Bill Jack & Rusty Carter #fundie

Bill Jack & Rusty Carter #fundie abcnews.go.com

[During Private Museum Tours, Denver Children Learn About Creationism]

They dismiss much of what's on display in the museum as "pseudo-science" and describe many of the graphic depictions of paleontology and evolution as merely "artwork." Standing before a display on "Life in the Cenozoic Seas," Jack told the group, "This is a great museum if they would take out the propaganda, if they take out the pseudo-science. It's appalling because students go away thinking that cows turned into whales."

They deride the notion that anything so complex as the human eye could be the result of random mutations, or that the scales of a fish could over millions of years become teeth.

"This is a fairy tale, " Jack declared to the children. "How do they know your teeth evolved from scales? Everybody, try that with me, how do you know?

"How-do-you-know?" the kids repeated in unison.

At another exhibit, Carter pointed to a fossil of a giant fish found in Kansas and said, "Who likes to fish? Who would believe you could catch a fish this big in Kansas ?"

72 comments

old comment by WWWWolf

> At another exhibit, Carter pointed to a fossil of a giant fish found in Kansas and said, "Who likes to fish? Who would believe you could catch a fish this big in Kansas ?"

So, you believe God has created a world full of infinite wonders for us to behold.

Yet, when you run into one such wonder, you question its truthfulness.

This is one of the hallmarks of fundienuttery. Rational Christians might point out that the world is full of wonders and that they might not have seen quite everything yet. Fundienuts only believe the lies that dwell within their heads and refuse to see what the world has in store for them.

Edit re: #1232955, related to what I said above:

> “How-do-you-know?” is indeed a very health question. But when you ask a question, it’s only considered proper to listen to the answer.

Yup. Rational people say "How-do-you-know?". The fundies may say the same words, but what they meant to say was "Shut-the-f-up,-I-know-better."

old comment by dionysus

jack: "How do they know your teeth evolved from scales? Everybody, try that with me, how do you know?

"How-do-you-know?" the kids repeated in unison.

Me (overhearing the conversation): "Good question! I myself am no expert but I'll find the appropriate scientific data for you or at least point you to where you can find it. Now, how do you know that creation is true?"

Jack: "Because the Bible says so"

Me: "Kids, remember what Jack taught you to say?"

Kids: "How do you know?"

Me: "Good!"

Jack: "Ummmmm....errr...because it's the word of God!"

Me: "Kids?"

Kids: "How do you know?"

Jack: *flustered* "Because the Bible says it's the word of God."

Me: "And you see kids, this is called a circular argument and it means nothing. Now scientists find evidence and use it to draw their conclusions from. Think of them like detectives that try to solve the mysteries of the real world. While scientists are constantly searching for clues and going where the clues lead them, people like Mr. Jack here are simply walking around the same spot in a circle pretending to get somewhere. Now let's go see if we can find somebody here that can give us a real tour that will show us what clues scientists have actually discovered and we can leave Mr. Jack to walk around in his little circle."

old comment by

From later in the article:

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity. When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

Simpler reason: intellectual dishonesty. For Jebus.

Jack and Carter said that's exactly what they are teaching: that people should think for themselves, but think within a framework of Creationist belief.

Translation: You're free to make up your own mind just as long as you finally decide the same as me and my religion. Uh huh.

old comment by publius

Last month I was at the Smithsonian in the dinosaur exhibit and there were some parents spouting creationist nonsense at their kids. What was interesting was when the kids wandered off to look at a different exhibit you could here them discussing their parents' opinions. They clearly believed some of what they'd ben taught but also distrusted their parents' views and the elder was explaining tot he younger how some of what they had just been told wasn't really true, it's just that their parents were old fashioned and hadn't learned modern christian beliefs.

It was not too different from the way I've seen kids treat their racist parents opinions about their friends or significant others of different races.

old comment by Mister Spak

Lucillius:

" is that actual rules of evidence have no impact."

Not true. The point of "scientific" creationism is that scientifical evidency noises support the bible. When they don't, it impacts the dodos confidence. Not in the sense that he doubts the bible, but in the sense that he is less willing to speak up about it and inflict his nonsense on others.

" the point of such debate has lie in appealing to spectators who may not be so thoroughly brainwashed. "

Practice with these people alone to hone your skills before you do this in front of an audience. Also practice on FSTDT (that's why I post here). Only then should you take them on in public.

Recently I confronted a creationist who said if evolution is true why are there still monkeys.

Because I've seen this played out on FSTDT before I immediately said if the bible is true why is there still dirt?

The confused expression on his face was comical. I then said Now do you understand how stupid you sound to normal people when you say that?

He never did understand what was going on.

old comment by Mister Spak

I don't use ridicule unless the creationist also uses ridicule eg evolution is only a theory, my response is creationism is only a myth.

If the creationist claim is a legitimate tactic, then it works both ways. If it's ridicule the creationist used it first and deserves what he got. If it's a legitimate logical argument then it's a valid criticism of creationism. It's also true - evolution really is a theory, and creationism really is a myth. Good luck trying to disprove either of those claims.

I make idiotic points that sound like creationist points - if creation is true why is there dirt, creation is only a myth - and I make then instantly after the creationist claim so the audience can experience their equivalence.

Serious points are like obvious - it's in the mind of the beholder. To some people, even the less brainwashed ones, it's only a theory and why are there monkeys sounds like a serious point. I make a logically identical claim that attacks creation to show how idiotic the original creationist argument is.(or alternatively, make an identical unassailable proof that creation is a lie)

There are way too many people in America who can't grasp what I consider elementary facts. A "serious point" too often goes over their heads, while comparative ridicule of this type is something they can understand.

For the onlookers with more mental horsepower I add that teeth did not evolve from scales - the creationist claim that they did just shows creationists know squat about evolution, or maybe are just lying to you.

The first teeth were bone points in the jaws of boness proto-fish. Bone tissue later spread to the cartilige skeleton, while teeth with a harder enamel casing evolved afterwards.

You may now hear a creationist song and dance ridiculing the actual evolution of teeth, but remember his first claim about scales - he doesn't know what he's talking about, he just makes it up as he goes along.

Then I rinse and repeat.

Bill Jack & Rusty Carter #fundie abcnews.go.com

72 comments

Confused?