What would happen if Creationism was taught in the classroom...

[thirdstringkicker]

Not too far off from reality...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9KpYFfDWRM

[imatfaal]

Not too certain it deserves a -1 rep point - but also not particularly sure it really helps the debate; ridiculing those who you disagree with can be pretty satisfying but you don't get anywhere. Mockery and satire are open to both sides of a divide and frankly I think those with science and facts on their side can afford to avoid the childish name-calling. And in a race to the lowest common denominator, a battle in the media, by the media, and for the media, fact-based science will lose to those willing to lie, distort, and dissemble.

[thirdstringkicker]

From the opening paragraph of wikipedia...

 

"Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.^[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society."

 

Polite debate can usually leave both parties to agree to disagree and you'll get nowhere and eventually it can lead to the philosophy that the school will let the children decide (Dover for example). Satire is just one tool to bring to focus an issue that really can bring about harm to an educational institution. A Modest Proposal is an example of cruel and effective satire in which he uses the eating of small children to bring attention to the plight of the poor.

[imatfaal]

From the opening paragraph of wikipedia...

 

"Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.^[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society."

 

Polite debate can usually leave both parties to agree to disagree and you'll get nowhere and eventually it can lead to the philosophy that the school will let the children decide (Dover for example). Satire is just one tool to bring to focus an issue that really can bring about harm to an educational institution. A Modest Proposal is an example of cruel and effective satire in which he uses the eating of small children to bring attention to the plight of the poor.

 

And the fact that you phrase your response as a political argument is the crux of the problem - this is not an ideological battle between competing moral values where any decision is per force a personal arbitrary choice, nor a profit and loss calculation in which both options have pros and cons that need to be weighted; this is factually correct versus factually incorrect.

 

You are situating your argument within a socio-political discourse within which you will lose the popular vote - just look around if you do not believe the game is being lost - whereas this argument needs to be properly placed within the arena of provable science. You are playing their game - the creationists are forced to those tactics because facts tell them they are wrong so they resort to mockery, innuendo, and downright lies; those who understand the theory of evolution realise that they have a hand strong in facts, evidence, and science and are best advised to play to their strengths.

[Delta1212]

Most people who support creationism over evolution do not really understand how evolution works. It's very unlikely that most of them will "get the joke" in most instances. If, for instances, I make fun of creationists relying on medical science grounded in evolutionary understanding of biology for their healthcare needs, well, A: what does monkeys turning into people have to do with going to the doctor and B: vaccines are bad for you anyway.

 

Creationism is free to play to people's misconceptions and ignorance. Science is not. There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong and only one way to be right, so already creationists have a broader field of material to work with than you do.

 

If you mock them, they will mock you back, and most likely in a way that their audience is predisposed to favor. You then have the choice of either mocking them back, which puts the two viewpoints on an even playing field that they really shouldn't be on, or you explain factually why what they just said is stupid, which you should have just done in the first place because now you've wasted time and ceded the ability to be the one who provides serious answers and information instead of stupid jokes, because you made dumb jokes, too.

 

It's fun but completely unproductive.

[Phi for All]

Ironically, this is just preaching to the choir. The only people still listening after the first 30 seconds already get the message.

 

Reaching the right people won't be done through ridicule. And I think it's important to reach those people, since I also think many people who listen to creationist garbage are simply confirming their faith in God rather than confirming a belief that the world is really just 6000 years old. When they hear ridicule, they think it's about their whole belief system and not just because they're taking the Bible literally.

 

The cloth creationism has woven is pretty tough. You won't tear it by attacking it as a whole. You need to break the individual threads, and science is very, very good at that.

[EdEarl]

Creationism is religion, and in the USA, it is unconstitutional for a government organization to teach, distribute information, or display anything religious. Separation of church and state is the law. Creationism could be taught in the same way that Greek, Egyptian, and Roman myths are taught, but not as science fact. That is the position of the Supreme Court, I think. If you disagree file a court case, get your friends and neighbors together and change a state law, so someone will file a court case for you, or get on a school board and adopt books that teach creationism so that someone will file a court case for you. I believe court tests such as these will always fail unless the Constitution is changed.