Biology text book says creationism is "myth"
  • meisner
    Posts: 40Serf
    (read two posts down)

    Recently a school biology textbook Asking About Life has caused some controversy because it calls creationism a myth. This is hardly about that however. The important thing is that when one atheist Michael De Dora wrote a blog post where he "sided" with the creationist leading the assault, PZ Meyers had a tantrum. You can read his post here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/witless_wanker_peddles_pablum.php

    As you can see, he is being extremely childish and immature. He has made two more posts on the issue which aren't any better. One of these posts addressed Massimo Pigliucci, another atheist who "sides" with the creationist. Whether PZ is right about his points is irrelevant. He is addressing, in this tone, two well-spoken and rational individuals, not two idiot dogmatists. So, here is what I want you to do; protest him. Go to his blog and leave a comment telling him this is not acceptable behavior for someone in his position and that you will not abide by it (though, of course, only do so if that what you believe). I think this is important; PZ Meyers is a prominent atheist who is supposed to represent the best of us. Besides the matter of principle, because he is in a position of influence he is communicating to others this way to address fellow rationalists is okay. His tone is, in principle and practicality, is a degradation to the health of the atheist community and he should be made aware of it.
  • ProletariatTreeHuger
    Posts: 5,135Citizen
    So Meyers should rein in his personality because he is a prominent atheist? Funny that we don't force Hitchens to do the same.
  • meisner
    Posts: 40Serf
    Alright, I may have over-reacted.

    Never post while angry.

    Still, I remain very disapointed in Meyers.

    I guess for this thread we can discuss the use of the word myth in the textbook after all. My thoughts on this matter have been that the word myth should not have been included. This is an explosive topic that should not be allowed to detract from the quality of the learning enviornment. The class is not about learning critical thinking skills it is about learning biology. Of course, if asked if the planet is 6,000 years old the teacher ought to be able to flatly say no. Creationism is a myth after all.
  • MATTMATT
    Posts: 8,033Citizen
    Huhm, though I certainly would like him to be civil, I don't expect to be judged by his actions.
  • venomfangxvenomfangx
    Posts: 6,697Archduke
    Posted By: meisnera degradation to the health of the atheist community

    A community has different ideals; atheists are not a community as we are as diverse as each snow drop and about as fleety at times. He is correct, however, in that creationism is a myth as is the bible.
    There comes a point in your life when you realize who really matters, who never did, and who always will.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    I smell the sweet stench of hypocrisy!

    Posted By: meisnerCreationism is a myth after all.


    Posted By: meisnerI guess for this thread we can discuss the use of the word myth in the textbook after all. My thoughts on this matter have been that the word myth should not have been included.


    So you say that "Creationism IS a myth but we should bend over backwards to appease religious people", correct? First I would like to know WHY this word "myth" should not be included. We all agree that Creationism is a myth, we don't speak out against Stephen Hawking when he says that Creationism is a myth yet you are annoyed that someone (PZ) throws a hissy fit (as I would have done) if an otherwise intelligent person/organization (De Dora/CFI) a) undermine the struggle against Creationism (which seems to be PZ's greatest problem with this, note the "this is what we fight against" paragraph in the text) and b) apparently (I have yet to read De Dora's blog, but for what it's worth, I will accept PZ's comment for now) goes against his own beliefs and bends over backwards to give a better image of science. (HOW???)
    This is what science does! It exposes fiction and creationism has been exposed so it should be called just that: fiction.

    Posted By: meisnerThe class is not about learning critical thinking skills it is about learning biology.


    Obviously you don't know a lot about teaching, which is OK, I didn't know a lot about it either until I started my Uni course to become one. So let me clarify something: In Europe at least we have what is called "secondary learning goals", which basically means that we teach the kids stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject, other subjects or other knowledge but we teach them skills.
    For example, we use the tool "group work" not only to make the lesson fun but also to teach social skills, we use the tool "problem" not only to teach them math but also to teach them problem solving skills and critical thinking skills. This is often more important than the actual subject.

    Now to your first post:

    Posted By: meisnerAs you can see, he is being extremely childish and immature.


    How so? Because he is angry at someone who is undermining (or seemingly undermining) their stand? Once again, read the paragraph that starts with "But he forgets what we're fighting against."
    Never forget that! There is too much at stake to allow comments like "We should not allow the word myth to be used in such a context".
    Also, how is he being immature? Childish? Nah, he's pissed and so am I.

    Posted By: meisnerHe is addressing, in this tone, two well-spoken and rational individuals, not two idiot dogmatists.


    So why does he address them in that way? Because they made a big mistake, one they shouldn't have made. You only question the way in which he talks to them, not the actual criticism itself in this sentence. But again, look at WHY they are being criticized.

    Posted By: meisnerSo, here is what I want you to do; protest applaud him.


    Edited that for you.

    Posted By: meisnerHis tone is, in principle and practicality, is a degradation to the health of the atheist community and he should be made aware of it.


    What can be better for the image of Atheism than criticizing each other? We want to find flaws, not pat each other on the back!

    Also, before you say I am a PZ fanboy: I find many of his posts boring and his speeches dull, I only like very few of what he does.
  • MiRoMe
    Posts: 196Citizen
    I don't think they should have used the word myth either.
    I think they should have said "Creationism is wrong and is not supported by any evidence found so far".
    People who would be the the ones believing in creationism and also reading that book are not the people who are fostering doubt and slinging faeces around the scientific arena.
    Adding a little more information about why it's not taken seriously in the scientific community would be step in the right direction.
    Leaving the person to work out why it's a myth instead of just absorbing the information that it's wrong because it has zero evidence just doesn't sit well with me.

    Of course the book might do this anyway...
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Just so we stop arguing about what the book actually says:

    In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for "equal time" for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the "equal-time" bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.
  • MiRoMe
    Posts: 196Citizen
    Oh, that's fine then I don't really see a problem with that. It is a science book after all... Anyone who thinks that (new earth creationism) after actually learning about the science behind what the case actually is (Or if you lead a country, Kevin Rudd I'm looking at you) should be fired.
    out of a cannon
    into the sun.
  • Stevo
    Posts: 1,825Citizen
    Posted By: MiRoMeOh, that's fine then I don't really see a problem with that. It is a science book after all... Anyone who thinks that (new earth creationism) after actually learning about the science behind what the case actually is (Or if you lead a country, Kevin Rudd I'm looking at you) should be fired.
    out of a cannon
    into the sun.If you're not part of the problem then you're part of the solution.


    where the holy sun gnomes shall forever feast upon there flesh.
    amen.
  • Inferno
    Posts: 6,778Citizen
    Posted By: StevoRamen


    fixed ;)
  • PoemOf4Letters
    Posts: 2,316Citizen
    Posted By: InfernoJust so we stop arguing about what the book actually says:

    In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for "equal time" for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the "equal-time" bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.


    Meh. It doesn't sound like it's saying it's a faerie tale how it's used here. Myth is just sort of replacing the word story. Whatever. I don't see it as offensive.
  • normlnorml
    Posts: 1,663Citizen
    The class is not about learning critical thinking skills it is about learning biology.

    A high school-level gen ed course is going to be every bit as much about critical thinking as it is about the subject it teaches. A biologist who doesn't think critically will forever be an apprentice. We're not going to omit historical events in biology and politics because they might offend a few people. Do we want to compare these to German history textbooks that omit the Holocaust?
    One thing is for certain: The more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson
  • DemonataFangirl
    Posts: 1,177Citizen
    My biology class is starting evolution on monday, and friday she gave us this huge speech on how we weren't even going to bring up religion.

    She said she honestly doesn't care WHAT we believe, as long as we understand the theory of evolution. She's not allowed to bring up religion with us, so don't waste your time.

    I'm looking forward to it, honestly. Regardless of what she said, I think I'll have some fun with our resident creationist. :D

    I'm so evil.
  • MATTMATT
    Posts: 8,033Citizen
    Posted By: PoemOf4Letters
    Posted By: InfernoJust so we stop arguing about what the book actually says:

    In the 1970s and 1980s, antievolutionists in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana passed identical bills calling for "equal time" for teaching evolution and creationism, the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian god in six days. But a court ruled that the "equal-time" bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state.


    Meh. It doesn't sound like it's saying it's a faerie tale how it's used here. Myth is just sort of replacing the word story. Whatever. I don't see it as offensive.Now from his pocket quick he flashes,The crayon on the wall he slashes,Deep upon the advertising,A single worded poem comprised Of four letters.


    It shouldn't be offensive, because that's what it is. But I can see how people would react better to the word story. I think it should be called a myth either way, the more we can show of people openly not believing and whatnot, the more people will begint to think and realise how crazy they were being.
  • MiRoMe
    Posts: 196Citizen
    a myth is a story that isn't true.
    story =/= untrue.
Add a Comment