Nice example of using creationism in the classroom


This is cute: college professor is preparing a lecture on homology, rummages about on the internet to see if there are any useful or interesting sources, and finds one that leaves him bemused and amused at the prospect of using it as an example in class…a bad example. The source is Conservapædia! The story concludes with a little understatement:

The Conservapedia entry on homology seems more concerned with acceptance of “custom and tradition” as a basis for “truth of religious matters” than with possible comparisons we might make among organisms. Indeed, it seems that the Conservapedia aims to dismiss important scientific approaches through superficial allusions. Perhaps we should be wary of trusting the Conservapedia, despite its subtitle.

It’s a nice example of using a creationist source to make a legitimate point in a science class, while not surrendering an inch of credibility to that source.

Comments

  1. katie says

    I just had to give a seminar for my grad course on insect development… as a final ending, I decided to show part of a paper from the Journal of Creation Science that concluded

    “Even the idea of mere insect evolution is inconsistent. Evolutionists are perplexed as to how evolution could have produced such huge morphological variation among insects, especially considering how highly conserved Hox gene expression is within this lineage. The Scriptures plainly describe that all creeping things, which includes insects, were created complete on the same 6th Day of Creation to multiply after their own kind”

    We played a fun little game I like to call “find the egregious mistakes based on what I just presented to you”.

  2. Thesk says

    Yeah and this fails to past the google test. Googling David L. Bergman only produces results for CSS someting called creationwiki and a paper he himself wrote. Dr. Thomas G. Barnes is dead- guess he’s the only one who knows for sure at this point. Dr Gerald M Brown again only shows up on CSS and the like- and not even high at that. Dr. Glen C. Collins, likewise.

    But the best is this, googling Dr. Charles W. (Bill) Lucas gives you an account of a meeting a blogger had with him: http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/06/16/the-return-of-lucas-recap-corr-june-15-2006/ Enjoy!

  3. Marc Abian says

    The subtitle’s not the acid test of veritability? Oh god, I’ve been doing this wrong all my life.

  4. Thesk says

    Yikes, genius that I am I missed the post my comment was ment for… gotta be honest, my fight or flight reflex is kicking in. FLIGHT!

  5. Feynmaniac says

    Holding quote from Homology entry on Conservapedia;

    ” Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’

    By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument….”

    Hehe….the reminds me of a quote from Caesar and Cleopatra by George Bernard Shaw, ironically literature about the Roman period;

    “[H]e is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature”

    I think what’s hilarious about the Holding quote was that the New Testament was NEW during that period and thus, at least according to Holding, would have been considered as ‘bad’. I also think it reveals something that he thinks Roman literature somehow invalidates modern biology.

  6. says

    I particularly like the Professor’s line “Creationists think they have THE answer from the beginning, whereas a scientist has only a question in the beginning.” – what a perfect summation of the difference between the two standpoints.

    Once you decide on an answer – and base your whole life around that answer, you are going to twist yourself into knots to keep that answer – it’s called religion. However, if you go into anything with an open mind and ask questions, all you can do is learn – that’s science.

    You could paraphrase that as:
    “religion starts with an answer and works backwards, science starts with a question and works forwards”

    Or, to make it more snappy, just:

    “Religion goes backwards, Science goes forwards”

    Think I’ll get that on a t-shirt !!

    Rog

  7. Kimpatsu says

    Why is PZ up at 5:08 am?
    PZ, do you have an early-morning class?

    Kobra, PZ might not be up. He programs his PC to send out new postings at (ir)regular intervals, regardless of what else he might be doing at the time.

  8. Diana says

    Of course we should not trust conservapedia.

    We should not trust wikipedia either.

    Or these “science” blogs for that matter.

  9. Sastra says

    From the article:

    The Conservapedia quotation from Holding was especially interesting in stating that we are required to “have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons” to understand why homology arguments are invalid. It is unclear to me how knowledge of values invalidates a scientific method.

    I think one of the expected results of NOMA — science deals with natural facts, religion deals with meaning, and we need to use BOTH for a complete picture of the world — is that meaning and values will eventually be infused into science. The egocentric belief that we can have direct access to Truth through intuition makes ancient, popular, and private intuitions into part of the data.

    Creationists do not, of course, use NOMA. But they share this insistence on infusing our values into how we approach understanding the universe. I think it’s ironic that secular humanists are accused of “putting man at the center of everything” when it’s clear that it’s religion that does this.

  10. Numad says

    “The subtitle’s not the acid test of veritability? Oh god, I’ve been doing this wrong all my life.”

    For a film example, see:

    Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare

  11. says

    Of course we should not trust conservapedia.

    We should not trust wikipedia either.

    Or these “science” blogs for that matter.

    I agree Dianna. One should always do their own research. However putting Conservapædia on the same level as Science Blogs or even Wikipedia is insane.

  12. Ric says

    I teach Critical Thinking, and I too use Conservapedia in my class. It is a wealth of examples of fallacies, motivated reasoning, and bias. Plus it is just plain hilarious!

  13. Nerd of Redhead says

    Of course we should not trust conservapedia.
    We should not trust wikipedia either.
    Or these “science” blogs for that matter.

    Correct idea. However, since we don’t have time to investigate everything thoroughly, a certain degree of trust is required at the end of the day. Trust is earned by showing that proof is available to back up the ideas presented. Ergo, conservapedia has earned raspberries, wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and Science Blogs is fairly trustworthy.

  14. Jérôme ^ says

    I don’t see any relationship between creationism and homology (at least the kind I’m used to), which is indeed a very good subject for a college course. :-)

    But then, even the math articles in Conservapedia are totally fucked up, so that’s not a big surprise.

  15. Arne says

    One should always do their own research.

    No. Insisting in always doing one’s own research is insane. One should put a degree of provisional trust in an authority proportional to its current TrustworthinessRank™ for the particular area of inquiry, and also depending on which level of reliability you need.

  16. Ric says

    Sources need to be evaluated, true. But wikipedia makes every effort to document sources and also strives for neutrality. Conservapedia does neither. Wikipedia is moderately trustworthy (very trustworthy in some areas, if the famous study in Nature is to be believed); Conservapedia is simply a joke.

  17. says

    No. Insisting in always doing one’s own research is insane. One should put a degree of provisional trust in an authority proportional to its current TrustworthinessRank™ for the particular area of inquiry, and also depending on which level of reliability you need.

    Ok you’re right. I don’t mean to suggest that I, IT manager, could even begin to to the same research as someone who is in the biology field. What I more mean is a little work put into a little verification is always a good thing.

  18. 386sx says

    What an awful dreadful site Conservapedia is. If that ain’t a prima example of a cult, I dunno what is!

  19. Veinor says

    Since I have a more mathematical bent than a physical one, the first thing I thought of when I read the title was algebraic topology’s homology groups. Which in turn made me think of creationists protesting the teaching of singular homology in our schools. I know there’s a ‘cross product’ pun in here, but I can’t think of one for the life of me.

  20. says

    We discussed in class a critical difference between a scientist and a creationist. Creationists think they have THE answer from the beginning, whereas a scientist has only a question in the beginning. While a creationist may accept absurd dogma and simplistic dismissals of rational ideas, a scientist looks for a way to test ideas. That willingness to test and to infer from the results of those tests the best explanations distinguishes the scientific method from the creationist method.

    Chorus of creationists:

    “Nooo! You’re teaching the controversy wrong!”

  21. 386sx says

    What an awful dreadful site Conservapedia is. If that ain’t a prima example of a cult, I dunno what is!

    They definitely need to get out more often! Woooww…

  22. tsg says

    Of course we should not trust conservapedia.

    We should not trust wikipedia either.

    Or these “science” blogs for that matter.

    For varying values of “trust” depending on the need.

    They are starting points, not end points.

    Follow the citations. If there aren’t any, at best it’s unreliable. Do your own research until you yourself are convinced to the level of reliability you require, which might not be much at all depending on how critical it is to be right.

    And always recognize that, even after all the research, you still might be wrong. All knowledge is provisional.

  23. says

    I said:

    Other classroom musings: PZ speaks in Denver (pt 1). There’s a total of 11 parts, an hour and 46 minutes in total.

    If you click on my username in youtube, you’ll get a list of the other 10 parts of PZ’s lecture.

  24. says

    secularguy | September 18, 2008 7:02 AM

    “In religion, questioning is heresy
    In science, questioning is required”

    I like that. Who said it, and do they have a newsletter I may subscribe to?

  25. says

    I wonder how they might explain the similarities among humans. Possibly common descent, or do we have a god making different populations “look alike” despite the fact that they have no common origin?

    If human similarities indicate common descent, on the other hand, it’s special pleading to say that ape-human (bird-crocodile, etc.) similarities do not.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  26. secularguy says

    Capital Dan,

    It’s from the signature of “todangst” on the Infidel Guy‘s now defunct old forums. Todangst was later associated with the “Rational Response Squad“, which did in fact at some time have a newsletter. I don’t know if todangst originated the quote, though. (Probable correct form is “…, to question is …”)

  27. tsg says

    I wonder how they might explain the similarities among humans.

    Godidit.

    Possibly common descent, or do we have a god making different populations “look alike” despite the fact that they have no common origin?

    Godidit.

    If human similarities indicate common descent, on the other hand, it’s special pleading to say that ape-human (bird-crocodile, etc.) similarities do not.

    Godidit LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU-LA-LA-LA-LA.

  28. Qwerty says

    Conservapedia isn’t all bad; it does have a link to pharyngula at their awful post about PZ.

    This post reminds me of Eugenie Scott’s presentation on the Dover trial (available on youtube) in which she said that scientists ask a question, do the science, reach a consensus, and then, write the textbook while intelligent design proponents (or creationists or cdesign proponentsists) write the textbook first.

    Who needs science when the Bible explains it all!

  29. Joy says

    Not one has made an original comment, from Prof’ down.
    It is not news that the theory of evolution seems to contradict most religeous texts.
    This is not a novelty. ! Nor is evolution, from an overseas point of view it appears you’ve all just discovered it. Where have you all been? Find a different, more fruitful song to sing.
    Religion and science cannot be mixed, stop trying.

  30. Sven DiMilo says

    To whom are you talking, Joy? What sorts of “original comments” would you expect on a thread about creationists? Ever been here before?

  31. Rey Fox says

    “They definitely need to get out more often! Woooww…”

    How their minds don’t violently shut down as they switch gears from “Hox genes” to “creeping things” is beyond me. How indoctrinated do you have to be to not realize that biblical stories have fuck-all to do with Hox genes?

  32. tsg says

    How their minds don’t violently shut down as they switch gears from “Hox genes” to “creeping things” is beyond me. How indoctrinated do you have to be to not realize that biblical stories have fuck-all to do with Hox genes?

    They are ardent believers in “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

  33. Longtime Lurker says

    I was surprised that the “Homology” article in Conservapaedia was not about “teh gay ajenduh”.

  34. Smidgy says

    Jérôme ^:But then, even the math articles in Conservapedia are totally fucked up, so that’s not a big surprise.

    The reason for that is actually quite amusing. There is one of the sysops, one Ed Poor, who seems to believe that anything to do with maths that he doesn’t understand is automatically wrong. Thing is, I seem to recall seeing somewhere him saying that he has had two years of high-school maths, and he thinks this obviously makes him an expert on all areas and aspects of the subject. To my knowledge, he’s chased away several people who very obviously knew a lot more about maths than he did through things like constantly reverting their corrections and deleting entire pages, as he didn’t understand them, questioning their claimed expertise (for example, he ordered one of them to e-mail proof of their Ph.D. in maths to him before editing anywhere on the site again), or simply him or another sysop blocking them for ‘inserting false information’ that isn’t.

  35. pcarini says

    from an overseas point of view it appears you’ve all just discovered it.

    I guess there are no archives available overseas, then.

    But there is plenty of misguided self-superiority!

    Of course the most “original” thing you can do on Pharyngula is to shit up your first post with ill-informed blanket accusations. Nope, never seen it before. Not once.

  36. SC says

    Damn! It appears we’re also behind the foreigners in the use of the comma splice and combined punctuation!

  37. Danio says

    You catch more monkeys with cigarettes than sticks anyway…

    and still more with monoliths, to reconnect (in an ambiguous pop-cultury kinda way) with the original topic of this post

    Alas, I seem to have missed out on Joy, the oxymoronic troll.

    Honestly, how anyone could expect a positive and/or thoughtful response to #38-esque content just baffles me.

  38. pcarini says

    …to reconnect (in an ambiguous pop-cultury kinda way) with the original topic of this post…

    Not that a screen-grab from any Mel Brooks film really needs a reason.

  39. pcarini says

    Not that a screen-grab from any Mel Brooks film really needs a reason.

    D’oh, that’s the actual one.

  40. Nerd of Redhead says

    Joy is another hit and run troll who doesn’t seem to have anything cogent to say, but says it anyway. She is much better than Max since it appears she left.

  41. pcarini says

    I’m starting to wonder if perhaps the Catholic League doesn’t have a sign-up sheet for trolling pharyngula somewhere. A bunch of people could’ve signed up during crackergate and are just now finding themselves w/ an obligation but no real desire to follow through on it.

    (okay, not likely, but I can’t keep myself from trying to make _some_ sense out of it)

  42. Robert Byers says

    Glen Davidson post 34
    I am a biblical creationist.
    The bible says people were created separately. therefore all that happened was God did what you or i would do. He looked at his creation and picked the body most suitable for a being made in the image of God. The ape body. What else would he pick. A fish or bird or some critter on four legs. It only could be that human bodies be on the same blueprint as all other creation is. It could only be that the most flexible body, with a few modifications, would be selected to copy.
    There is no reason to see human/apr bodies as related because of same looks for a creationist. Its not special pleading but it is a special case. The bible directly says something and human knowledge does not contradict it despite evolutions claims.

    Otherwise indeed creatures looking inside and out the same can be said to be biologically related.
    In fact I believe that marsupials are just placental creatures with a few modifications due to some need upon entering Australia/ S America. So a marsupial wolf, lion, bear are just our wolves, lions, bears with pouches.
    Look alikes are probably alike in relationship except in the human/ape case where a direct witness, the bible, says there was a special creation.

  43. negentropyeater says

    Look alikes are probably alike in relationship except in the human/ape case where a direct witness, the bible, says there was a special creation.

    The bible is a book, not a witness.

  44. Wowbagger says

    He looked at his creation and picked the body most suitable for a being made in the image of God. The ape body.

    Er, Robert? That makes no sense. Either we look like (hence ‘in the image of’) god or we look like an ape – unless god also looks like an ape. Which I, personally, would be fine with; some of your co-religionists, on the other hand, might take offence – and they’re people you really don’t want to piss off about this sort of thing. Heresy and all that.

  45. Kitty says

    Robert Byers

    In fact I believe that marsupials are just placental creatures with a few modifications due to some need upon entering Australia/ S America. So a marsupial wolf, lion, bear are just our wolves, lions, bears with pouches.

    What you ‘believe’ is just plain wrong. Wikipedia has an article on marsupial development which should be within even your limited capacity to understand.
    Oh I forgot, it’s not in your holy book so it can’t be right.
    Still we can but try to educate you. Give it a read it’s only Wikipedia after all, not some elitist science journal.

  46. says

    In fact I believe that marsupials are just placental creatures with a few modifications due to some need upon entering Australia/ S America. So a marsupial wolf, lion, bear are just our wolves, lions, bears with pouches.

    Wow, you are really really wrong. You aren’t even in the right ballpark. It’s as if you have no knowledge of marsupials and placental mammals at all. No surprises though; that’s what you get for spending your life believing in mythology.

  47. Iain Walker says

    Robert Byers (#57):

    The bible says people were created separately. therefore all that happened was God did what you or i would do. He looked at his creation and picked the body most suitable for a being made in the image of God.

    Curious. One might almost think that God was constrained by the materials available (materials which he had put in place, no less). But that’s the way that contingent, opportunistic processes like evolution work, not allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deities.

    The ape body. What else would he pick.

    Something with a spine better suited to upright walking, perhaps? Something with better designed eyes? Something that doesn’t jumble reproductive and excretory orifices together? In any case, an omnipotent and omniscient entity wouldn’t need to pick anything. It could just design and create something a lot less sub-optimal from scratch.

    It only could be that human bodies be on the same blueprint as all other creation is.

    Only if God is an incompetent demiurge who makes things up as he goes along and can’t undo his mistakes. Being “on the same blueprint” is what you expect from common descent, not from special creation. In any case, since the “blueprint” is highly variable, it is quite capable of encompassing intelligent, tool-using organisms with no particular resemblance to apes.

    Its not special pleading

    Yes, it is. With a whopping great dollop of non sequitur on the side.

  48. Wowbagger says

    Only if God is an incompetent demiurge who makes things up as he goes along and can’t undo his mistakes.

    One of my main issues with christianity is that it is dependent upon god being perfect – kind, loving, benevolent etc. – not just super-powerful, perfect. If they’d been content to go with the ‘oh, he’s pretty awesome alright – but he does have his flaws’ then I’d have been a little more likely to accept it.

    But by making him infallible in every way – something he clearly isn’t; even the bible has him making mistakes, changing his mind and being defeated by iron chariots – they made it far easier for the whole concept to be seen for what it is – a fraud.

  49. Wowbagger says

    I am a biblical creationist.

    Nurse Ratched!!! Someone is off their meds!

    It’s a bit like that, isn’t it? One of those things that you just don’t expect people to actually come out and say – not with a straight face, anyway.

  50. Smidgy says

    Robert Byers, the problem you have there is that you not only contradict the whole idea that God is omniscient and omnipotent, you also have actually contradicted the Bible, according to one of the two accounts of Creation, anyway (the one running from Genesis 2:4-2:25). You see, according to that, Man was actually created before anything else, so God couldn’t select from creatures that didn’t exist yet. Of course, according to the other account, Man was created last, so your scenario is hypothetically possible, but then you have the whole problem of the two accounts of Creation in the Bible pretty clearly contradicting each other, which is a problem when it comes to relying on it as an accurate and infallible record of the origin of life.