Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[Alate_One]

why can't you guys just admit when one of yours lies?

Lets not lump "you guys" in together. I am very sure that Bob knows better than the gross caricature he painted to the children. I really try to give people in general (regardless of their faith or lack thereof) the benefit of the doubt but this was about as blatant as it gets. And with Bob, we have a pattern of misrepresentation, and faulty logic in other shows.

It is one thing to be a YEC, it's another to lie to support it and indoctrinate children. If you don't believe it, fine, but don't take a bunch of kids and tell them things even YOU know are wrong. :doh:

 

[Stripe]

I take it your desperation to falsify evolution is on a par with Enyart’s. Enyart says that according to evolution, jumping out of trees will induce wing stubs to appear in your kids. Enyart says that according to evolution, stretching your neck will result in your kids having longer necks. Your article speaks of comparing surface fish with cave species that “recently evolved” (which they specify as up to a million years for the changes to accumulate.) Are you really so desperate that you think that Enyart’s characterization of what his kids would see if evolution is true is the same as this abstract?

:squint:

There is a minimum standard of understanding for meaningful discussion which you fall distinctly below. I am not inclined to once again engage in an interminable series of exchanges with you when your objective is simply a dogged refusal to be rational or objective. Play the blithering idiot with others of your kind. I am not interested.

OK. :idunno:

I don’t care what the source was. Fact remains that fundamentalist Pastor Bob Enyart presented a mockery of how evolution works to a bunch of kids. At no time in that program does he present the correct science to those kids.

:rotfl:

:mock: Atheists.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don’t care what the source was. Fact remains that fundamentalist Pastor Bob Enyart presented a mockery of how evolution works to a bunch of kids. At no time in that program does he present the correct science to those kids.

If you don't care about the source, then you don't care about context. The reference wasn't "what does evolution teach", the reference was "what does evolution teach in a way kids will be taught".

When teaching kids, it's OK to go into things that adults would take for granted. Lamarckism is taught to kids.

I agree, if you are saying that Enyart’s portrayal of science is on a par with Disney’s.

So you agree that Disney's portrayal of science is incorrect?

And now, thanks to Enyart, the silly giraffe example has been passed on without correction to a group of kids that Bob had in studio. Whatever culpability for willful distortion Haeckel had has now been adopted by Pastor Enyart.

Do you really think Bob does not know that Lamarckism has been debunked? Really?

If you'd like to see how Bob will talk with adults about evolution, then call him. You can make him spend his money just to talk with you.

And you apparently agree now that indeed Bob was presenting Lamarkian arguments (in place of legitimate evolutionary beliefs).

Of course they were Lamarckian arguments. But they weren't in place of current evolutionary beliefs.

 

[Yorzhik]

Lots of adults are not conversant with correct evolutionary concepts. That is especially true where adults rely on fundamentalist pastors for much of their information about science. And look at the bastardized version of evolution that is presented to kids in such families (as Bob so clearly demonstrated).

LOL! Who's talking about adults that were raised by fundamentalist pastors? I would be talking about grade school and high school hard-core evolutionists. Just ask Alate_One.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Lamarckism is taught to kids.

No it's not - kids may be taught that Lamarckism existed, only to show how it was an old idea that didn't stand up. Pastor Bob seems to be the only one telling kids that science says that Lamarckism is a currently accepted explanation.

 

[Yorzhik]

Pastor Bob seems to be the only one telling kids that science says that Lamarckism is a currently accepted explanation.

Why not ask him? You can even make him pay for the call.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Ask him what? This thread was about what he had said to kids, not about what he believes.

 

[DavisBJ]

Lamarckism is taught to kids.

Perhaps in your culture, and that is surely what Enyart did. But Lamarckism is not in the curriculum here in the civilized area I live in.

So you agree that Disney's portrayal of science is incorrect?

Let you answer that – you think Mickey Mouse successfully used the power in a magic hat to command a broom to carry water until it overfilled a well?

Do you really think Bob does not know that Lamarckism has been debunked? Really?

I suspect he knows it very well. That makes it all the more suspicious as to what would lead him to stooping to portraying Lamark’s ideas the way he did to kids.

If you'd like to see how Bob will talk with adults about evolution, then call him. You can make him spend his money just to talk with you.

There are already probably hundreds of hours of his radio shows where he makes it abundantly clear how much he detests evolution.

Of course they were Lamarckian arguments. But they weren't in place of current evolutionary beliefs.

Then quote the dialogue in that program where Bob explained correct evolutionary beliefs to those kids.

 

[Jukia]

Ask him what? This thread was about what he had said to kids, not about what he believes.

Apparently Pastor Bob believes he can say anything to children as long as it is consistent with his other beliefs but not necessarily with the evidence or with accurate science.

 

[Granite]

Ask him what? This thread was about what he had said to kids, not about what he believes.

Is that an important distinction to you?

 

[Yorzhik]

Ask him what? This thread was about what he had said to kids, not about what he believes.

Are you trying to beat out Alwight to become the next JW?

 

[Yorzhik]

Perhaps in your culture, and that is surely what Enyart did. But Lamarckism is not in the curriculum here in the civilized area I live in.

You must live on a civilized portion of the moon. Here on earth kids are taught the Disney version of evolution.

Let you answer that – you think Mickey Mouse successfully used the power in a magic hat to command a broom to carry water until it overfilled a well?

I'll answer it. Disney showed an animal jump off a branch to catch bugs and it morphed into a bird. So, yes, they teach Lamarckism.

I suspect he knows it very well. That makes it all the more suspicious as to what would lead him to stooping to portraying Lamark’s ideas the way he did to kids.

Well, there is a sentence that provides all the context, the reason, for why he alluded to Lamarckism. But I'm sure you'll plead ignorance since that is the best debate tactic you can use at this point.

I'll give you a hint, it is stated near the beginning of when he started talking about this subject.

There are already probably hundreds of hours of his radio shows where he makes it abundantly clear how much he detests evolution.

Big deal. That isn't a reason not to call him if you want the best way to get an answer.

Then quote the dialogue in that program where Bob explained correct evolutionary beliefs to those kids.

He didn't. But then again, it doesn't matter. What he did explain was within a context that was made clear and they weren't in place of current evolutionary beliefs.

But let's look at this from your perspective. Are Lamarckian ideas still presented in current evolutionary literature? If so, would you let Bob's comments slide?

 

[DavisBJ]

You must live on a civilized portion of the moon. Here on earth kids are taught the Disney version of evolution.

You really think you know more about our local school curriculum than I do?

I'll answer it. Disney showed an animal jump off a branch to catch bugs and it morphed into a bird. So, yes, they teach Lamarckism.

Hmm, that means Enyart is on a par with Disney for scientific accuracy.

Well, there is a sentence that provides all the context, the reason, for why he alluded to Lamarckism. But I'm sure you'll plead ignorance since that is the best debate tactic you can use at this point.

I'll give you a hint, it is stated near the beginning of when he started talking about this subject.

Call me ignorant if you like. I just listened again to the show, and I heard nothing that mitigated Enyart’s presenting Lamarkism as Darwinism.

Big deal. That isn't a reason not to call him if you want the best way to get an answer.

The answer is pretty blatantly obvious. Haven’t you heard him discuss evolution on his show already?

He didn't. But then again, it doesn't matter. What he did explain was within a context that was made clear and they weren't in place of current evolutionary beliefs.

Well, I have posted what I feel is a representative verbatim portion of the dialogue from Pastor Enyart. I might excuse what was said as ignorance if I heard it from someone who maybe didn’t know better. But Pastor Enyart showed his true sordid colors by deliberately presenting a twisted parody of an outmoded idea in place of evolution – to a bunch of kids. You think that is what an honorable pastor should do?

But let's look at this from your perspective. Are Lamarckian ideas still presented in current evolutionary literature?

Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones. Or I could ask Enyart to put what he taught those kids into print.

If so, would you let Bob's comments slide?

If you find your girlfriend had a one-night stand with another guy, and you find other couples are unfaithful too, then it’s no big deal?

 

[Stripe]

My goodness, Davis. You are reeeally stupid. :kookoo:

 

[Yorzhik]

You really think you know more about our local school curriculum than I do?

I could only know what would be available in general. Your bringing up your local curriculum shows that you aren't interested in an honest conversation. Here's a quote from an evolutionist on a public forum: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

Hmm, that means Enyart is on a par with Disney for scientific accuracy.

No. It means Disney preaches Lamarckism. Even evolutionists will claim it is still taught. Here's a quote from an evolutionist you should trust: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

If you want to know Enyart's accuracy on evolution, you should call him.

Call me ignorant if you like. I just listened again to the show, and I heard nothing that mitigated Enyart’s presenting Lamarkism as Darwinism.

It's at 15:52. You aren't ignorant because it's what I want, but it's just been shown you are ignorant because you refuse to see the obvious. Can you tell us what the sentence is that starts at 15:52?

But let's not take Bob's word for it. Here's a quote by an evolutionist that proves Bob's point: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

The answer is pretty blatantly obvious. Haven’t you heard him discuss evolution on his show already?

I have. He's very cordial to callers that disagree. If you want the best answer, call him. He'll even pay for the call.

Still, if you call him he might use this evolutionist's quote to defend why he would say what he did: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

Well, I have posted what I feel is a representative verbatim portion of the dialogue from Pastor Enyart. I might excuse what was said as ignorance if I heard it from someone who maybe didn’t know better. But Pastor Enyart showed his true sordid colors by deliberately presenting a twisted parody of an outmoded idea in place of evolution – to a bunch of kids. You think that is what an honorable pastor should do?

It isn't twisted. It is exactly what Disney preaches. Even evolutionists today teach it as this evolutionist claims: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

If you find your girlfriend had a one-night stand with another guy, and you find other couples are unfaithful too, then it’s no big deal?

If you agree with this evolutionist's quote: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones." you've either already agreed to let him slide, or you are a hypocrite.

 

[Jukia]

Pastor Bob talks about evolution all the time. That would suggest he has some basic knowledge of it. The fact that he suggested a Lamarckian process to anyone only shows his basic dishonesty. The fact that he did so to children is reprehensible.

 

[Jukia]

If you want to know Enyart's accuracy on evolution, you should call him.


It's at 15:52. You aren't ignorant because it's what I want, but it's just been shown you are ignorant because you refuse to see the obvious. Can you tell us what the sentence is that starts at 15:52?

Pastor Bob has no accuracy on evolution. Period.

Why don't you just post what he said at 15:52. Hey a little quote mine from Pastor Bob.! I for one, simply cannot listen to this broadcast without feeling sick to my stomach realizing that he is suggesting scientific inaccuracies to children.

 

[DavisBJ]

It's at 15:52. You aren't ignorant because it's what I want, but it's just been shown you are ignorant because you refuse to see the obvious. Can you tell us what the sentence is that starts at 15:52?

Thank you for (finally) pointing out the dialogue you think mitigates Bob’s culpability. Though you seem to enjoy nebulous hints to the relevant dialogue, I am not averse to presenting it explicitly for all. Starting at 15:52:

When I grew up I would read the science books I got in school. And they told me how birds developed wings. And things like flying squirrels, for example …​

I take it your point is that Bob told the kids that he read school science books, and then what he says thereafter is to show the kids in studio just how silly the ideas in those books are. I agree the ideas he presented were silly. And I can’t contest that he may have picked up those silly ideas from the school texts he read.

Now will you point out where he makes any effort to tell the kids the correct ideas that evolution is based on? Or does he let those kids walk out of that studio having been told that science says jumping off a bed will give your kids wing sprouts?

Really, Yorzhik, this level of justification for what Enyart did is disappointing. Enyart presented a mockery of what science believes about how evolution works. He did it by referring to ideas he was able to opportunistically cull out of selected books, and he made zero effort to show those kids what the correct ideas are.

If your premise is right and Enyart were honest, those kids should have left that studio knowing some bad ideas are in the books Enyart read, and also that those ideas are not the ones Evolution espouses.

I could only know what would be available in general. Your bringing up your local curriculum shows that you aren't interested in an honest conversation.

To the contrary, I am trying to have an honest conversation. But if you really feel my alluding to what is taught in the local schools is disingenuous on my part, feel free to put me on ignore.

Even evolutionists will claim it is still taught. Here's a quote from an evolutionist you should trust: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

I grew up in a particularly religious community, and my ideas were formed in that environment. Now I live in an area far less focused on honoring dogma over science.

It means Disney preaches Lamarckism.

Disney is in the entertainment business. A huge part of what Disney portrays is fiction, and nobody expects otherwise. If you think Disney is some kind of standard the evolution community looks to, then I think there is little more reason to continue this inane level of conversation. Enyart has a radio show. Ala Disney, he succeeds or fails at that based on attracting a listening audience.

But whereas Disney is dedicated to entertainment, including fiction, Enyart presents some of the same fiction as though it is science.

He's very cordial to callers that disagree.

Good point. Let me respond to that the same way Enyart presents evolution to kids. Listen to BEL086 from 2002 (May 1) starting at 51:50 and up to 53:35. Like you say, he is just so cordial to that girl who disagrees with him. (To the forum readers, turn down your speakers before listening to that 2 minutes, so your neighbors don’t call the police.) Yup, definitely, Enyart is cordial to callers that disagree with him. Next joke?

It isn't twisted. It is exactly what Disney preaches.

I agree, both Disney and Enyart take great freedoms with fiction. It's just that Disney does it openly, Enyart pretends he is presenting science.

Even evolutionists today teach it as this evolutionist claims: "Sure Lamarkism can still be found. I remember when I first started thinking about these things, it seemed reasonable that if I became really good at something, my kids would inherit that talent. It’s a simple trap to fall into, until you are faced with explaining biologically how that talent is going to passed down. I don’t doubt that I could find High School texts with it, and maybe even college ones."

I guess you feel if Enyart can misconstrue things, you can also. My early ideas about evolution were from long ago. Don’t lower yourself by prostituting what I said into the normative beliefs in the current evolutionary community. You’re above that, Yorzhik.

 

[Yorzhik]

Thank you for (finally) pointing out the dialogue you think mitigates Bob’s culpability. Though you seem to enjoy nebulous hints to the relevant dialogue, I am not averse to presenting it explicitly for all. Starting at 15:52:

When I grew up I would read the science books I got in school. And they told me how birds developed wings. And things like flying squirrels, for example …​

I take it your point is that Bob told the kids that he read school science books, and then what he says thereafter is to show the kids in studio just how silly the ideas in those books are. I agree the ideas he presented were silly. And I can’t contest that he may have picked up those silly ideas from the school texts he read.

Now will you point out where he makes any effort to tell the kids the correct ideas that evolution is based on? Or does he let those kids walk out of that studio having been told that science says jumping off a bed will give your kids wing sprouts?

Really, Yorzhik, this level of justification for what Enyart did is disappointing. Enyart presented a mockery of what science believes about how evolution works. He did it by referring to ideas he was able to opportunistically cull out of selected books, and he made zero effort to show those kids what the correct ideas are.

If your premise is right and Enyart were honest, those kids should have left that studio knowing some bad ideas are in the books Enyart read, and also that those ideas are not the ones Evolution espouses.

To the contrary, I am trying to have an honest conversation. But if you really feel my alluding to what is taught in the local schools is disingenuous on my part, feel free to put me on ignore.

I grew up in a particularly religious community, and my ideas were formed in that environment. Now I live in an area far less focused on honoring dogma over science.

Disney is in the entertainment business. A huge part of what Disney portrays is fiction, and nobody expects otherwise. If you think Disney is some kind of standard the evolution community looks to, then I think there is little more reason to continue this inane level of conversation. Enyart has a radio show. Ala Disney, he succeeds or fails at that based on attracting a listening audience.

But whereas Disney is dedicated to entertainment, including fiction, Enyart presents some of the same fiction as though it is science.

Good point. Let me respond to that the same way Enyart presents evolution to kids. Listen to BEL086 from 2002 (May 1) starting at 51:50 and up to 53:35. Like you say, he is just so cordial to that girl who disagrees with him. (To the forum readers, turn down your speakers before listening to that 2 minutes, so your neighbors don’t call the police.) Yup, definitely, Enyart is cordial to callers that disagree with him. Next joke?

I agree, both Disney and Enyart take great freedoms with fiction. It's just that Disney does it openly, Enyart pretends he is presenting science.

I guess you feel if Enyart can misconstrue things, you can also. My early ideas about evolution were from long ago. Don’t lower yourself by prostituting what I said into the normative beliefs in the current evolutionary community. You’re above that, Yorzhik.

You make a good point. You should call Bob and read your post. I would however leave out the part about "what your local school teaches" because that is irrelevant.

 

[DavisBJ]

You make a good point. You should call Bob and read your post. I would however leave out the part about "what your local school teaches" because that is irrelevant.

Bob is perfectly capable of reading my post without me reading it to him.

Under the characterization of what I said being "a good point", you are admitting that Bob:

1 – Uses fiction on a par with Disney, but unlike Disney, Bob portrays it as science.

2 – Is anything but cordial to some callers who challenge him on air

3 – Intentionally presented a blatant mockery of evolution to kids in his studio.​

I suspect your caving in on this is because it is less painful to let the issue fade than try to defend what Bob did. I would hope that your allegiance to “right” is not subservient to your friendship with Bob, but I don’t see that happening.