A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

[Renting with Raggles]

I've been lurking around FJ for some time but only just registered today. I hope my comments/ questions are OK, this seemed like a relevant thread - feel free to tell me off if it's not.

I've got a few questions for the creationists/ ex-creationists, they are not meant to be disrespectful; however, I've recently learned that a colleague of mine is a Young Earth Creationist. She often disparages forms of science under the umbrella term 'evolution', which she uses to describe a range of topics relating to various areas of study. She also voices common misconceptions about the theory of evolution (example: ' it's just random chance') that I see repeated in creationist literature. I have taught with some fundamentalist Protestants/ wannabe fundamentalist Catholics/ creationist Muslims before, but her subject area is Geography and this comes up more frequently than if she were prepping students for exams in English Literature or Economics. She refuses to teach several of the units that our students need to graduate.

Now, my parents and both my siblings work in the field of medical research. I can't think of a significant discovery in the past 100 years in medicine which is not directly or indirectly related to the theory of evolution by natural selection. I admit I'm a little annoyed when the model on which scientists base experiments is dismissed in that manner - I think one person on this board made a comment along the lines of 'well, it isn't a fact, so it's just as credible as any other theory'. This kind of suggests that scientists are just using theories willy-nilly, instead of applying a model that has produced, and continues to produce, demonstrable results in application to the investigative process.

I don't want to 'convert' this woman by any means, but I do think that people should understand what they stand against. If I mis-characterise the views of creationists I want to be set straight.

1. The characterisation of evolution by creationists is at serious odds with what textbooks on evolutionary biology actually teach. I have heard creationists say that they have 'read Darwin', or Christian textbooks that 'present both sides', but neither of these seem to depict a full or accurate picture of the model modern researchers are working with. Would you, as a creationist, be willing to read explanations of evolution written by people who apply it to research? Would it help if the biologist in question was a Christian, such as Collins or Miller? Would you still believe the creationist literature's representation of the theory if the two depictions were in conflict?

2. The model of evolution by natural selection is predictive and has therefore been extremely useful for research in the last 150 years. For example: in the 1970s, before the human genome was mapped, optometric research on human colour vision was conducted using chimpanzees. This was not a random choice of subject, rather one based on predictions made by evolutionary theory - that species which are more closely related to humans will be able to perceive a similar colour spectrum. This was confirmed indirectly at the time, in that the results of the chimp experiments had practical application to assessing humans for colour vision deficiencies. It was later confirmed directly when the human and chimp genome were mapped - both have the same Vitamin C pseudogene which was inherited from a common ancestor.

I'm not even really sure how one could design a scientific experiment based on a creationist model that would further our understanding in the field of human biology. From my understanding, a creationist would see any disease or disability as the result of the Fall of Man, with God sort of introducing 'design flaws' as a punishment for sin. If so, how could one replicate the 'pre-Fall' condition? Would this be seen as thwarting God's plan? What kinds of predictions does it make about the perfect state of the human body, and how could an experiment confirm this?

3. I would actually like to know more about creationism, especially the outcomes it seeks to achieve. I've heard/ read creationists (probably not as many as people who live in the States - I'm an Australian who lives in China) try to disprove evolutionary theory, but they are people like Ray Comfort or William Dempski who do not have a background in the biological sciences. These men also seem to be using creationism for the purpose of apologetics - linking evolution with atheism. The only creationist that I have ever read that is in any way connected to the field is Behe. What I haven't seen is research generated from the creationist model. Are there break-throughs in medicine that are the result specifically of creationism?

Again, I apologise if I've mis-characterised creationist belief.

[sea_gale]

I would have failed my degree if it weren't for dirty mnemonics! My anatomy prof told us to ask the medical students for the cranial nerve one... A good one is "Ten Zulus buggered my cat" for the branches of the facial nerve (temporal, zygomatic, buccal, mandibular, cervical). But I think my fave is Kinky Priests Come Over For Great Sex (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).

Returning briefly to colouring, at my school we had to pick between modern studies, history and geography. I picked geography because I really wanted to do art, and reasoned that I'd at least be able to practice shading maps. I don't think I ever shaded a map, but I did do a lot of drawing in that class. It just wasn't related to geography.

[emmiedahl]

1. The characterisation of evolution by creationists is at serious odds with what textbooks on evolutionary biology actually teach. I have heard creationists say that they have 'read Darwin', or Christian textbooks that 'present both sides', but neither of these seem to depict a full or accurate picture of the model modern researchers are working with. Would you, as a creationist, be willing to read explanations of evolution written by people who apply it to research? Would it help if the biologist in question was a Christian, such as Collins or Miller? Would you still believe the creationist literature's representation of the theory if the two depictions were in conflict?

2. The model of evolution by natural selection is predictive and has therefore been extremely useful for research in the last 150 years. For example: in the 1970s, before the human genome was mapped, optometric research on human colour vision was conducted using chimpanzees. This was not a random choice of subject, rather one based on predictions made by evolutionary theory - that species which are more closely related to humans will be able to perceive a similar colour spectrum. This was confirmed indirectly at the time, in that the results of the chimp experiments had practical application to assessing humans for colour vision deficiencies. It was later confirmed directly when the human and chimp genome were mapped - both have the same Vitamin C pseudogene which was inherited from a common ancestor.

I'm not even really sure how one could design a scientific experiment based on a creationist model that would further our understanding in the field of human biology. From my understanding, a creationist would see any disease or disability as the result of the Fall of Man, with God sort of introducing 'design flaws' as a punishment for sin. If so, how could one replicate the 'pre-Fall' condition? Would this be seen as thwarting God's plan? What kinds of predictions does it make about the perfect state of the human body, and how could an experiment confirm this?

3. I would actually like to know more about creationism, especially the outcomes it seeks to achieve. I've heard/ read creationists (probably not as many as people who live in the States - I'm an Australian who lives in China) try to disprove evolutionary theory, but they are people like Ray Comfort or William Dempski who do not have a background in the biological sciences. These men also seem to be using creationism for the purpose of apologetics - linking evolution with atheism. The only creationist that I have ever read that is in any way connected to the field is Behe. What I haven't seen is research generated from the creationist model. Are there break-throughs in medicine that are the result specifically of creationism?

Again, I apologise if I've mis-characterised creationist belief.

Bumping because I know there are YEC's on this board and I am curious about how these things are explained.

[Austin]

Now, my parents and both my siblings work in the field of medical research. I can't think of a significant discovery in the past 100 years in medicine which is not directly or indirectly related to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

It's been too long since I heard the nuts and bolts of YEC teaching to fully answer your question, but I did want to point out that what you've written above is why fundies are so anti-science. You can't go very far with any science without running smack dab into evolution and its profound implications for all science. So for many fundies/YECers, it's just best to pretend that evidence for evolution doesn't exist.

Plus, as others have noted, they misunderstand the word "theory" in relation to science. They believe if they have a theory that it may rain tomorrow, the word "theory" is the same as what science holds as the theory of evolution.

BTW, to FJ!

[onlyorganic]

Mrs. White's kids don't look like typical fundie children. I'm not trying to judge, just something I'm noticing.

One of the first blogs I started reading reminds me of this one. It was a homeschooling mom who would post photos of her kids and her girls dressed in stuff from Hot Topic, they wore tons of make-up and halter tops, one of them had a baby with a boyfriend, and they were always spending overnights at friends. You'd read about her homeschooling adventures and wonder why the kid had an Insane Clown Posse shirt on in the photo where they were at a local museum learnin' histree' in accordance with the Bible. I'm not saying you can't be fundie and a juggulo, just that when mom is scoldin' the world talking about how righteous she is and how she doesn't teach creationism BUT the boy knows who ICP is... something is wrong.

That's how Mrs. White comes across to me. Her kids don't appear or seem to fit the fundie mold.

[Renting with Raggles]

Thank you for the kind welcome!

I may re-post my questions in the future on an active (relevant) topic thread. Damn time difference!

[YPestis]

The only really dirty mnemonic I learned for the cranial nerves was "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina, ah heaven!". I learned a lot of mnemonics for anatomy but it seems the only ones that really sticks with me are the dirty ones!

[klavierspieler]

I don't want to 'convert' this woman by any means, but I do think that people should understand what they stand against. If I mis-characterise the views of creationists I want to be set straight.

1. The characterisation of evolution by creationists is at serious odds with what textbooks on evolutionary biology actually teach. I have heard creationists say that they have 'read Darwin', or Christian textbooks that 'present both sides', but neither of these seem to depict a full or accurate picture of the model modern researchers are working with. Would you, as a creationist, be willing to read explanations of evolution written by people who apply it to research? Would it help if the biologist in question was a Christian, such as Collins or Miller? Would you still believe the creationist literature's representation of the theory if the two depictions were in conflict?

2. The model of evolution by natural selection is predictive and has therefore been extremely useful for research in the last 150 years. For example: in the 1970s, before the human genome was mapped, optometric research on human colour vision was conducted using chimpanzees. This was not a random choice of subject, rather one based on predictions made by evolutionary theory - that species which are more closely related to humans will be able to perceive a similar colour spectrum. This was confirmed indirectly at the time, in that the results of the chimp experiments had practical application to assessing humans for colour vision deficiencies. It was later confirmed directly when the human and chimp genome were mapped - both have the same Vitamin C pseudogene which was inherited from a common ancestor.

I'm not even really sure how one could design a scientific experiment based on a creationist model that would further our understanding in the field of human biology. From my understanding, a creationist would see any disease or disability as the result of the Fall of Man, with God sort of introducing 'design flaws' as a punishment for sin. If so, how could one replicate the 'pre-Fall' condition? Would this be seen as thwarting God's plan? What kinds of predictions does it make about the perfect state of the human body, and how could an experiment confirm this?

3. I would actually like to know more about creationism, especially the outcomes it seeks to achieve. I've heard/ read creationists (probably not as many as people who live in the States - I'm an Australian who lives in China) try to disprove evolutionary theory, but they are people like Ray Comfort or William Dempski who do not have a background in the biological sciences. These men also seem to be using creationism for the purpose of apologetics - linking evolution with atheism. The only creationist that I have ever read that is in any way connected to the field is Behe. What I haven't seen is research generated from the creationist model. Are there break-throughs in medicine that are the result specifically of creationism?

Again, I apologise if I've mis-characterised creationist belief.

I think, based on my experience as a former YEC-er and with other YEC-ers, that you are overestimating how much actual science is involved in YEC-ism. I am no longer YEC myself, but I was until I was around 19 and most of my family still is. Our entire church, for all of my growing up years, was also YEC and we hob-nobbed with the big names in YEC-ism (we had Kent Hovind stay at our house once, visited his Dino-Land in Pensacola, went to a bunch of seminars by Ken Ham, and my parents have pretty much the entire catalog of stuff from Answers-in-Genesis, etc.). I can try to answer your questions from that perspective, but please understand that there are lots of different flavors of creationism and YEC is the most hard-core. So what holds true for a YEC-er won't necessarily hold true for, say, someone who believes in the gap theory.

1.) Most of the YEC-ers I knew would not be willing to read behind evolutionists. They would use a lot of convoluted logic to explain this (pulling out Bible verses about only thinking about things that are pure, etc.), but it basically boiled down the fact that they didn't want to be confused and probably wouldn't understand the paper anyway. It would not help if the biologist in question was a Christian or not, because to a YEC-er, if the person believes in evolution then they have denied the sovereignty of the Bible and therefore probably are not a real Christian. They would believe the YEC scientist over all, no matter any evidence to the contrary, because the YEC-er is one of them and a "real" Christian and most trustworthy, etc.

2.) YEC-ers do see all imperfections in the world as a result of the fall and original sin. Since everyone is a sinner and there is no way to remove that sin, there is no way to replicate the human condition before the fall, and I don't think any of them would see any point in trying. Speculation about what having a perfect body is like ranges from the obvious (no more sickness) to the somewhat ridiculous (humans could talk to animals) and kind of depends on just how hard-core a YEC-er you are talking to.

3.) For most YEC-ers, they aren't trying to actively prove anything with creationism, it is purely apologetics. That's not as much true for some of the other flavors of creationism, but YEC-ers see the entire Bible and even the death of Christ as dependent upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. To them, having the creation story not be literally true means no original sin, no original sin means there was no reason for Christ to come and die for that sin, and if there was no reason for Christ to come and die for that sin, then their entire world completely falls apart. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the root of all the evils of the world since if God didn't create everything exactly like it says in the Bible, then there is no God, and if there is no God, we can all do whatever the hell we want with no need to worry about silly things like morals or right and wrong. (Not saying I believe that is true, I'm saying that's how a YEC-er sees it.) So yeah, it really isn't focused on research, it's focused on protecting a belief system. There isn't a single break-through in any field that I am aware of from a creationist for that reason, and I'm sure if there ever were, the big names in creationism would be crowing about it.

[Renting with Raggles]

1.) Most of the YEC-ers I knew would not be willing to read behind evolutionists. They would use a lot of convoluted logic to explain this (pulling out Bible verses about only thinking about things that are pure, etc.), but it basically boiled down the fact that they didn't want to be confused and probably wouldn't understand the paper anyway. It would not help if the biologist in question was a Christian or not, because to a YEC-er, if the person believes in evolution then they have denied the sovereignty of the Bible and therefore probably are not a real Christian. They would believe the YEC scientist over all, no matter any evidence to the contrary, because the YEC-er is one of them and a "real" Christian and most trustworthy, etc.

Oh dear - so I can't even slip her some reading material?

It's a fairly frustrating situation, partly for the reasons outlined above, but also because she's bound to be saying this type of thing in front of students. I should mention that we're a private international secondary school, with parents paying a great deal of money (for this country) and often doing some jiggery-pokery with passports and such to provide their kids with an education.

Does anyone know of a good way to approach this? How did ex-YEC FJ-ers come to read/ learn about the theory of evolution from non-creationist sources?

[thoughtful]

The only really dirty mnemonic I learned for the cranial nerves was "Oh, oh, oh, to touch and feel a girl's vagina, ah heaven!". I learned a lot of mnemonics for anatomy but it seems the only ones that really sticks with me are the dirty ones!

I've got the little-kid, arts-related ones stuck in my head:

Roy G. Biv

Great Big Ducks Fly Away and Every Good Boy Does Fine

FACE and All Cows Eat Grass

Oh, and of course, HOMES for the Great Lakes, and using your knuckles for which months have 31 days.

I can't imagine being educated without some good solid science, though. I found physics interesting, chemistry boring and everything else somewhere in between, but I know they all were important for me to learn (and keep on learning).

[CelticGoddess]

When I was in x-ray school, we learned this for the bones of the wrist Never Lower Tillie's Pants, Granmother Might Come Home.

[Shoobydoo]

I've got the little-kid, arts-related ones stuck in my head:

Roy G. Biv

Great Big Ducks Fly Away and Every Good Boy Does Fine

FACE and All Cows Eat Grass

Oh, and of course, HOMES for the Great Lakes, and using your knuckles for which months have 31 days.

I can't imagine being educated without some good solid science, though. I found physics interesting, chemistry boring and everything else somewhere in between, but I know they all were important for me to learn (and keep on learning).

I must know! I never use mnemonics, so the only two of these I recognize are Roy G. Biv and the knuckle trick for the months. What are all the other ones?

[Shirley MacLaine]

I still have the quadratic equation song stuck in my head - ditto the 50 states in alphabetical order song.

[Kitty]

Mrs. White's kids don't look like typical fundie children. I'm not trying to judge, just something I'm noticing.

One of the first blogs I started reading reminds me of this one. It was a homeschooling mom who would post photos of her kids and her girls dressed in stuff from Hot Topic, they wore tons of make-up and halter tops, one of them had a baby with a boyfriend, and they were always spending overnights at friends. You'd read about her homeschooling adventures and wonder why the kid had an Insane Clown Posse shirt on in the photo where they were at a local museum learnin' histree' in accordance with the Bible. I'm not saying you can't be fundie and a juggulo, just that when mom is scoldin' the world talking about how righteous she is and how she doesn't teach creationism BUT the boy knows who ICP is... something is wrong.

That's how Mrs. White comes across to me. Her kids don't appear or seem to fit the fundie mold.

I know (vaguely) some juggalos. Everything about a juggalo would offend fundie sensitivities, the main point being listening to ICP.

I have a feeling that both of these moms live(d) under a rock, and don't have a fucking clue what's going on with their kids. They can't see the real world through the pink glasses and fluff.

[Kitty]

On the other hand, there's a disturbing number of Americans who don't believe in evolution. They could be only casual Christians, but get into a rant about evolution and how it's "only a theory" (completely forgetting about the scientific method, which they learned in middle school on). And how offended they are that "those atheists think we came from monkeys!" Then they conflate it with "There was no Big Bang! Just look at freaking Genesis!" :doh:

Mrs. White strikes me as fundy-lite. I've seen a lot of fundy-lite parents who have all these rules, mom stays home and blogs about being a (Christian!!!) mom. To them, they don't really care what their kids do as long as it doesn't involve Halloween, Harry Potter, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and evolution. Because to them, that's most of Christianity.

[thoughtful]

I must know! I never use mnemonics, so the only two of these I recognize are Roy G. Biv and the knuckle trick for the months. What are all the other ones?

Great Big Ducks Fly Away and Every Good Boy Does Fine - lines of the bass and treble clefs

All Cows Eat Grass and FACE - spaces of the bass and treble clefs

HOMES - Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Superior - The Great Lakes

[Shoobydoo]

Great Big Ducks Fly Away and Every Good Boy Does Fine - lines of the bass and treble clefs

All Cows Eat Grass and FACE - spaces of the bass and treble clefs

HOMES - Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Erie, Superior - The Great Lakes

I see. Thanks! :)