A Story from Kansas: Pandora's box has been opened

I like where he (the teacher, Mr. Palmer) says that students are expected to 'apply the scientific process' to what they are taught in class, so that they can become critical thinkers. Perhaps we should take the focus off teaching facts in all classes, and instead present a fact and a lie about every subject and make the students figure out which. I can see US History going something like this:

Alright, children, today we'll be learning about the early years of the union. Our first president was either George Washington or Benjamin Franklin. He served either two or five terms. After serving his terms, however many there were, he either stepped down, or was forced out by a bloody coup. His successor was either John Adams or King George.

Sure, they might not be -learning- anything, but now they get to think critically!

"The lack of evidence of seeing one species evolve into another species such as the lack of a fossil record at this time." "Really all we want is, we want good science to come out, and you know if evolution is good science, then it will come to be the better science." "I think if you look at the last 150 years, the great discoveries in science, like in microbiology and the medical fields, um, don't really have a lot to do with evolutionary theory...Meaning the advances we've made, we don't just apply those to the theory of evolution, we look at other aspects of science besides evolution." "Most teachers present evolution as a fact and, um, there's no, um, question as to its validity, which I think is the wrong way to present it." "When you're dealing with a theory that tries to explain the origins of life on earth, then of course your going to infringe upon people's religious beliefs and their personal beliefs. And, you know, for a theory like this to do that, I mean, the topic of religion has to come up." "It's a theory, it's not a fact yet. Hopefully this will encourage more scientists to get involved and present more credible evidence in support of evolution and we can, you know, address that as it comes down the pipe. Hopefully this will just encourage more science to be done."

For what it's worth, I think you did great Jack.

Thanks for that, Jack. You did a super job. ('Course, you're getting pretty experienced, no?)

RBH

yikes. a better argument against tenure I've never seen.

again, this refererences to a "lack of credible evidence in support of evolution" is highly suggestive of some serious projection.

so far, denial and projection are so common among the IDiots I have observed, that it must be causally linked to the phenomenon somehow.

They want to hij*ck science and fly it with the Bible and no more knowledge than you would get by playing Flight Sim.

And they will if we let them.

STJ did you read ?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/mark_hartwigs_h.html#comment-55480

yes, but it's nothing new. we even discussed possible genetic components of this kind of behavior some months back.

a slight tangent, i wonder if the serious decline in the availability of mental health care in this country over the last 15 years or so has contributed to the increase in IDiots?

after all, if you require some crutch to use as a projection style defense for whatever ails ya, ID is tailor made.

They want to hij*ck science and fly it with the Bible and no more knowledge than you would get by playing Flight Sim.

"I think if you look at the last 150 years, the great discoveries in science, like in microbiology and the medical fields, um, don't really have a lot to do with evolutionary theory...

"It's a theory, it's not a fact yet. Hopefully this will encourage more scientists to get involved and present more credible evidence in support of evolution and we can, you know, address that as it comes down the pipe. Hopefully this will just encourage more science to be done."

I'm not sure why everybody is so down on this idea.

All we need to do is make sure that we can get some students who want to hear about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and see what the reactions from the pro-ID educators are. I can smell the hyprocri-tea brewing already.

Palmer is a great argument form banishing tenure from K-12 schools.

On another point, Jack, the rebellion by qualified biology teachers refusing to teach ID in any form is likely to provide fertile grounds for initiating a suit against the Kansas Board of Education. Are there any moves afoot to locate teachers, or local school systems, willing to challange the Kansas BOE in court? I I haven't tried to weigh all the possible outcomes of such a case, but it may provide greater potential for a precedent setting decision than Dover. A key factor would be the nature of the Tenth Circuit. Is it considered conservative, liberal, or neutral?

Hello everyone. 1st post on this site, I enjoy the science and quality of the people who write here and that know and understand science. Special hello to Burt Hamburg who I met and sat beside at the Dover trial on the one day I was able to attend in October.
I, myself am a 33 year Biology teacher in the state of Ohio. If someone can give me Donnie Palmer's address I will personally send him the recent copy of Natural History (Darwin and Evolution). That wingnut needs help!

I strongly agree with Russell & Rick. Palmer's comments suggests he's stunningly ignorant about the fundamentals of science itself, not to mention the role of evolutionary thinking in current biology.

How can he teach students what a scientific theory is, when he clearly doesn't understand it himself?

A question for Chuck Fetrow:

As a long time biology teacher, have you commonly encountered Palmer's level of ignorance in other high school biology teachers?

How can he teach students what a scientific theory is, when he clearly doesn't understand it himself?

Gulp. Palmer's one messed up dude. I wish I could help you guys somehow, but I have nothing really to suggest. (As a Canadian, I can only look on, appalled, though vigilant, because we've got a few tiny pockets of ignorance here too.)

Wait a minute. Isn't Palmer just trying to help his students be better scientists? Who needs the mediation of theories developed by so-called experts to understand the world? I agree with Palmer. Let's help the kids become critical thinkers by using the scientific process. I suggest they only be given raw data in science class. Just teach 'em with gene sequences, pictures of in situs, northern blot radiographs, etc. Then they can make up their own minds.

Really, why even bother to present the accepted view? It takes -real- critical thinking for a kid to figure out about evolution all on his own. We'll give them no raw data, and just teach lies. That way, we're not cheating them out of the experience of applying the scientific method. I also think it's a mistake to wait until high school biology for this. Ask kindergarteners to figure it out.

Yes, there are thousands of science "teachers" in our public schools who wouldn't hesitate for a minute to teach creationism. I teach in a district where a long-time biology teacher supplied his classes with *Pandas & People*. I have seen those tiny Jack Chick comic books passed out by teachers. I know a physics teacher who, in the service of young Earth creationism, tells kids that the speed of light has slowed down--so the universe may not really be billions of years old.

And (turn down the sensitivity level of your irony meter) this is in a science-oriented magnet school, recognized as one of the best in the nation, and awarded Blue Ribbon status by the US Dept. of HEW.

I did a web search on 'Donnie Palmer Topeka Kansas'. Came up with a reference to a track coach. So is this the representative Kansas ID biology teacher? This looks to me suspiciously like a coach filling in his load with some Biology classes.

Palmer's comment about evolution's status as a theory reminds me of the stuff I hear from my students before we've discussed what scientific theories, laws, etc. are. To have a science teacher talking like that is appalling. He should know better.

— Rick @ shrimp and grits

Bloody good show. Very clear and considered.

I think that the interviewer was kinda rooting for you, which always helps.

One of the first things I do in the class is to ask them what they think of when they hear the words "theory", "law", "hypothesis", etc.

— Rick

Yesterday I went to a presentation at my college about evolution and creationism in the classroom. The presenter was an anthropology professor I have a class with, and she discussed problems with teaching a World Prehistory course where she often has creationist students object to the teaching of human evolution. Other professors from a variety of fields shared their experiences. In mythology classes, for example, there are students who object when the definition of mythology includes their own beliefs. Suprisingly, the biology professors had little friction (I guess of you don't "believe" in evolution, you won't sign up for a class titled "evolution")

Conversely, as anyone following the events has noticed, at the high school level the friction is always in the biology classes. Of course, due to funding constraints, most high schools do not offer courses in anthropology, mythology or philosophy.

Just because the state board illegally changed the standards, teachers do not have a right to illegally teach creationism in reliance on such standards. I can imagine a suit by a parent against that teacher quoted, and when the teacher pulls the Nuremberg Defense ("I was only doing what I was ordered to do!") the state board's action goes into play.

And the state board's actions are most certainly illegal. An administrative agency may order things be changed in accordance with changes in information. Agencies do not have the right to set up a kangaroo court to provide the data, however.

Scopes XXXIV, in Kansas: Here we come!

"I think if you look at the last 150 years, the great discoveries in science, like in microbiology and the medical fields, um, don't really have a lot to do with evolutionary theory...

Well, I guess the next time he sees his doctor for a Staph infection, he'll ask to be treated with Penicillin G.
Good luck, dude!

Tiax said I also think it's a mistake to wait until high school biology for this. Ask kindergarteners to figure it out.

Just a thought: Does Palmer actually "do" science? One of the sad realizations that science majors have when they enter the profession of teaching is that most stop "doing" science when they start "teaching" science. This is one of the reasons attracting scientists to education is so difficult. Science teachers should do science as well as teach it. They should be given the time and resources to participate in actual science. (It is not necessary that it be in their field-as teachers, we should be generalists first.) That way, they see the whole process-experimental design, equipment choice, methods, technology use, literature search, writing and publishing, peer reveiw. As my colleagues in my school say-teach by example! Let your students see you are doing science. They will be more inspired by your excitement and interest than with memorized facts and cookbook lab experiments.

Tenth Circuit? OOooooooh.

That's the bunch that ruled in about 1980 that, in a civil suit, it's not enough to establish that the U.S. attorneys lied to the court (committed a fraud upon the court) to get the case reopened, because one must expect U.S. attorneys to lie.

Seriously, generally it's a good court. It's not liberal by any stretch. It usually has a Mormon or two on it, and generally it's got someone who's had to deal with some odd science issue as an attorney or judge, and is consequently relatively up on the science.

Watch to see what Judge Jones does in the Harrisburg trial (the Dover case). He's probably a good bellwether on how conservative judges and courts will act on these issues.

Especially to the extent any business interest involved in the case that is clear in the record -- the evolutionary science behind the attempt to eradicate the cotton boll weevil, the evolutionary science behind the treatment and potential cure for diabetes, the evolution behind the fight against the rapid mutation of influenza, the genetic engineering of better crops and livestock, for examples -- the more likely the ID folk are to lose.

Kansas universities do an awful lot of agricultural research for Kansas farmers that is based in evolution. Standards that label Kansas farming as "hooey," as the new science standards in Kansas do, should have a short life. Of course, it may take some careful explanation to the farmers there to point out just who and what it is that is urinating on their business, but isn't that always the problem?

Of course, it may take some careful explanation to the farmers there to point out just who and what it is that is urinating on their business, but isn't that always the problem?

When I was working on my M.S. in biology, I took several elective courses that were also open to biology/secondary-ed majors. On one occasion, while I was chatting with a classmate, he told me that he didn't believe in evolution because the Bible taught him otherwise.

My jaw dropped, not so much because I'd encountered a creationist (I knew they were around), but because it was the only expression of religious belief of any kind I'd ever heard from the guy, who was not shy about voicing some other opinions he had. One of his other strong opinions: He told me he'd never so much as register to vote because "they" could find out who he voted for and keep him from getting a job. (He never told me who "they" were. Then again, you never know who will rat you out to "them" and tell "them" what you've been saying. If any of you here are one of "them", you're out of luck. I'm not talking.) :-)

I know that this person is a high school teacher now, although I don't know for sure whether he's teaching science.

For nearly 30 years, starting in the mid 60's, I edited/published basal science texts and related materials for K-12. In that capacity I visited schools, mostly public with a salting of parochial and private, from Maine to San Diego and from Seattle to Miami. Of the biology & earth science teachers I met---at least several hundred, if not more than a thousand---somewhere between five and fifteen percent were creationists. Some taught creationism; others didn't mention it but also skipped over evolution. They were not all confined to the farm states or the deep south. Some were in suburban New York Ciity, outside of Philadelphia and within shouting distance of the Loop. In some cases their administrators knew of their classroom practices but did nothing because of tenure and union rules. Others pushed them into a teaching load where damage could be minimized. But the greatest damage was probably inflicted by teachers who understood science, biology and evolution, but were afraid to make waves by giving evolution the attention it merits. They were, and probably still are, silently complicit in doing serious damage to the American people. I'm happy I never published a biology text that short changed evolution, but neither I nor any publisher had any control over what teachers did in their classroom.

I teach hs Biology in the state of North Carolina in a very conservative "bible belt" environment. I receive assaults concerning evolution via e-mail so often; I have generated a standardized letter for my defense. To think that I might have to teach supernatural explanations for natural phenomena is most distressing. I try so hard for my student to understand that unexplained does not translate to inexplicable. The sun crossing the sky was once much too complicated to be explained-- hence Apollo carried it in a chariot. The reality is... science has become too complex for the average citizen... Ripping a rib out of Adam is easier to visualize than molecular DNA.
Fellow citizens ... the Dark Ages are approaching ... I see it every day. Shit... I'll probably be burned on a cross before this is all over!

I did a web search on 'Donnie Palmer Topeka Kansas'. Came up with a reference to a track coach. So is this the representative Kansas ID biology teacher? This looks to me suspiciously like a coach filling in his load with some Biology classes.

— Jim

That teacher, Palmer, is an incompetent. He should not be teaching biology or probably any other subject.

Bush needs to start a program entitled "No Teacher Left Behind." Until we get them in order, the children don't stand a chance.

Not much to say, Jack - you clearly demonstrated that Palmer has no concept of science. He said he would not teach the criticism of the criticism, but I wonder how he will answer smart, young high school students (there are some!) who will challenge the criticisms of evolution he intends to make? In the Physical Anthropology class I teach at Lassen Community College, I've actually mentioned Intelligent Design, discussing with the class why its criticisms are false and more importantly, why it does not provide anything we can use to explain the facts of the biological record (past and present) - if anything, it raises embarrassing questions about the so-called Designer (questions that have greater implications for ID's religious advocates than for those of us who actually practice science).

Will it be possible for Universities throughout the country to not accept biology (oh hell any science) credits from Kansas High Schools?

Will it be possible for Universities throughout the country to not accept biology (oh hell any science) credits from Kansas High Schools?

Well done, Jack.

Also, undoubtedly many Kansas high school students go on to matriculate at KU and KSU, both of which have active research programs in evolutionary biology and related fields

Also, undoubtedly many Kansas high school students go on to matriculate at KU and KSU, both of which have active research programs in evolutionary biology and related fields.

Just a quick comment that I've said (in one way or another) on other lists:

Jack, you are a treasure, a warrior, and a hero. Keep it up. We're proud of you, and stand behind you.

In the war for honest science, you are indeed a valued veteran. Happy Veterans Day!

three cheers, and a 21 gnu salute (or maybe stampede),
Jeff

Their research also will involve an active educational component. Data collected for the Assembling the Tree of Life database will be developed as educational programs for students at all levels. Museum exhibits will be created based on research results, one at the Natural History Museum and one at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum in Washington, D.C., which is scheduled to open in 2008. A Web site and classroom poster (in English and Spanish) integrated with the latter exhibit will be created in collaboration with a K-12 educator supported through NSF's Research Experience for Teachers program.

— Kansas City Infozine

I just listened to Mr. Palmer's half of the interview, and there is just no way I would believe this man is first and foremost a biology teacher. No way. He had to have been hired on as a driving instructor or a coach or some such, and then dragged into biology when they didn't have anyone to cover the course periods.

Maybe I'm naive, but somebody please look into this man's history, and please tell me he just fell into the job. Please.

Oh, and kudo's to the show producers for finding this nutjob.

In comment #56247 Russell mentioned using the Peace Corps to set up a real school system in this state. I actually think this is a great idea. Sort of like a cross between a science day camp and a refugee camp. Not only would it give people a chance to educate their kids as to what a theory and hypothesis are, you could also teach logic, provide a history of the anti-evolution movement and, most importantly, you could teach some real biology.

It would have the added benefit of embarrassing the BOE since the citizens of Kansas are having to send their kids to charities to get a decent education. If, that is the Kansas BOE is able to feel embarrassment since they obviously have no shame.

Don there are such things as functioning YEC-ers

I once met a geophysicist who daily had to work with seismic data that included horizons going back to the dawn of time on earth yet he "believed" the world was created as per the Fundy interpretation of Gen1. Gen2. (the collected imagined stories of Jewish history that for some passes as religion).

The one thing the Fundies know about is the pathology of the human belief system. ...ism vs knowledge, confuse, confound, conflate.

Its their leaders who need to have their egos diminished and a public name and shame of their aggression and obsessive hatred of knowledge and intolerance to others.

Their fantastic projections for the future based on repressed interpretation of the past completely disconnect them with the here and now.In effect they need to be "reborn".

Sound far fetched ? ....if only it were so.

Jack, you did a great job. I especially appreciated that you pointed out that secondary school biology is about learning the fundamentals. You came off as very reasonable.

Unfortunately, people who are not immersed in this issue and those who don't have a good science background will probably think that Donnie P sounded pretty reasonable, too. (People who reflect your own opinions usually sound reasonable.)

Is your organization going to be helping teachers develop lesson plans that can use a discussion about ID to show the difference between real science and pseudoscience?

Gerry I think you are on the right track
A few things work against this time, time and time.

And an opposition with a fanatical devotion to their cause.

However we can learn a lot from their methods which have proven successful.

Inform, promote and group confirmation of shared values.

There are heaps of resource on the web that already cover this,
however as you point out, like seeks like and there is no crossover. The hydras heads need to be severed and cauterized and its preachings put back in the swamp.

For the public the message needs to be simplified into chunks the public can digest, The "Vox Pop" the "soundbite". And the gentle reminder science is a never ending voyage of discovery and for believers is done with gods blessing. And for believers that science cannot....will not "kill god".

I'm interested in the crystal ball that PTers obviously use to look right into the minds and hearts of IDers, allowing the PTers to KNOW that the only reason that the IDers subscribe to ID is because they're religious zealots pushing their theological views off as "pseudoscience"..... despite the repeated--and then repeated again and again and again--denials that that is their motivation.

This must be some kind of crystal ball. Why not auction it on ebay?

Wow Blast

"
IDers subscribe to ID is because they're religious zealots pushing their theological views off as "pseudoscience" despite the repeated---and then repeated again and again and again---denials that that is their motivation.
"

You worked it out.

Gee I'm impressed.

Give the boy a prize.

OK Blast has got it.

Here is my crystal ball Blast.

Please prove or disprove this.

"God does not exits and Mary is his mother"

Here is my crystal ball Blast.

Please prove or disprove this.

"God does not exist and Mary is his mother"

I'm interested in the crystal ball that PTers obviously use to look right into the minds and hearts of IDers, allowing the PTers to KNOW that the only reason that the IDers subscribe to ID is because they're religious zealots pushing their theological views off as "pseudoscience"..... despite the repeated---and then repeated again and again and again---denials that that is their motivation. This must be some kind of crystal ball. Why not auction it on ebay?

Silly, it doesn't work by crystal balls. The process is: 1. Observation and testing 2. Formulation of hypotheses 3. Choosing by Occam's Razor the most appropriate fully predictive hypothesis for the observed data

— Andrew Mead McClure

Here is my crystal ball Blast. Please prove or disprove this. "God does not exits and Mary is his mother"

— k.e.

Plus looking at peer reviewed, and rigorous scholarly works on the subject at hand. in other words.

1. The best science has to offer
2. The best the rest of the collected wisdom of man beginning with the development of Myth from evidence collected thru archeology and comparative cultural studies of all of Mans Myths and what they really mean and what they tell us about what is happening here right now which is a lot more than you will get from Gen1. and Gen2. and ending with what REAL men/women say about those stories in a non egocentric or Oedipal way.

Yes Blast you are welcome discuss it with your friends
really tear it apart (Hint:- who is gods mother?)

Actually Blast that was a bit unfair.

Take your Crystal ball and go and find the Highway with the Tarot card readers and mind readers Behe described on the witness stand.

Where he answered:..he was driving down that road when he thought "wouldn't it be good...."

Then the lawyer who was questioning him said

" to read the mind of God"

Behe
huh ?

Lawyer
You thought wouldn't it be good read the mind of God

Behe
huh ? uh yes read the mind of God.

Judge
don't forget to include me

Set up a shop there and do some mind reading.

You can get books on mind reading the trick is to find verbal ques that seemingly don't carry any information that do actually tell the skilled practitioner how to proceed and then tell people what they want to hear.

Hint, you just can't say anything people are not that stupid.

Look up one of the skeptic sites for the book though because the pseudo scientist mind reader sites are full of crap.

Its called reading the mind of God.

Blast wake up.

Starting with the post from Blast about six posts ago, this thread

a. went off topic, and
b. took up a running feud from other threads

I'd like to ask all of you involved to drop it. I'd like the threads I start to stay on topic and for the participants to be civil with each other.

Thanks,

Jack

I'm interested in the crystal ball that PTers obviously use to look right into the minds and hearts of IDers, allowing the PTers to KNOW that the only reason that the IDers subscribe to ID is because they're religious zealots pushing their theological views off as "pseudoscience"..... despite the repeated---and then repeated again and again and again---denials that that is their motivation.

I'd like to see some major biotech companies announce publicly that they will not hire anyone who does not have a proper grounding in biology.

And he has been known to back that up: He often says -- and affirmed again in front of yesterday's audience -- that when science proves that Buddhist scriptures are incorrect, then the scriptures should be rejected.

Jack, I just listened to the program. You did a great job!

And I'm sure that St. Augustine has been quoted here many times before, but he seems to have scooped even the Dalai Lama by about 1600 years:

http://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

Rather amazing that in Kansas, Scientology is both a science and a religion.

When do you suppose they will add the witchcraft and voodoo block to the Biology curriculum?

Blast wake up.

— k.e.

Starting with the post from Blast about six posts ago, this thread a. went off topic, and b. took up a running feud from other threads

— Jack Krebs

No need for any crystal ball, Blast. All you gotta do is read the IDer's own Wedge Document, where they spell out, in some detail, what their strategy is and how they intend to hide it from everyone while they implement it.

— RDLenny Flank

Blast, ID is creationism and that was proven conclusively in Dover. The DI intent is to kill all science and critical thought by poisoning the science education well. There is no scientific approach to ID. The wedge document describes these desires and outlines the plan to do it. Whether Neo-Darwinism is off the mark has nothing to do with ID. ID must stand on its own merits, but it has none. Is there one designer or an infinite number of them?

I'm not so much an advocate of ID as I am someone who thinks neo-Darwinism to be way off the mark.

Blast just answer one question

define the "Intelligent designer"

Your reply will indicate your intellectual honesty

How did you go with the Genjo Koan ?

I'm interested in the crystal ball that PTers obviously use to look right into the minds and hearts of IDers, allowing the PTers to KNOW that the only reason that the IDers subscribe to ID is because they're religious zealots pushing their theological views off as "pseudoscience"..... despite the repeated---and then repeated again and again and again---denials that that is their motivation.

— Blast...

"To think that I might have to teach supernatural explanations for natural phenomena is most distressing. I try so hard for my student to understand that unexplained does not translate to inexplicable. The sun crossing the sky was once much too complicated to be explained--- hence Apollo carried it in a chariot."

I'm always drawn to the Flaming Chariot Analogy. Can you imagine a teacher in a science class saying "well students, our best evience to date suggests the Sun is a large plasma laden fusion reactor composed of 70 percent Hydrogen, 28 percent Helium and 2 percent heavier elements - but that's just a theory. It could be a Flaming Chariot. Let's discuss."

Poor Kansas. And poor USA, if we don't do anything about Kansas.

Mr. Krebs, you did a fine job defending sound science education. Two of your points can't be repeated enough, especially to ordinary citizens:
1. Evolution does not equal atheism. You can accept both evolution and God as creator.
2. Theories don't become facts; theories explain facts.
I'm glad Mr. Palmer doesn't teach science in Minnesota, but alarmed that he and other IDers continue to list Minnesota among the states which allow/encourage evolution to be questioned in science classrooms. This is another example of the Discovery Institute and followers repeating untruths in the hope they'll become truth. My own school board has Minnesota's foremost ID advocate on it - our community just defeated two school board candidates he sponsored, due in part to blurry positions on ID. The candidates who won articulated their belief that science and religion should be separate.

I've never read the Wedge document, and frankly, don't care to.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES * Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation

I'm not so much an advocate of ID as I am someone who thinks neo-Darwinism to be way off the mark.

How, precisely, does Kansas intend to apply its new definition of "science" to, say, medical practice?

Will Kansas state medical providers now agree to pay for patient's prayer sessions?

Lenny, would you please edit out the rude comment on your post #56637. I welcome your participation here, and I find many of your posts very interesting, but I have clearly said that I really would like to not have uncivil and personal feuds with people on the threads that I start. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would respect that.

Thanks,

Jack

Um, Jack, Lenny can't edit it. You can as OP.

RBH

Um, Jack, Lenny can't edit it. You can as OP.

Don't BS us, Blast.

By the way, nobody cares what your uneducated uninformed pig-ignorant opinion is on the matter. (shrug)

What Lenny said.
Jack, I think that this is all that Blast deserves. Anyone who refuses to read the Wedge document while appearing to defend ID has made a decision to be uneducated, uninformed and pig-ignorant.
And his claim to be: not so much an advocate of ID as I am someone who thinks neo-Darwinism to be way off the mark.
is in fact total BS, as his previous comments make clear.
Sometimes you have to call a spade a fzzking shovel...

In my opinion, what Blast "deserves" is not very relevant to my request about posting behavior here. If Blast or anyone else makes points that we disagree with, or that reveal what we see as a completely untenable posiitons, or are obnoxious, or whatever, then what they should get is:

a. being ignored, or
b. having the points they make addressed

Resorting to name-calling just makes the name-caller look bad. When one responds to people with uncivil comments, one makes the other person look better, not worse, because the disinterested observer sees two people behaving poorly, and not one.

There are plenty of places on the internet where one can get in personal fueds with creationists. The Panda's Thumb, or at least my portion of it, is not meant to be one of those places. This is not a free-for-all forum. I would hope that someone logging onto this thread would find reading the comments interesting and educational. I would also hope they would come away with the impression that those of us here who support good science, both contributers and commenters, were civil and professional.

I would hope that someone logging onto this thread would find reading the comments interesting and educational. I would also hope they would come away with the impression that those of us here who support good science, both contributers and commenters, were civil and professional

nevermind, I see you would probably answer that as a) ignore them.

I have not seen that to be an effective strategy against trolls in the past, but it's always worth experimenting with yet again.

Resorting to name-calling just makes the name-caller look bad. When one responds to people with uncivil comments, one makes the other person look better, not worse, because the disinterested observer sees two people behaving poorly, and not one.

Dave Scott is an agnostic who adheres to ID

Back from ruminating

What is the mental condition where thoughts don't match reality?

What happens when you couple that to a rigid interpretation of scripture.

Look this up, its the mother load of all this stuff.

fundamentalist schizophrenia

Consider that in the original myth, the last spirit out of Pandora's box was... Hope.

Actually, hope stayed in the box. The myth doesn't really make much sense -- the box was full of misfortunes which were released, except for hope. But hope's not a misfortune. And do the things in the box affect us by being in the box, or out of it? Out, apparently, except for hope. But then, none of the modern myths make sense to me either.

When I wrote, "Resorting to name-calling just makes the name-caller look bad. When one responds to people with uncivil comments, one makes the other person look better, not worse, because the disinterested observer sees two people behaving poorly, and not one.",

Morbius replied, "This sounds like an article of faith. Sometimes ridicule is appropriate and effective."

I don't see how what I said is an "article of faith." It's an observation about people, and it's probably even been tested through psychological research someplace.

Also, note that I said "disinterested observer." Sometimes ridicule is effective (I don't know about appropriate - that's a judgement call), but one has to ask "effective for what." Ridicule, I am certain, is virtually never effective at changing another's behavior or even getting someone to reflect upon that behaviour, and I doubt that ridicule is effective in arousing the support of the disinterested observer. It seems to me that ridicule is primarily "effective" at entertaining the ridiculer and others who agree with him. I seriously doubt that most readers who are interested in the substance of a thread are further educated, enlightened, or moved to further reflect on their position when they encounter these back-and-forth personal feuds.

(Disclaimer: I spent many years at ARN, and I am sure that I got drawn into a number of personal feuds in which I at times resorted to ridicule and worse. I went to head-to-head with some of the most infuriatingly stubborn and wrong-headed people on the internet, and I know what it's like to feel that nothing short of a figurative baseball bat is appropriate.

But one of the things that I learned from that experience is that I don't like feeling obsessed by my dislike of someone else - that is a sure sign that even though they are not winning the war of words, they are winning an important emotional battle that is deflecting my energies from more important work.)

Chuck writes "Hello everyone. 1st post on this site, I enjoy the science and quality of the people who write here and that know and understand science. Special hello to Burt Hamburg who I met and sat beside at the Dover trial on the one day I was able to attend in October.
I, myself am a 33 year Biology teacher in the state of Ohio. If someone can give me Donnie Palmer's address I will personally send him the recent copy of Natural History (Darwin and Evolution). That wingnut needs help!"

Chuck, you'd be better off sending a copy to each of his students.

This clown isn't interested in the facts, and will simply toss it in the garbage. Donate a copy to his students or that school's library.

Its stands a much better chance of doing good that way.

According to "Don Asmussen BAD reporter" that Kansas voted 4:1 to allow intelligent design. The 1970,s rock band now says "we're all more than just 'dust in the wind'". The 1st progressive rock band to champion science, the majority of Kansas now believes it's biggest hit should have had a lyric mentioning that other theories exist. New lyrics are more balanced to include I.D.theory. Old lyric: "I close my eyes only for a moment and the moment's gone". New lyric: "I close my eyes, eyes too complicated to evolve randomly". Old lyric: "all my dreams pass before my eyes in curiosity". New lyric: "all my dreams pass before my eyes, eyes so well designed it would take a diety". Old lyric: "dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind". New lyric: "Dust in the wind, all we are is dust to Darwin, but his is only ONE opinion, come in and join our religion, help us stop those gays from marryin'". As would be predicted scientists warn against calling 1970's rock anthems "science", only Foreigner's "cold as ice" holds up.

What exaqctly is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants to defend, and, if ID has nothing to do with creationism, why do they want to see a "traditional doctrine of creation" defended?

— RDLenny Flank

Blast just answer one question define the "Intelligent designer" Your reply will indicate your intellectual honesty

— k.e.

Lenny, if you want those answers, wouldn't you do well to ask the DI directly?

but it's rather clear nonetheless.

really, i (and all here) find you nothing but a source of constant amusement. Have you not yet noticed that all you do with your drivel is just encourage us to laugh at you? why do you like playing the jester so badly? is it just for the attention? I really am curious. You are incapable of actually posting anything worth serious discussion, so is that it, do you actually like the abuse we heap on well deserving trolls like yourself? I'll make a deal with you.... Give me a truly honest answer as to why you continue to post on PT, and I'll never respond to another of your posts ever again. do remember to include the fact that nobody here has ever supported or agreed with ANY of your arguments, EVER.

My point is made about uncivil behavior, I think, and the thread is closed.

In the future, on one of the threads I start:

To Blast - if you don't have anything to say related to the thread, please don't post.

To everyone else, if someone that you are perennially upset with does post here, please ask me to take care of it.