Deja vu all over again

Wonderful! Now, can we start the same training for middle school, junior high school and high school biology teachers? Please?

Has it really gotten so bad lately for museum staffers? I mean, did they have to put up with this kind of thing in the past or is it simply that creationists have become more aggressive lately? Also, not sure I agree with the Q&A that evolution was "probably" the result of natural processes. What else is there? Aliens?

How does evolution happen? Evolution is probably driven by several processes, the most important of which is natural selection.

I understand your point. Still, it seems easy to misinterpret (like I did). I can see how creationists would have a field day with that.

""When you are in a museum, you can't antagonize people," [Dr. Durkee] said. "Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs.""

I know a lot of people on this blog that have already reached their wits end on the "respect" level.

Actually, more like had the ends of their wits frayed, torched, and exploded.

Courtesy, yes. Even patience. But "respect'' may be asking a bit much. We are talking about folks, after all, who think human destiny was shaped by a talking snake.

"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."

"When you are in a museum, you can't antagonize people,"

Steve Reuland's post about the quote concerning biologists
who refuse to debate IDers.....

It must be done anyway, the public views silence as assent,
since this whole mess is about social dominance anyway.....

same as it ever was
same as it *ever* was

My first post since my expulsion (sob!) from
Dembski's blog........file under Some People Just
Can't Handle Criticism.....we all know how
disagreements are handled over there......

Ed Darrell wrote:

"Now, can we start the same training for middle school, junior high school and high school biology teachers? Please?"

Actually, Ed, NCSE has been doing this for years. Genie has given quite a few workshops for teachers. But NCSE's resources are limited, so I would suggest, if this is really something you feel strongly about, contacting them and find out how you can help put such programs together.

NCSE is a terrific resource, but they can't do all the work. If you have ideas about how to help in your own community, say organizing such a workshop with a qualified local university professor or some such, I'm sure they could help you out.

Better yet, volunteer to help them put together a comprehensive workshop guide for any scientist/professor who would be willing to hold such a workshop in their own communities. Such a guide could be then made available to anyone wanting to hold such a workshop.

To be frank, I read a lot of "we need to do this," and "we need to do that," on this list. But I seldom see, "I decided to DO this," or "I decided to DO that."

It's easier than you think. And a lot more productive than just saying we need to.

My major prof is on a grant to create a biodiversity/evolution program from elementary school teachers. It was almost funded, passed scientific review, but because of the budget crunch, an administrator at NSF (or where ever) rejected it at the last moment.

Wonderful! Now, can we start the same training for middle school, junior high school and high school biology teachers? Please?

I should also point out that our department recently modified the evolutionary biology course from GENE/BIOL 4600 to GENE/BIOL 3000 so science education majors could take it. We have a lot of science ed majors now in the class where previously it was mostly pre-med students (genetic and biochem majors).

I don't know about you guys. Because of this so-called "debate", I've learnt more about evolution than I ever cared to. Perhaps the IDers are doing science a favor, afterall.

With arguments based on the wrong ground (non-natural causes), they will never win the debate in any significant sense of the word. They will have to resort to convoluted technically wrong arguments, which help defenders/practioners of evolutions strengthen their skills in explaining the theory to the public.

It is sad, however, to see polls which show that more than 50% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, any many still think that the earth is a few thousand years old. This is coming from the most scientifically advanced country on the face of the earth.

I'm from Viet Nam, whose people once were referred by some as "those atheist communists". Communists are brutal, but at least they do believe in science. Jon Steward put it well: "we were 'under god' when we fought the atheist communists, now what are we when we're fighting religious fanatics?"

Interesting comments by Hung ... I probably would have never read a book by Ernst Mayr or Richard Dawkins had it not been for my fundamentalist neighbors who kept telling my kids that science is for people going to hell. My daughter, especially, has benefited greatly by her Dads newfound activism for science -- she has been offered a scholarship to CU Boulder and her intended major is biology. Thanks neighbors!

Re "Jon Steward put it well: "we were 'under god' when we fought the atheist communists, now what are we when we're fighting religious fanatics?""

Maybe we're defending religion from insiders who would damage it instead of outsiders who would damage it? Or something like that.

Henry

Most of the docents are volunteers like my Mom, simply passing along the information they're given. Interesting that creationists would come in and try to question the docents like they were scientists.

— Bob Davis

"It is pure politics all the way, and their only goal in this instance is to rattle the docent and embarrass the museum." Harassing a museum volunteer ... I fail to see the logic in that. Is it like a combination of shouting at the mailman when he brings you bills, and kicking grandma when she is trying to knit you a sweater.

Mr. Cartwright wrote: "My major prof is on a grant to create a biodiversity/evolution program from elementary school teachers." Can elementary school children understand evolution? Adults seem to have difficulty with the concept.

Now, can we start the same training for middle school, junior high school and high school biology teachers? Please?

It is sad, however, to see polls which show that more than 50% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, any many still think that the earth is a few thousand years old. This is coming from the most scientifically advanced country on the face of the earth.

Know what I think is sad? That you folks label, ridicule, and censor legitimate concerns.

Eugenie Scott did this to a high-school senior at Emmaus High in PA a few years back when he tried to bring Michael Behe in to speak. You or I may not agree with all he has to say, but that's the case in most scientific disciplines. Its just that in this case, atheism (or methodological naturalism) is the only POV that is tolerated.

I also think its sad that there are so many people that assert that spontaneous generation is a suitable explanation for the origin of life and the universe, while creation, or intelligent design is not.

Scott talks about the right-wing echo chamber, but this web-site is no better.

(That said, I agree with many of the posts here, just disillusioned by the tone...)

Know what I think is sad? That you folks label, ridicule, and censor legitimate concerns.

I also think its sad that there are so many people that assert that spontaneous generation is a suitable explanation for the origin of life and the universe, while creation, or intelligent design is not.

I also think its sad that there are so many people that assert that spontaneous generation is a suitable explanation for the origin of life and the universe, while creation, or intelligent design is not.

You know what I think is sad, Dave?

Five or six different people--and with a sweeter tone than we reserve for obvious drive-by trolls--have taken the time to request that you "put up" some details about your ID claims or "shut up." It's kind of like in poker, y'know, when the bluffings all over, and you're forced to show your cards.

And here you are back again, and what've you brought with you?

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, a big fat round gaping empty cavernous vacuous zero.

What do we get instead? A little whining baby, complaining about "censorship."

Hey, pal, I specifically asked you to bring some documented examples of "censorship" with you when you came back. You couldn't do it, couldja?

When people ask for evidence of your assertions, and you come whingeing back empty-handed, don't expect to be welcomed back with open arms.

And, oops, I notice that all your posts--or should I say empty pretentious boasts?--are still right up there. Can you say the same of comments critical of one of your great ID "scientists" ("poseur" would be a far more accurate term), Willy Dembski, that get posted to his site? Of course not, since he regularly deletes critical posts and bans those temeritous enough to come back with more of the same.

Who's censoring whom here, Davey? Whose science can stand the light of day? And whose psuedo-science can't?

Not yours, that's for sure. You're all mouth and no substance. Or, to crib a phrase from the Lone Star State, you're all hat, podner, and no cattle.

Now mooo-ve on over: this here's a science site. And it's now clear as crystal that you just ain't got any.

Its just that in this case, atheism (or methodological naturalism) is the only POV that is tolerated.

Know what I think is sad? That you folks label, ridicule, and censor legitimate concerns.

I also think its sad that there are so many people that assert that spontaneous generation is a suitable explanation for the origin of life and the universe, while creation, or intelligent design is not.

I think I can give Dave something positive and reinforcing on this website since he's such a sensitive new-age guy. According to the peer reviewed journal "People" last week, there has been a huge increase in the numbers of exorcisms performed in the "most scientifically advanced country on earth" not by Roman Catholic Priests (although you can now "major" in exorcisms at the Vatican), but by Evangelical preachers. So Lenny, you can put that naturalistic materialistic methodologic atheist medicine of yours and stick it where the sun don't shine (between Dave's ears).

Dave, the fact that someone says "you are wrong" constitutes neither labeling, nor ridicule, nor censorship. Nor does it constitute ad hominem attack (misnamed) or persecution. It simply means that they regard your statements as unsupported by the data. Which they are.

Sit them down, look them straight in the eye, and say, in a clear calm voice, "teaching creation 'science' is illegal. Not just 'a bad idea'. Not just 'unnecessary'. Not just 'contrary to state guidelines'. It is illegal. As in 'against the law'. As in 'can't do it'. Period." Then hand them a copy of the Maclean and Aguillard decisions. Have them read them. Twice. And if they STILL have complaints, hand them the phone number of a local lawyer, and invite them to take the matter up with the Supreme Court if they don't like it.

By screaming "I'M BEING CENSORED !!!!!!!!", in front of everyone, on an international Internet blog, where the whole world can see --- you simply make yourself look like an idiot. (shrug)

That you folks label, ridicule, and censor legitimate concerns. Eugenie Scott did this to a high-school senior at Emmaus High in PA a few years back when he tried to bring Michael Behe in to speak.

— Dave

Eugenie Scott did this to a high-school senior at Emmaus High in PA a few years back when he tried to bring Michael Behe in to speak.

Gary Hurd said,

When I taught at the college level, I could counter student objection to evolution with appropriate counter arguments. The "capper" was a one hundred dollar bill I keep in my wallet: I'd bet $100 cash that there was no creationist argument other than "its all just a miracle" that I could not counter. Even with 10 to 1 odds, I never had any takers. With todays inflation, I would need to double the bet.

Here's another little something that you can hit creationists with (*especially* politically conservative Orange County creationists who are most certainly "pro-nuke"). The Cristianitos fault runs right by the San Onofre plant -- in the past, concerns have been raised about the possibility that the Cristianitos fault might still be active and pose a serious threat to San Onofre.

However, "old earth" geology has established quite convincingly that the Cristianitos fault has been inactive for at least 120,000 years and poses little threat to the San Onofre plant.

In fact, those reasurring "old earth" geological assumptions are laid out quite clearly in a California Coastal Commission document at http://www.coastal.ca.gov/energy/e-00-14rf.pdf.

This document desribes the findings regarding So Cal Edison's proposal to construct a temporary spent nuclear storage facility at San Onofre. The geological history of the area is summarized in the document as follows (emphasis added):

Surface Rupture and the Cristianitos Fault
No active faults were found at the SONGS site despite concerted efforts during geologic studies
related to construction and licensing permits before the NRC (Fugro, 1977; Shlemon, 1977; 1979).
Several faults were encountered, but without exception they are truncated by the overlying marine
terrace deposits, whose age has been established as approximately 120,000 years (1975a; Fugro,
1975b), thus indicating that there has been no movement on those faults since at least that time.
Hence, the risk of surface rupture at the SONGS site is very low.
The largest fault near the SONGS site is the Cristianitos fault, which passes less than one mile
south of the site (Exhibit 10). This fault, which appears to be a low-angle normal fault, is similarly
overlain by undisturbed terrace deposits (Exhibit 11), indicating that there has been no movement
on it for at least 120,000 years (Shlemon, 1987).
...

This raises the stakes quite a bit. This is not just a matter of what the little kiddies should be taught in science class -- it's a matter of public safety. The safety of tens of thousands of Orange County residents depends upon the validity of these "old earth" geological assumptions. If, as YEC's insist, such assumptions are groundless, then there's no way to ascertain the safety of the San Onofre nuke plant. So if SoCal YEC's are really concerned "about the children", they should be raising holy hell about San Onofre.

Do the science-oriented ever badger the docents at crationist museums?

Do the science-oriented ever badger the docents at crationist museums?

Hey Dave -

OK, the floor is yours. Here's your moment to shine - don't blow it.

Now, please:

Name ONE documented case of censorship of ID/ Creationist, er, "teachings".

Name ONE documented case of an author's being ridculed when scientifically sound data in support of ID/Creationism has been put forth. (In case you missed it, the qualifier here is SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND.) Which ties into.....

Name ONE documented case of ID/ Creationism providing a better explanation of some observed phenomenon than evolutionary theory.

Know what I think is sad, Dave? I think you won't be able to provide a single answer to any of these questions (or any one else's questions), yet you whine and cry about "censhoship", "ridicule", "legitimate concerns".

Next time get your facts straight before you go spouting off your stupidity.

Oops - I forgot for a moment. IDiots/Creationists don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of their politics.

Hey Dave -

I forgot to mention one other thing I think is sad.

It's how IDiots/Creationists bitch and moan at the top of their lungs about "censorship", "Darwinism can't explain this", "evolution can't account for that".

Yet when asked to put their money where their mouths are, they suddenly become very quiet. (Case in point: Sal). Why is that, Dave?

Why is it that IDiots/Creationist have plenty of complaints, but no solutions? That's what is sad, Dave.

The silence speaks volumes.

the students at the talk asked a slew of very good (and very critical) questions, but there was no badgering. Now I don't doubt that it's happened, but I'm not aware of any evolutionist group that has as its purpose going to creationist museums and badgering the docents. I have heard of creationist groups that do that at real science museums.

What is the difference between "asking good questions" and "badgering",

After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."

These slanted terms bother me. What is the difference between "asking good questions" and "badgering", once the respective viewpoints are factored out? IS there any distinction, other than a "good question" being one asked of someone who agrees with the questioner's basic assumptions, and "badgering" being one where this is not so?

In short, we are pretty much a nation of pig-ignorant uneducated buffoons.

"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." -- James Madison, 1822 (go here: http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/

How did that quote mark get backwards? Is the PZ Myers Blog Fu out after me for some reason? Or is it just out of control?

Want to fight ignorance? Check out the new thread by evopeach on the "After the bar closes" forum... :rolleyes:

Henry

Dave, it's not that science censors anyone. That's untrue. That charge was made, in court, in the Arkansas trial. But when put under oath, when it would have counted to change the law, creationists were unable to find a single instant of censorship. Not one. The science journals are wide open to creationists (witness the few articles that have sneaked through peer review). The difficulty for creationists is they don't write up research, and that is likely because they have no research supporting creationism to write up.

On the other hand, creationists have demanded that science be censored by state and local lawmakers more than 100 times since 1924. No one has ever been arrested for teaching creationism; at least one has been arrested for teaching human evolution.

It's not censorship that cripples creationism. It's an unhealthy, unholy disregard for the facts.

3 entries found for harass. ha·rass Audio pronunciation of "harass" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rs, hrs) tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es 1. To irritate or torment persistently. 2. To wear out; exhaust. 3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

Dave, when are you going to either:

1.Offer evidence that Eugenie Scott labelled, ridiculed and censored the student in Emmaus, PA?

2. Apologize for slandering Dr. Scott?

We're waiting...

Dave, when are you going to do the right thing, and either:

1) Offer evidence that Eugenie Scott labelled, ridiculed and censored a student in Emmaus, PA?

2) Withdraw the statement and apologize for libelling Dr. Scott?

We're waiting...

Hey Dave.

Well, it seems you have some questions to answer.

Why so silent all of a sudden?

We're waiting.......

Well, I don't think that "Dave" is going to own-up, or that there is any need to keep the comments open.

Thanks for all the cogent replies.