natural selection. On the issue of whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, how about this: If you believe in God, the universe would (it seems to me) to be God’s elaborate “clock.” Dozens of physical and biological mechanisms are commensurate in suggesting that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Why deny these numerous testable clock mechanisms in order to pursue a narrow inquiry-ending view (one of many) of an ancient book of aprochraphal (un-testable) origins?
But, alas, presenting well-established scientific facts don’t convince Creationists. In fact, no evidence convinces them that the version of the Bible that they bought at Wal-Mart is the one true inerrant version, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. To me, it is a red flag when non-experts reject the experts when virtually all of the experts (those trained and practicing in a field) speak in unison.
Certainly, then, announcing broad-minded scientific principles is not enough to pry open most of those closed minds. In fact, the terms “science,” “academic” and “intellectual” make many creationists bristle and turn away. Turn on any 24-hour Christian AM radio show for confirmation.
This new site is sponsored by the Federation of …
