ID vs. Evolution Guides - something we need

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

SFN needs to compile a set of guides to evolution and ID that can then be put into a PDF/thread/whatever for future IDiots to reference to, or for education about evolution.

 

The following would be a good start:

• A good description of evolution and its evidence
  
• A good description of ID (non-biased) and how it doesn't have evidence
  
• A comparison of the two and logical evaluation
  

 

I'm willing to help out, and I know there are a few threads that list evolution's evidence and such. It would only take a bit of research and then some writing. I'd be fine compiling and editing the bits in OpenOffice and then making it into a snazzy PDF (after the holidays, of course).

 

Comments?

[ecoli]

I'd be willing to collaborate on the ID part... I believe I could contribute non-partisan ideas to it.

[the tree]

talkorigins.org covers your criteria, the problem being that it is too long and doesn't have many pretty pictures.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And at exactly the right time, it's down.

 

...and up again.

 

I'll look and see.

 

hmm... their definition of evolution is very complex and I don't think it would work on the average troll... needs to be simpler.

[the tree]

Seems up to me, if you're not familiar with it then this page covers every challenge to evolution that I've yet seen.

[ecoli]

I think the section on ID should not mention evolution at all... in other words, the majority of pro-ID people focus on why evolution is wrong. That should not be the goal of the ID page.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Although considering ID has no evidence besides saying "evolution is wrong," it would be hard to come up with any substance for that.

 

I think the talkorigins challenges to evolution/their responses page is good, but that's not quite what I was intending for this guide (it could be linked to, of course). I was thinking of a good description of evolution and a good description of ID. Talkorigins' description of evolution is rather complex, so I think a good and simple (but complete) description of evolution and its evidence is in order.

[PhDP]

I would like to help on the part on the theory of evolution, and, if it's included, on the history of evolutionary biology. It would be interesting if we could assemble a team and work on a text à la Wikipedia, where everybody on the team could work on the guide freely.

[Phi for All]

SFN needs to compile a set of guides to evolution and ID that can then be put into a PDF/thread/whatever for future IDiots to reference to, or for education about evolution.

Your heart (and your head) is in the right place, Cap'n, but I'm afraid your efforts would be wasted. Those people just don't want to listen.

 

You could put up all the evidence you want and they will protest that there is a controversy and students deserve to know both sides. Give ID scientific credibility by trying to defeat it scientifically and you play right into their hands. The only way to defeat ID is to dismiss it as a religious perspective that has no place in the public schools. End of line.

 

If you're still determined, take a look at the Welcome, Creationists! stickies in Religion, Pseudoscience and Evolution (all are copies, really). That would be a good place to start. Adding the ID stuff might not be a bad idea, but the IDiots will most likely not accept your definitions. Remember, they aren't interested in the truth, they want Christianity to be the basis for public science study. And remember that not all Christians are ID supporters.

[ecoli]

Although considering ID has no evidence besides saying "evolution is wrong," it would be hard to come up with any substance for that.

 

not really, evidence for ID requires faith... of course you're not going to able to find physical substance to back that up.

[silkworm]

Thankfully, by the events of yesterday (the ruling) the ID movement may be able to finally be filed in the trash can, so we can finally ignore ID and stop being so nice to it by showering it with undeserved attention.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Unfortunately that ruling only applies to Pennsylvania, which means that there are a lot more cases to come.

 

And Phi: But at least it would be satisfying to do...

[swansont]

Your heart (and your head) is in the right place' date=' Cap'n, but I'm afraid your efforts would be wasted. Those people just don't want to listen.

[/quote']

 

That's right. They already "know" the answer, and come to talk, not to listen. One tell-tale sign that it's religion and not science is that evidence will not make them change their mind.

 

edit to add: but such a reference would be a convenient local source for debunking arguments