The Freshwater Handouts: The Giraffe

Posted 13 January 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

A set of handouts used by John Freshwater in his 8th grade science class have featured in the testimony of several witnesses over the course of his termination hearing. As I reported a day ago, Dr. Patricia Princehouse critiqued those handouts on Friday, January 9. I thought it would be helpful for readers to have a clearer idea of just what kind of trash science Freshwater was purveying in them. I'll reproduce excerpts from his "Giraffe" handout below and add some commentary of my own. Dr. Princehouse had more extensive commentary. The Giraffe below the fold. The "Giraffe" handout was used as a "bell ringer," according to testimony. That is, it is a fill-in-the-blanks exercise for use in a few spare minutes just before the bell rang ending class. According to people I've talked with, they're handed out just before the end of class, and the teacher reads through them giving the 'correct' answers to be filled in the blanks. At the end of class they're returned to the teacher. We have copies because over the years several students hung on to them and took them home to show their parents. The instructions on the Giraffe handout read

DIRECTIONS: Follow along and fill in the missing words.

The first three items on the handout read

-mature [ bull ] giraffe - 18 feet tall -Long [ neck ] - needs a good pump ([ heart ]) for blood to the [ brain ]

The fifth and sixth items are

Giraffes have a [ protective ] mechanism - [ valves ] in the [ artery ] in its neck begin to close when his head goes [ down ].

So far, so good. While the pedagogical utility of merely copying down what a teacher says is questionable, up to here the material is pretty much plain description. But here's the lovely bit:

We all know that [ dead ] animals don't evolve anything, even though evolution demands its creatures realize they need an improvement before that improvement begins to evolve.

Need I say anything? That's the purest trash, taught by an 8th grade science teacher. But it doesn't stop. Here's the next item:

Another problem arises - a [ lion ] creeps up and prepares to [ kill ] its spotted [ prey ]. The giraffe quickly raises its [ head ]. This causes a reduced [ blood ] flow - the giraffe passes out. The lion [ eats ] a hearty meal and the giraffe, were it alive, would realize that it had better evolve some mechanism to re-oxygenate its oxygen deprived [ brain ]. Remember that [ dead ] animals don't evolve anything.

Yup, that dumb giraffe better figure out what to evolve and get on the stick. I'm reminded of an engineer who some years ago wrote on the Ohio Intelligent Design site about how if evolution were true, people who live in famine-ridden areas would have evolved the digestive system of cattle so they could eat grass. These people are just plain pig ignorant. Finally, we have this:

It is a distinct species, a discrete entity. No one would say a giraffe is a "missing [ link ]" or a "transitional [ form ]." A giraffe is not some [ creature ] emerging from some other creature or changing into a "higher" or more [ complex ] form.

At a school board meeting last June I told the board that if this is the kind of thing he's teaching in science classes, he's incompetent to be a teacher. I now emphasise the "incompetent" and add "actively destructive." The man has no business anywhere near a science classroom. R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney, has been hinting that Freshwater might have used these kinds of handouts merely to give students an idea of the "other side," and that it's an acceptable teaching practice. I can conceive of no worthwhile pedagogical purpose that's served by blatantly lying to students about science.

67 Comments

Dan Gilbert · 13 January 2009

I really appreciate these updates that you're doing... even though they make my blood pressure go up.

The fact that this is even an issue in science classes in this day and age is infuriating. Not only is ID not science, but it's anti-intellectual tripe. It's sad that it hasn't (years ago) gone the way of astrology and tea-leaf reading.

Anyway... keep up the good work. Your updates are encouraging (despite the blood pressure). ;-)

RBH · 13 January 2009

Dan Gilbert said: I really appreciate these updates that you're doing... even though they make my blood pressure go up.

I actually take two hypertension meds daily. Otherwise I'd have popped a blood vessel long ago. :)

Just Bob · 13 January 2009

Dan Gilbert said: ... gone the way of astrology and tea-leaf reading.

As Carl Sagan used to point out, how many daily newspapers have an astrology column? How many have a science column? Now THERE'S your problem.

Dan Gilbert · 13 January 2009

Just Bob said:
Dan Gilbert said: ... gone the way of astrology and tea-leaf reading.
As Carl Sagan used to point out, how many daily newspapers have an astrology column? How many have a science column? Now THERE'S your problem.

Ever since I was a kid and knew about horoscopes, I've always taken them as a form of entertainment, so I forget sometimes that there are people out there who take it seriously. ;-)

J-Dog · 13 January 2009

Oh yeah? So if humans evolved better and bigger brains, then why are there still creationists? :)

stevaroni · 13 January 2009

Dan G writes...

… even though they make my blood pressure go up.

You know, you could really take advantage of that if you wanted to and evolve a longer neck for yourself.

mrg (iml8) · 13 January 2009

I was looking over the quotes from the handout and all I could think was: "I couldn't make this stuff up. And I'm fair at making stuff up."

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwinw.html

Doc Bill · 13 January 2009

I have noticed that all of our creationist friends are totally absent from commenting on these threads.

Where's the support for Freshwater? Where are the demands for academic freedom, viewpoint discrimination and all the rest?

Where are the cries of outrage that a teacher can be restrained from assaulting students?

For our creationist friends out there, suppose that I etched, burned, inscribed or inked a pentagram or 666 on your child's arm. Would you laugh it off? Grant me academic freedom? Buy me lunch?

Seriously I hope not. Seriously I hope you would do everything in your power to run me out of the School system, and back on the other side of the fence, I would support you to that end.

Ideology aside, this case is about a sociopath in charge of children. It's simply wrong. It doesn't matter that the school administration was spineless or turned a blind eye for years. Freshwater needs to be fired. And the administrators need to be disciplined for their lack of action.

My opinion. Worth nothing, of course!

mrg (iml8) · 13 January 2009

Doc Bill said: I have noticed that all of our creationist friends are totally absent from commenting on these threads.

Oh please -- speak of the devil and he shows up! Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwinw.html

Henry J · 13 January 2009

I actually take two hypertension meds daily. Otherwise I’d have popped a blood vessel long ago. :)

And that's without a six foot neck... :p Henry

Nomad · 13 January 2009

I have now heard the gambit employed in the latter part of the handout. The bit that goes "it has to decide to change its own body after it dies to evolve". It was from a representative for AiG, in full on folksy fake charm mode, talking about how an alligator cannot decide to become something else.

In retrospect I deeply regret not asking him who was suggesting that an alligator is capable of consciously changing itself. Ya'know, just to bring the E word into the open since he was working with veiled references.

Despite that, the bit about evolution somehow requiring a dying animal to be able to evolve a way to survive being eaten by a lion in real time is a new low.

The other thing that strikes me is that this is a REALLY bad fill in the blanks exercise. It's like Freshwater took standard creationist propaganda, removed some words, and turned them into a handout. Or am I stating the obvious here?

I mean COME ON... "the lion (blank) a hearty meal"... what kind of fill in the blank is that?

Jedidiah Palosaari · 13 January 2009

I agree with everything said in this article, but want to just disagree with one small part:

pedagogical utility of merely copying down what a teacher says is questionable

I think that, particularly at this age, it can actually be very helpful pedagogically. What you're doing is helping kids learn to take notes correctly, so that they can study well, and learn the information for the future. If this were the only thing you were doing to teach, I'd say it was questionable, or if this was the approach used in college. But I think it a good helpful first step for junior high/high schoolers.

GuyeFaux · 14 January 2009

Using a ------, Freshwater marked students with a mark resembling a ------.

Freshwater teaches ------ in a High School Science class.

Students in Freshwater's class learn that ------ is the one True Religion.

Freshwater ------ the Ninth Commandment.

Had he the power to do so, Freshwater would ------ all atheists, Catholics and homosexuals.

Freshwater deserves to ------.

mharri · 14 January 2009

Are you trying to lure me into a game of Mad-libs? Is that your devious plan?

SWT · 14 January 2009

I’m reminded of an engineer who some years ago wrote on the Ohio Intelligent Design site about how if evolution were true, people who live in famine-ridden areas would have evolved the digestive system of cattle so they could eat grass.

My gut reaction is that an engineer who would write something so [incredibly] [stupid] should have his/her licence [revoked]. On second thought, I realized that's probably too harsh. He or she should, however, be prevented from working on any project requiring any [expertise] in [biology] or [biotechnology].

H.H. · 14 January 2009

Nomad said: I mean COME ON... "the lion (blank) a hearty meal"... what kind of fill in the blank is that?

Yeah, that's pretty laughable. This might be challenging to a 2nd grader, not an 8th grader. Then again, most creationist material is appropriate for 2nd graders.

Frank J · 14 January 2009

At a school board meeting last June I told the board that if this is the kind of thing he’s teaching in science classes, he’s incompetent to be a teacher. I now emphasise the “incompetent” and add “actively destructive.” The man has no business anywhere near a science classroom.
— Richard B. Hoppe

If anyone says that he should teach that in Sunday School, I'll pop a blood vessel.

As Carl Sagan used to point out, how many daily newspapers have an astrology column? How many have a science column? Now THERE’S your problem.
— Just Bob

Thank you! (sarcasm) Darn those fundamentalist right-wing newspapers. (end sarcasm)

dolphin · 14 January 2009

Apologies folks for being slightly OFF-topic, but it came to my attention, that the Intelligent Design section of http://debategraph.org/ needs some serious editing. In case you have too much free time at your hands... ;-))

p/s: The site was just mentioned at BBCNews (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7827293.stm), so increased traffic is likely.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 14 January 2009

H.H. said:
Nomad said: I mean COME ON... "the lion (blank) a hearty meal"... what kind of fill in the blank is that?
Yeah, that's pretty laughable. This might be challenging to a 2nd grader, not an 8th grader. Then again, most creationist material is appropriate for 2nd graders.

[regurgitated] [regretted eating] [fixed, by candlelight,] [danced for] [had sex after] [had sex on] [dreamed of] [couldn't decide who to invite to] [refused to share] [had a heart attack after] [forgot to say a prayer before] [started a food fight over] [thought about those starving children in China, and couldn't enjoy] [thanked DocBill for preparing] Most 8th graders could be more creative than Freshwater feared.

Jonathan P Smith · 14 January 2009

Mr Hoppe,

Thank you so much for all your hard work and efforts in covering this debacle. I know this is just a example of what is taking place in many science classrooms around the country.Such a shame for our students and our education system.

Jonathan Smith Florida Citizens for Science

paul flocken · 14 January 2009

Using a ——, Freshwater marked students with a mark resembling a ——. Freshwater teaches —— in a High School Science class. Students in Freshwater’s class learn that —— is the one True Religion. Freshwater —— the Ninth Commandment. Had he the power to do so, Freshwater would —— all atheists, Catholics and homosexuals. Freshwater deserves to ——. My gut reaction is that an engineer who would write something so [incredibly] [stupid] should have his/her licence [revoked]. On second thought, I realized that’s probably too harsh. He or she should, however, be prevented from working on any project requiring any [expertise] in [biology] or [biotechnology].

I sense a new form of internet humor emerging from it's chrysalis.

Pete Dunkelberg · 14 January 2009

… “the lion (blank) a hearty meal”…

Lions can cook?

Aaron · 14 January 2009

I always find it interesting to see how Creationists think Evolution ACTUALLY works.

Makes it argue against them.

Just Bob · 14 January 2009

… “the lion (blank) a HEARTY meal”…

Hmm...could be a teachable moment there (and a pun). Lions generally start with the organs. I saw a lion in Kruger NP a few months ago, guarding his kill, a Cape buffalo. The carcass was hollow, but otherwise intact. He had eaten the heart, liver, intestines and other goodies first, for a good reason--they spoil first. The buffalo steaks and roasts will keep for a few days.

Class discussion: How would a behavioral trait like that evolve? (Note "would," not "could." Could it be a learned behavior rather than "instinct"? How could we test that?

DS · 14 January 2009

Using a ——, Freshwater marked students with a mark resembling a ——.
Freshwater teaches —— in a High School Science class.
Students in Freshwater’s class learn that —— is the one True Religion.
Freshwater —— the Ninth Commandment.
Had he the power to do so, Freshwater would —— all atheists, Catholics and homosexuals.
Freshwater deserves to ——.

distinct lack of judgement
swastika
that one should not trust science
his
demonstrated how to break
brand
be fired for breaking the law and recklessly endangering his students

Oh well, I guess at least we now know who intelligently designed the giraffe. Supposedly it was the giraffe, after it died. Go figure.

Emily · 14 January 2009

the giraffe, were it alive, would realize that it had better evolve some mechanism to re-oxygenate its oxygen deprived [ brain ].

In some early Star Trek movie, there's an organism behaving strangly and Dr. McCoy tells somebody "It wants to evolve!!!" Maybe Freshwater got his idea from this movie.

Paul Burnett · 14 January 2009

Doc Bill said: Where's the support for Freshwater?

http://supportfreshwater.com/ http://www.bibleonthedesk.com/index.php (Comments on the above at http://theoconia.blogspot.com/2008/07/recently-john-freshwater-support.html and http://theoconia.blogspot.com/2008/06/between-2004-and-2006-i-frequently.html http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/support-john-freshwater.html ...but nothing (yet) from those fervent supporters of Academic Freedom, Casey Luskin or the Dishonesty Institute. Odd...

Flint · 14 January 2009

I always find it interesting to see how Creationists think Evolution ACTUALLY works.

I'd say that, since creationists know evolution doesn't happen, they have no way to evaluate the plausibility of arguments against it. Kind of like evaluating the reasons why the moon is NOT made of green cheese - all proposals might seem equally valid. So while absurd caricatures of any idea are easier to mock, when the idea is known to be nonsense any caricature is as absurd as any other.

Dan · 14 January 2009

Can anyone simultaneously defend this sort of teaching and also claim that they support "critical analysis" of anything?

Mary · 14 January 2009

It is all here (I know this link has been posted before) http://agoodchoice.blogspot.com/search?q=Freshwater Mary

Doc Bill said: I have noticed that all of our creationist friends are totally absent from commenting on these threads. Where's the support for Freshwater? Where are the demands for academic freedom, viewpoint discrimination and all the rest? Where are the cries of outrage that a teacher can be restrained from assaulting students? For our creationist friends out there, suppose that I etched, burned, inscribed or inked a pentagram or 666 on your child's arm. Would you laugh it off? Grant me academic freedom? Buy me lunch? Seriously I hope not. Seriously I hope you would do everything in your power to run me out of the School system, and back on the other side of the fence, I would support you to that end. Ideology aside, this case is about a sociopath in charge of children. It's simply wrong. It doesn't matter that the school administration was spineless or turned a blind eye for years. Freshwater needs to be fired. And the administrators need to be disciplined for their lack of action. My opinion. Worth nothing, of course!

Thomas · 14 January 2009

The 'teach the controversy' angle is just fine by me, in a current events class. The evolution/creation argument is a valid and important piece of modern political discourse.

It is not science and thusly has no place in a science classroom.

Matt G · 14 January 2009

Nomad said: I have now heard the gambit employed in the latter part of the handout. The bit that goes "it has to decide to change its own body after it dies to evolve". It was from a representative for AiG, in full on folksy fake charm mode, talking about how an alligator cannot decide to become something else.

I've always felt that even most of the people who support evolution don't really understand it. The idea that evolution isn't "trying" to do anything is really pretty radical. It's hard for people to wrap their minds around the notion that evolution isn't intentional, or directional - it just "is".

Frank J · 14 January 2009

The ‘teach the controversy’ angle is just fine by me, in a current events class.
— Thomas

Me too, as long as it is clearly shown how those anti-evolution arguments fail and/or misrepresent evolution. At the very least, mainstream science should have the last word if only because they earned it. But the activists, whether they promote "strengths and weaknesses," ID, or full-blown literal Genesis, want nothing of the sort.

Dave W. · 14 January 2009

Is it just me, or does it look like the handout was pulled directly from this page, with some blanks added in. I'm guessing that all the parts about "the Creator" were erased from it, too.

If I'm correct in my guess, then I bet that I've found the Woodpecker, also. These are both from a book called The Evolution of a Creationist, by Dr. Jobe Martin.

No clue on the "Dragon" hand-out, though.

Mark Farmer · 14 January 2009

I may have missed it but has someone posted a copy of this handout? I'd love to see the original.

J. Biggs · 14 January 2009

Dave W. said: Is it just me, or does it look like the handout was pulled directly from this page, with some blanks added in. I'm guessing that all the parts about "the Creator" were erased from it, too. If I'm correct in my guess, then I bet that I've found the Woodpecker, also. These are both from a book called The Evolution of a Creationist, by Dr. Jobe Martin. No clue on the "Dragon" hand-out, though.

Dr. Jobe Martin's doctorate is in Dentistry. Which, means he is eminantly qualified to discuss evolution. I have actually read this book and can say without a doubt it is one of the biggest pieces of trash out there. There is even a chapter that discusses fraudulent missing links like Piltdown man, accusing scientists of perpetrating fraud in order to prove "their theory". In the same chapter he talks about Creation "scientists" proving man and dinosaur coexisted by touting the Paluxy footprints which I believe had already been discredited before the book was published. Jobe Martin, D.D.S. also failed to disclose that it was the scientific community and not Creation "scientists" that exposed both Piltdown man and the Paluxy tracks as frauds.

Jason Wise · 14 January 2009

According to bibleonthedesk.com (thanks for the link, Paul), the two best ways you can help John Freshwater are to pray for him and send money. Does this mean we should pray that God will forgive him, or does he need divine intervention in order to keep his job?

The same site counts "an Ohio state representative" among Freshwater's supporters.

I looked at this site and supportfreshwater.com to see what they had to say in his defense, but they don't say anything. Just pray and send money!

Peter Henderson · 14 January 2009

I’m reminded of an engineer who some years ago wrote on the Ohio Intelligent Design site about how if evolution were true, people who live in famine-ridden areas would have evolved the digestive system of cattle so they could eat grass. These people are just plain pig ignorant

There was something similar on AiG's website the other day from Dr. Georgia Purdom: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/hidden-potential

Many of the adaptations that were built into the original created kinds likely appeared right after the Flood, while others may never have been expressed at all. If so, some designs may be just waiting to be revealed at some point in the future. Perhaps there’s a clue to the trigger in the conditions after the Flood: a unique period of extreme and unpredictable stress. If we could reproduce similar stressful conditions, perhaps we could get some hidden designs to appear.

Robin · 14 January 2009

Matt G said:
Nomad said: I have now heard the gambit employed in the latter part of the handout. The bit that goes "it has to decide to change its own body after it dies to evolve". It was from a representative for AiG, in full on folksy fake charm mode, talking about how an alligator cannot decide to become something else.
I've always felt that even most of the people who support evolution don't really understand it. The idea that evolution isn't "trying" to do anything is really pretty radical. It's hard for people to wrap their minds around the notion that evolution isn't intentional, or directional - it just "is".

Quite so. I personally think that a good way to describe evolution is as a dynamic or attribute - a 'consequence' if you will - of the biological system. In other words, evolution is the dynamic that emerges in large living populations. We see only the results of that dynamic, much like economists see the results of the housing dynamic or like meterologists see the results of weather dynamics. Predicability of those dynamics is tough because of the number of variables and there's virtually no way to take a snapshot of the dynamic itself. The best we can do is model the dynamic and demonstrate that yes, models with these parameters will produce the results we see. In any event, such dynamics are not intelligent - they occur based upon the attributes of the units within the dynamic and are directed by the parameters surrounding the system.

Dave W. · 14 January 2009

J. Biggs:

Yeah, the whole book seems to be online, but I didn't bother reading the whole thing.

I'm just interested in tracking back the source of the handouts. A search of allaboutscience.org for "woodpecker" turns up nothing, and "giraffe" turns up a video which makes the same claims as Martin's book, from a DVD called "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution I." And it would seem that that's Martin doing all the talking in that video clip.

My point is that despite Adkins' day-9 testimony, I can't find any evidence of the handouts themselves on allaboutgod.com, allaboutscience.org or allaboutcreation.org. Perhaps they've been taken down since the Freshwater thing got stirred up.

Frank J · 14 January 2009

Just pray and send money!
— Jason Wise

The atheists can send him money. We theists should just pray for him. If God wants him to get rich, He'll make him rich. I am personally praying that God will treat him to an eternity of facing the fact that creationism is bunk - mutually contrdictory bunk, at that. Plus some 'splainin' about why he burned the kid's arm.

_Arthur · 14 January 2009

Jason Wise said: Does this mean we should pray that God will forgive him, or does he need divine intervention in order to keep his job?

There is nothing to forgive: Lying for Jesus is the duty of every God-fearing fundamentalist. Every time Biology is taught properly, it makes Baby Jesus cry.

Kevin B · 14 January 2009

_Arthur said: ,,,,, Every time Biology is taught properly, it makes Baby Jesus cry.

Is He still sulking because His Daddy banned Him from the workroom after that business with the Edicaran organisms and the pot of glue?

RBH · 14 January 2009

Mark Farmer said: I may have missed it but has someone posted a copy of this handout? I'd love to see the original.

So would I , but I haven't been able to get an actual copy. Yet. The items in the OP are transcribed from the powerpoint Patricia Princehouse used in the hearing last week on day something or other. 10? I think so.

Dave W. · 14 January 2009

RBH, how well does this page match up with the stuff in the PowerPoint slide(s)?

harold · 14 January 2009

Frank J wrote -

(sarcasm) Darn those fundamentalist right-wing newspapers. (end sarcasm)

But plenty of newspapers are right wing, plenty of conservatives believe in astrology, and no-one is trying to teach astrology as tax-payer funded 8th grade public school science, in violation of the constitutional rights of all concerned. Nice try though, Frank.

Flint · 14 January 2009

Jobe Martin, D.D.S. also failed to disclose that it was the scientific community and not Creation “scientists” that exposed both Piltdown man and the Paluxy tracks as frauds.

I've noticed a tendency on the part of people here to confuse factual accuracy with doctrinal correctness. Factual frauds can be doctrinally acceptable or even necessary. So it's nugatory to mock the Faithful for failure to "expose" scams that reinforce their faith, solely on the grounds that the scams are factual frauds. Anything that reinforces scripture cannot possibly be a fraud within their frame of reference. The very essence of Lying For Jesus is to misrepresent reality in a way consistent with scriptural requirements. The proper measure of doctrinal correctness is how well the misrepresentation accords with God's Word. Even outright ground-up fabrications, in contradiction to the most self-evident observations or made with the basest motives, are fully acceptable if God said so (creationist interpretation). And so the Paluxy footprints must be judged on how well they fit scripture. There simply IS no alternative yardstick. What they ARE doesn't matter. All that matters is what we SAY they are, because lies that lead people to Jeezus are to be applauded, certainly not "exposed."

Frank J · 14 January 2009

But plenty of newspapers are right wing, plenty of conservatives believe in astrology, and no-one is trying to teach astrology as tax-payer funded 8th grade public school science, in violation of the constitutional rights of all concerned.
— harold

I don't disagree with any of that. But as I keep reminding everyone, the average student spends on the order of 0.1% of his waking hours learning evolution. Anti-evolution activists and peddlers of all sorts of pseudoscience, from a broad range of religious and political views, are milking the other 99% for all it's worth. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it moral. Does that mean that we should spend any less time and effort combating the efforts of one pseudoscience to control the last 0.1%? Of course not. But additional time and effort combating the other efforts, and reducing the "demand" as well as the "supply" of anti-evolution (which the court cases address) is certainly desirable.

RBH · 14 January 2009

Dave W. said: RBH, how well does this page match up with the stuff in the PowerPoint slide(s)?

IT looks like the handout was extracted from that page. Some of the peculiar language -- e.g., the "hearyy meal" phrase -- are identical. Thanks!

sirhcton · 14 January 2009

I can conceive of no worthwhile pedagogical purpose that’s served by blatantly lying to students about science.

He is teaching to save their souls from the clutches of those nasty, amoral, atheist, "evilutionists." If the students don't believe as he does, then they will have no compunction at all about lying, except in the name of religion. Unfortunately, he is an exemplar for many, I am sure.

Monado · 14 January 2009

Dave W., I've left this comment on the Web site you pointed out. Let's see if they respond.

You have no idea how evolution works. You don't even have a straw man, you have a wisp of dead grass. Refuting something that has nothing--NOTHING--to do with how evolution occurs does not weaken it in the least.

Let me explain how it feels. "Christians worship donkeys on sticks and believe that they will thus get the gold at the end of the rainbow. How stupid is that! Everyone knows there's no gold at the end of a rainbow!" There. I've refuted Christianity using your style of argument. Except that my caricature is closer to Christianity than yours is to evolution. Does it convince you?

Paul Burnett · 14 January 2009

Peter Henderson quoted AIG: "If we could reproduce similar stressful conditions, perhaps we could get some hidden designs to appear."

I'm dredging up an ancient memory of an incident centuries ago where somebody isolated a cadre of infant children on an island to see if they would grow up speaking Hebrew, which was presumed to be the "native" tongue of the human race. But I can't remember any details...?

SWT · 14 January 2009

Frank J said:
Just pray and send money!
— Jason Wise
The atheists can send him money. We theists should just pray for him. If God wants him to get rich, He'll make him rich. I am personally praying that God will treat him to an eternity of facing the fact that creationism is bunk - mutually contrdictory bunk, at that. Plus some 'splainin' about why he burned the kid's arm.

Let's just eliminate the middleman and pray that God sends him some money.

AF · 14 January 2009

"I'd say that, since creationists have already decided they'll oppose evolution no matter WHAT the facts are, they can't make themselves do the basic work that anyone intellectually honest would do of learning the facts. Kind of like a Holocaust denier trying to evaluate how many people were killed in the camps -- since the denier already intends to say it was zero, all other figures sort of blend together in his mind.

So while absurd caricatures are all any creationist has to offer, there's absolutely no reason to think a creationist realizes how absurd they are."

Fixed your typos for you.

Dave W. · 14 January 2009

RBH wrote: IT looks like the handout was extracted from that page. Some of the peculiar language – e.g., the “hearyy meal” phrase – are identical. Thanks!

The problem is that I can't find any of that stuff on allaboutgod.com (neither giraffe nor woodpecker, and their dragon article is six pages!), even with the help of the Wayback Machine. But that's where Adkins says he found it, and Dr. Princehouse seemed to agree. So I'm wondering where the disconnect is.

Stephen Wells · 15 January 2009

Is this syptomatic of the Marvel Comics version of "evolution" or "mutation", where it happens to _an individual_? Do creationists think that Pokemon "evolving" to new forms is actually how evolution _works_? Sheesh.

Dan · 15 January 2009

Matt G said: I've always felt that even most of the people who support evolution don't really understand it. The idea that evolution isn't "trying" to do anything is really pretty radical. It's hard for people to wrap their minds around the notion that evolution isn't intentional, or directional - it just "is".

Yet students seem to grasp the concept in a physics class. Gravity isn't intentional, it just "is".

D. P. Robin · 15 January 2009

Paul Burnett said:
Peter Henderson quoted AIG: "If we could reproduce similar stressful conditions, perhaps we could get some hidden designs to appear."
I'm dredging up an ancient memory of an incident centuries ago where somebody isolated a cadre of infant children on an island to see if they would grow up speaking Hebrew, which was presumed to be the "native" tongue of the human race. But I can't remember any details...?

From Wiki( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#History_of_research ):

History contains a number of anecdotes about people who attempted to discover the origin of language by experiment. The first such tale was told by Herodotus, who relates that Pharaoh Psammetichus (probably Psammetichus I) caused two children to be raised by deaf-mutes; he would see what language they ended up speaking. When the children were brought before him, one of them said something that sounded to the pharaoh like bekos, the Phrygian word for bread. From this, Psammetichus concluded that Phrygian was the first language.[citation needed] King James V of Scotland is said to have tried a similar experiment; his children were supposed to have ended up speaking Hebrew.[citation needed] Both the medieval monarch Frederick II and Akbar, a 16th century Mughal emperor of India, are said to have tried a similar experiment; the children involved in these experiments did not speak.[32][33]

I have some memory that Frederick the Great did something similar too.

Dave Luckett · 15 January 2009

I think it was Frederick II Hohenstaufen. He was one of the first genuine skeptics in Europe after classical times. As I recall, he was excommunicated at least twice, but had to placate the Pope for purely political reasons. Privately, he was probably agnostic, which represents a remarkable intellectual journey for a man of his age, the thirteenth century. The experiment of raising the children without speech would have been possible for him, and a monk was said to have recorded its progress.

Jeff Webber · 18 January 2009

Monado said: Dave W., I've left this comment on the Web site you pointed out. Let's see if they respond.
You have no idea how evolution works. You don't even have a straw man, you have a wisp of dead grass. Refuting something that has nothing--NOTHING--to do with how evolution occurs does not weaken it in the least.

Let me explain how it feels. "Christians worship donkeys on sticks and believe that they will thus get the gold at the end of the rainbow. How stupid is that! Everyone knows there's no gold at the end of a rainbow!" There. I've refuted Christianity using your style of argument. Except that my caricature is closer to Christianity than yours is to evolution. Does it convince you?

I left them a comment also: I have something I want you to think about VERY hard. If an anti-Christian group wrote a treatise basing one of their arguments on the fact that Paul in Corinthians said "your faith is in vain" would you consider that an honest mistake, a misunderstanding or an outright lie? This is the same level of "honesty" involved in your little "giraffe story", etc. I await your response and would like to discuss this further. I don't really expect them to respond, but we'll see.

VJBinCT · 24 January 2009

I didn't notice anybody mentioning that the giraffes who are evolving may be less likely to be fainters and sprint away from the carcasses of their less fortunate brethren. Seems to me that God rolls His Dice and either gives or does not give some random mutation after the giraffe equivalent of a dinner and a movie, and the resulting newborn lucky or luckless beast has gotten its lifetime's share of the evolution pie.

Nick Deboar · 25 January 2009

I had some fantastic science teachers growing up in Australia (i even went to a Christian school), and I have never been more thankful for that since reading this [bull] crap.

Misha · 29 January 2009

This kind of stuff makes me want to be a teacher again.

I taught physics at a small, private Christian school for 2 years. And I "taught the controversy." I was expected to teach ID, but I tried to discretely show its inadequacies. We actually had curriculum given to us based on Expelled. I informed my headmaster and principal about my objections and worked my way around the subject. Good thing I was a physics teacher. However, I think I did influence some students to consider the evidence.

I don't disagree with the pedagogy of filling in the blanks. It is actually a fair strategy for learning disabled students. On occasion I would prepare my notes in fill-in-the-blank form for several of my students. I believe it helped them. Now, this particular worksheet was horrible. Regardless of its obvious fallacies, this worksheet would be in no way beneficial. It was a horrible attempt at a "fill-in-the-blanks" learning aide. None of the key words were the ones left blank. The goal is to have students fill in the key words to complete the idea while creating some familiarity with those new words. Fishwater's attempt was awful. If that's how he teaches, I wouldn't trust him to teach any subject.

mrg (iml8) · 29 January 2009

Misha said: I taught physics at a small, private Christian school for 2 years. And I "taught the controversy." I was expected to teach ID, but I tried to discretely show its inadequacies. We actually had curriculum given to us based on Expelled.

OK, not picking on you at all, but on visualizing this scene it sounds like real life exceeding parody: "I just can't make this stuff up." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Misha · 29 January 2009

mrg (iml8) said: OK, not picking on you at all, but on visualizing this scene it sounds like real life exceeding parody: "I just can't make this stuff up." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Oh, I'm not kidding. I had to work my factual evidence into my lectures in an almost secretive manner. In my physics class I used the speed of light and our distance from other galaxies to encourage the students to accept a more ancient history. In my freshman science class I was a bit more bold. I purposefully placed our lessons on biomes and animal adaptations before our study of the cell. That way when I got to DNA I could go back and talk about those adaptations again. I also used the DNA lessons to discuss the similarities between human and chimp DNA, including the combination of chimp chromosome pairs to result in inactive centromeres. And before you get all worked up, my headmaster and principal were terrific through all of it. They were more interested with the balance of my faith and science than mandating a rubric. They had never encountered someone who could seriously consider both the way I had. I was more fearful of the other teachers, parents and members of the school board. They were the ones who were pushing the misconceptions strongly.

mrg (iml8) · 29 January 2009

Misha said: Oh, I'm not kidding.

I didn't think you were, it's just that this the Freshwater scenario stood on its head.

And before you get all worked up ...

Worked up? About what? Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Misha · 29 January 2009

Worked up? About what? Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

That wasn't necessarily directed towards you. I just know that we all tend to get in a tizzy, and rightfully so, about a lot of this. I just wanted to point out that a lot of times its parents that get too involved. Its not always the administrators.