Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution

[DavisBJ]

I can’t see that a thread was ever started to discuss the BEL program aired on August 27, 2010. The program was titled “Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution”.

In this program Bob talks about evolution to a group of kids that are in the 10 to 12 years old range. To illustrate evolution he presents a batch of silly Lamarkian “use-disuse” ideas as being evolutionary beliefs. Not once did he attempt to honestly portray the ideas that Darwin enumerated.

If truth and justice really were the norm in this world, then Bob would rue this program. In a few years some of those kids might remember what Bob said in this program. When they walk into a biology class and hear real evolution explained, I wonder if they won’t have serious misgivings about the distortions Bob fed them.

 

[Yorzhik]

I can’t see that a thread was ever started to discuss the BEL program aired on August 27, 2010. The program was titled “Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution”.

In this program Bob talks about evolution to a group of kids that are in the 10 to 12 years old range. To illustrate evolution he presents a batch of silly Lamarkian “use-disuse” ideas as being evolutionary beliefs. Not once did he attempt to honestly portray the ideas that Darwin enumerated.

If truth and justice really were the norm in this world, then Bob would rue this program. In a few years some of those kids might remember what Bob said in this program. When they walk into a biology class and hear real evolution explained, I wonder if they won’t have serious misgivings about the distortions Bob fed them.

I'll give it a listen. Bob usually doesn't discuss something without knowing both sides, so I'd find it unlikely he was using Lamarkian arguments the way you say he did.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'll give it a listen. Bob usually doesn't discuss something without knowing both sides, so I'd find it unlikely he was using Lamarkian arguments the way you say he did.

Your opinion of Bob as a source of accurate information is a polar opposite of mine. But for now, let me offer two sections of the dialogue from Bob in the show.

Bob is speaking of how evolution says giraffes got long necks. For a comparison he says (starting at 14:31):

But let’s say you guys have books in your house that, say your dad has a bookshelf, and there are books up on the top shelf. Let’s say you stretched everyday to grab a book that's up high. Do you think - when you get older and you have kids - do you think your kids are going to be born taller because you stretched everyday?
…
And Gregor Mendel would laugh, he would split his sides if somebody said: "If a giraffe stretches his neck, then when he has a baby giraffe the giraffe is going to be born with a longer neck." That is silly.
…
You right now, try to stretch your neck up high. See, you are stretching a little, right? But if you do that, if you get married when you grow up and you have kids, do you think your kids will have a longer neck because you stretched your neck? What if you stretched your neck ten times, would they have a longer neck?​

Bob’s characterization of how evolution says wings developed (quote starts at 16:08):

… the animals wanted to eat the insects. So they jumped out of trees that they were climbing to catch the insects. And after they did that enough times, for whatever reason their bodies began to develop wings, and they had babies that had wings.
...
If you guys jumped out of trees because you are trying to grab, let’s say you are trying to catch lightning bugs, fireflies. Is there any chance that when you grow up and have kids your kids are going to have little tiny wing sprouts because you jumped a lot out of trees? Any chance, anybody?
…
So you can jump all you want to out of trees, your kids are not going to be born with wings. That’s silly.​

 

[Stripe]

This kind of reasoning is given all the time to justify evolutionary thinking. It's just much more carefully disguised.

 

[Jukia]

This kind of reasoning is given all the time to justify evolutionary thinking. It's just much more carefully disguised.

Yet you appear to be willing to take such faulty reasoning as gospel from Pastor Bob or your buddy Dr Brown. Interesting.

But the real issue is whether or not Pastor Bob has enough understanding of basic evolutionary theory to even speak on the subject, especially to impressionable kids. If he does not, then he should not; however, the more likely scenario is that he well understands he is misrepresenting the science. Shame on him.

Well perhaps it is better to have fundy's misrepresent to kids. When they grow up, some will recognize that much of what they have been told in Sunday school, etc. is nonsense when dealing with science related topics and then move that skepticism over to the magic man in the sky nonsense

 

[DavisBJ]

This kind of reasoning is given all the time to justify evolutionary thinking. It's just much more carefully disguised.

Show me such an an example from a primary author or researcher in evolution.

And your response confirms that Enyart's explanation of how evolution works was Lamarkian. Thank you.

 

[Jukia]

Show me such an an example from a primary author or researcher in evolution.

And your response confirms that Enyart's explanation of how evolution works was Lamarkian. Thank you.

Seems like Stripe just takes his science from either the Bible or Walter Brown so I would not expect him to be very comfortable reading the scientific literature.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Your opinion of Bob as a source of accurate information is a polar opposite of mine. But for now, let me offer two sections of the dialogue from Bob in the show.

Bob is speaking of how evolution says giraffes got long necks. For a comparison he says (starting at 14:31):

But let’s say you guys have books in your house that, say your dad has a bookshelf, and there are books up on the top shelf. Let’s say you stretched everyday to grab a book that's up high. Do you think - when you get older and you have kids - do you think your kids are going to be born taller because you stretched everyday?
…
And Gregor Mendel would laugh, he would split his sides if somebody said: "If a giraffe stretches his neck, then when he has a baby giraffe the giraffe is going to be born with a longer neck." That is silly.
…
You right now, try to stretch your neck up high. See, you are stretching a little, right? But if you do that, if you get married when you grow up and you have kids, do you think your kids will have a longer neck because you stretched your neck? What if you stretched your neck ten times, would they have a longer neck?​

Bob’s characterization of how evolution says wings developed (quote starts at 16:08):

… the animals wanted to eat the insects. So they jumped out of trees that they were climbing to catch the insects. And after they did that enough times, for whatever reason their bodies began to develop wings, and they had babies that had wings.
...
If you guys jumped out of trees because you are trying to grab, let’s say you are trying to catch lightning bugs, fireflies. Is there any chance that when you grow up and have kids your kids are going to have little tiny wing sprouts because you jumped a lot out of trees? Any chance, anybody?
…
So you can jump all you want to out of trees, your kids are not going to be born with wings. That’s silly.​

. . . LOL . . . I've have got to see that video. If this is BE's understanding of evolution . . . he's nuts.

 

[Frayed Knot]

In a few years some of those kids might remember what Bob said in this program. When they walk into a biology class and hear real evolution explained, I wonder if they won’t have serious misgivings about the distortions Bob fed them.

That kind of thing happened to me. I learned a Pastor Bob style version of science when I was young, then I got to college and saw what science really was. That prompted me to ask THE big question - some of this stuff they told me was obviously wrong, so is there reason to believe that ANY of it is true?

My belief was shattered. I think that people who are raised on a more flexible faith, can keep it intact when they learn about stuff they used to believe that's false. But with the rigid Pastor Bob type faith, a small contact with reality and it's likely to shatter.

 

[Jukia]

I tried to listen to the show. Very disturbing. Hard to decide who is more at fault for the dishonesty, Pastor Bob or the parents of the kids.

 

[miriam]

That kind of thing happened to me. I learned a Pastor Bob style version of science when I was young, then I got to college and saw what science really was. That prompted me to ask THE big question - some of this stuff they told me was obviously wrong, so is there reason to believe that ANY of it is true?

My belief was shattered. I think that people who are raised on a more flexible faith, can keep it intact when they learn about stuff they used to believe that's false. But with the rigid Pastor Bob type faith, a small contact with reality and it's likely to shatter.

This kind of thing happens all the time. Many people are able to reconcile science and religion, so they don't lose their faith. But frequently it's not the same rigid faith they were brought up in.

miriam

 

[Stripe]

Show me such an an example from a primary author or researcher in evolution.

Here you go.

And your response confirms that Enyart's explanation of how evolution works was Lamarkian. Thank you.

I've listened to Pastor Enyart enough to know that this line of reasoning is not an attempt to describe evolutionary theory. So perhaps instead of mocking him, you could simply acknowledge that what he said was correct.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So perhaps instead of mocking him, you could simply acknowledge that what he said was correct.

. . . I'm sure he would do so if it was . . . :nono:

You and BE have exactly the same understanding of evolution . . . none . . . 0 = 0.

 

[DavisBJ]

Here you go.

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?

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.

From wiki:

After publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology.​

I've listened to Pastor Enyart enough to know that this line of reasoning is not an attempt to describe evolutionary theory. So perhaps instead of mocking him, you could simply acknowledge that what he said was correct.

I quoted his own words, and they were an intentional distorted mockery of what evolution says.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your opinion of Bob as a source of accurate information is a polar opposite of mine. But for now, let me offer two sections of the dialogue from Bob in the show.

Bob is speaking of how evolution says giraffes got long necks. For a comparison he says (starting at 14:31):

But let’s say you guys have books in your house that, say your dad has a bookshelf, and there are books up on the top shelf. Let’s say you stretched everyday to grab a book that's up high. Do you think - when you get older and you have kids - do you think your kids are going to be born taller because you stretched everyday?
…
And Gregor Mendel would laugh, he would split his sides if somebody said: "If a giraffe stretches his neck, then when he has a baby giraffe the giraffe is going to be born with a longer neck." That is silly.
…
You right now, try to stretch your neck up high. See, you are stretching a little, right? But if you do that, if you get married when you grow up and you have kids, do you think your kids will have a longer neck because you stretched your neck? What if you stretched your neck ten times, would they have a longer neck?​

Bob’s characterization of how evolution says wings developed (quote starts at 16:08):

… the animals wanted to eat the insects. So they jumped out of trees that they were climbing to catch the insects. And after they did that enough times, for whatever reason their bodies began to develop wings, and they had babies that had wings.
...
If you guys jumped out of trees because you are trying to grab, let’s say you are trying to catch lightning bugs, fireflies. Is there any chance that when you grow up and have kids your kids are going to have little tiny wing sprouts because you jumped a lot out of trees? Any chance, anybody?
…
So you can jump all you want to out of trees, your kids are not going to be born with wings. That’s silly.​

Ok, I listened to the show.

The reference was in the context of what he was taught as a child, not a peer reviewed scientific paper. If you want examples of that, look no further than Disney's description of how things began to fly.

And to think the giraffe example is outside the possibility of what was taught to kids in Enyart's day, consider that Haeckel's drawings were in textbooks as recent as 10 years ago.

 

[Yorzhik]

I quoted his own words, and they were an intentional distorted mockery of what evolution says.

That's because kids are taught such a watered down version of evolution that it appears rather distorted to adults.

 

[Jukia]

Ok, I listened to the show.

The reference was in the context of what he was taught as a child, not a peer reviewed scientific paper. If you want examples of that, look no further than Disney's description of how things began to fly.

And to think the giraffe example is outside the possibility of what was taught to kids in Enyart's day, consider that Haeckel's drawings were in textbooks as recent as 10 years ago.

Ah, so if Pastor Bob was relating to the chilluns what he was taught as a child, can I assume he then corrected everything and told the kiddies how dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, etc.?

Actually the little bit I was able to stomach had Pastor Bob telling the kids that the dinosaurs could not be that old cause of the recent finding of flexible tissue. So, Y, your defense is as dishonest as his statements. why can't you guys just admit when one of yours lies?

 

[DavisBJ]

Ok, I listened to the show.

The reference was in the context of what he was taught as a child, not a peer reviewed scientific paper.

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 want examples of that, look no further than Disney's description of how things began to fly.

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

And to think the giraffe example is outside the possibility of what was taught to kids in Enyart's day, consider that Haeckel's drawings were in textbooks as recent as 10 years ago.

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.

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

 

[DavisBJ]

That's because kids are taught such a watered down version of evolution that it appears rather distorted to adults.

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).

 

[Silent Hunter]

:mock: Bob Enyart

:chuckle: