You’d think you wouldn’t have to tell people this, but go read it anyway: “When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution’s truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere–except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as ‘intelligent design’ to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a ‘wedge’ for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common ‘scientific’ arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.”
Or if your rhetorical opponents need the entire argument to be made with pictures, go send them to this week’s Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet.
I myself have gotten invovled in creationism v. evolution debates, both at the imdb message boards, and at http://www.nitcentral, which features boards on the topic on in both the Political Musings section (which I moderate, at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/2310/18500.html?1119202223), and the Religious Musings section (at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/6572/6598.html?1118532435).
Somewhat related is the debate I’m embroiled in right now with some guys who insist that the historicity of Jesus the Christ is a matter of proven, empirical, even peer-reviewed FACT, at http://64.33.77.146/discus/messages/6572/18428.html?1119148698. (Scroll down to my June 11th post, which began the current exchange.)
I always say that just as soon as churches begin incorporting the theory of evolution into their occasional forays into the topic of the Genesis account, then (and only then) should public schools be required to offer an “alternative” point of view.
It’s also fairly interesting that the vast groundswell of support for the “alternate” views coming from “Christians” with very little to none of this support coming from members of the Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu religious communities. Perhaps it’s only because “Christians” seem to put such undue emphasis on the Genesis account (even the most strongly Orthodox of Jews tend to accept that there may be more than what Genesis puts forth–as evidenced by the existence of, and frequent reliance on, the Talmud).