Forrest Valkai recently posted this 32-minute self-identified rant
about YEC teachers teaching evolution:
<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47XLxMz-JHE> ************************************
@12:34
This kid just talked about what he thinks the supernatural world is
and how it works here, and now we could have a conversation about
that.
We don't have to say "Okay, yeah, no, that, that sure is one way to do
it, Billy." No! We just talk about:
1. How do you know that?
2. Is there a way we can test that?
3. What kind of evidence do we have for that?
4. What kind of evidence do we have for evolution?
5. Let's talk about what a model is, right?
6. Does the evidence seem to fit the evolutionary model?
7. Or does it fit the model of what you're talking about?
8. Let's talk about inductive versus deductive reasoning.
9. Are we starting with an idea and looking for evidence?
10. Or are we starting with the evidence and drawing conclusions from
it?
11. Which one of those really works better?
12. Which one of those is safer from bias?
13. What methodology could you use to test these ideas that you're
sharing with the class right now?
14. Is it possible that we're both right at the same time?
15. Why or why not?
16. Would you use the same kind of rules the same heuristics to apply
to both of these concepts?
17. Why or why not?
*******************************************
My recollection is the questions above are very similar to the
questions I and others have asked of Creationist/ID posters, usually
in vain.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)