Failures of teaching evolution (for normal people)

And almost all public schools, of course, are required by law to teach evolution. In an ideal world these efforts should slowly trickle onto Main Street, where they would inform ordinary evangelicals, including those who run for Congress. In time, Darwin’s dangerous idea should become widely accepted, just as Christians gradually gave credence to Galileo’s dangerous idea about the motion of the earth. But that is not what is happening.

Quote source

Giberson, K.W. (2014). 2013 Was a Terrible Year for Evolution. The Daily Beast. Available http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/02/2013-was-a-terrible-year-for-evolution.html. Last accessed 14th Mar 2015.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Failures of teaching evolution (for normal people)

  1. I saw the debate and Ken Ham was completely and utterly beaten by Bill Nye. Imagine what would have happened if he had come up against an actual evolutionary biologist. He would have run away crying like a big girly man. With friends like Ken Ham, the young earth creationists do not need enemies.

    1. On the contrary – David Cloud also saw the debate, and he said:

      The debate was won hands down by the creationist Ken Ham, because he devastated Bill Nye’s fundamental premise that creationism is a hindrance to science…

      Mr. Ham refuted Nye’s fundamental premise in his opening five-minute statement. He showed that many Ph.D. scientists are creationists and that their worldview has in no wise hindered their scientific research….

      Mr. Ham further devastated Nye’s premise by pointing out that evolutionary scientists do their science by borrowing from the creationist worldview. They believe in and trust the laws of the universe and the laws of logic, which are premises that are based on a creationist viewpoint or a designed universe. If blind evolution were true, there would be no fundamental, established, unchanging laws.

      Bill Nye made no attempt to refute the aforementioned facts that devastate his position, and he did not provide one example of how that creationism hinders science.

      Mr. Nye dealt with a wide variety of red herrings, such as whether Noah could build an ark to withstand the flood.

      The bottom line is that Mr. Ham hands down disproved Nye’s premise about creationism harming science.

      Source: Cloud, D. (2014). Debate of the Century. Way of Life Literature, Inc. Available http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/debate_of_the_century.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s