No more coffee for Mr Witt

Take one particularly frustrating example. Evolutionists routinely appeal to a peppered moth experiment as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But then further investigations by mainstream scientists revealed that, in all likelihood, the experimental results were propped up by fudged photographs.

Bruce Thompson you beat me to it, rats!

Witt a Ph.D. in English? or Ingsoc or the Humbert Humbert school of fantasy and self justification?

I mean really, how Orwellian are these statements?

Ohio's model lesson plan DI inspired lawyery double talk that encouraged students to think critically be purposefully confused by exposing them to both the scientific strengths and weaknesses ignorance based creationist disparagement of Darwinism

Thanks to the tireless enforcers of Darwinian purity necessary and time wasting efforts of actual hard working scientists responding to an unconscionable attack on honest scholarship by a sine nobilis, bibliolatrous bunch of cultural miscreants.

Then this gem

Darwinism will sound a lot like the news stories on Castro in Cuba's state run newspapers: all positive, all the time.

hahhaha..... oh yeah those news stories where all the media is controlled by a single political faction and opposition is suppressed. Maybe Witt should move to Cuba .....at least he would be happy, he could be all positive, all the time on the government side or all negative all the time on the time on the opposition side but at least he would not have to worry about a free press.

Then to top it all off from the man who calls the faithful to "take ownership of the word" or should that be world ?(read "take ownership" as changing the core meanings of words to support his illusion) treats facts as something to be cleaned yup those pesky facts a mere linguistic impediment.

Sanitizing the fact pattern will demand a Herculean effort and constant vigilance. Not even friends are to be trusted.

Whoa there Dr. Strange love. Yup...... brain washing Stalinist style...ahhhh Witt you will need a "Ministry of Truth and Propaganda" for that ....oops already have one do you?
Then;

The facts are a danger to us all. Such stories will have to be stopped.
But take heart. The Darwinian Fundamentalists have arrived. They just want to help.

The hilarious and plainly obvious self delusion that Witt expresses could not be better exposed by anyone other than himself, his choice or words and thought patterns project his internally constucted story as plainly as a movie on a wall.

It's almost as though he has taken the top off his skull and allowed us to look inside his brain.

As Lenny says allow them to talk for long enough and they will hang themselves.

First we get evolution compared to Castro's newspapers, with no criticism allowed; then the defense for including ID in Ohio is that there is a 3:1 margin of popular support. Two fallacies in one paragraph! Sorry, Jonathan, hyperbolic comparisons to communism and an appeal to popular opinion on matters of fact do not a defense of ID make.

— PZ Mayoursh

After that the real work begins. I'm talking about all those uncooperative fossils, the great quarries in Canada and China that show how most of the major groups of animals appeared in a geologically brief period of time during the Cambrian explosion, contradicting Darwin's gradually branching tree of life.

But the peer-reviewed literature

The poll consists of a loaded question, one that is so bad it needs to be adopted as the text book example of how not to conduct a poll.

But the peer-reviewed literature

After viewing the trackback at UD and the original post and comments at PZs place, I propose that there exists a phenomenon which I will call the "Bozone Layer". This is an aura that surrounds certain bozos and prevents intelligent ideas from penetrating. Unlike the ozone layer however, there are no known methods for creating holes in the aura. Further, I believe people exhibiting a Bozone layer rely on the "Dopeler Effect". That is, if they repeat a dopey idea long enough and rapidly enough it won't seem quite so stupid. I believe the scientific description of persons so afflicted is "ignoranus", what laymen generally call a "stupid a**hole".

Who's got good material on Cornelius Hunter? He's appearing at Cornell University on April 5, 2006.

Maybe he´s talking about the beer-reviewed literature. That would make sense.

Don't they see how obvious it is that they're pulling a bait and switch with the term "critically analyze"?

— Fross

If Ohio truly had nothing to do with I.D. why is Mr. Witt's panties in such a knot?

— Fross

Having now read both Dr. Witt's article and Dr. Meyer's rebuttal, it sounds to me like Dr. Witt's article is factual and makes sense. The comparrisons he makes to Cuba newspapers seems to be appropriate in light of the supression of dissent in Ohio. But it sounds like Dr. Meyers is splitting hairs and whistling in the dark. Her primary argument is that there is something wrong with Dr. Witt himself, which there isn't, of course. And she does no better than make unconvincing, beside-the-point comments on Dr. Witt's assertions.

I was surprised, too, by the vitriol, the attacks on religious faith and the rather infantile word games of the majority of comments on this site. Such comments do not reflect well on the quality of the intellectual accumen here.

But take heart gj (is that you Larry).

The Anti-Evolution Creation Fundamentalists have arrived. They just want to Help.

Are those the 'facts' you were referring to gj?

Or perhaps the 'facts' Witt wants to 'sanitize'(smirk).

GJ is RedReader, a particularly clueless commenter even by Uncommon Descent standards. Hence misspelling PZ's name and thinking PZ's a woman? But at least he doesn't confuse PZ with PvM, like his friend did:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/975#comments

From the Marine Geologist: I propose that there exists a phenomenon which I will call the "Bozone Layer". [Which] if they repeat a dopey idea long enough and rapidly enough it won't seem quite so stupid.

Steve S.

Thanks ...so I can't take

the rather infantile word games of the majority of comments on this site. Such comments do not reflect well on the quality of the intellectual accumen [sic] here.

as a compliment ...dang ...those UCD'ers are just sooo elitist.(coff...coff)

Pastor Bentonit suggests, "Maybe he´s talking about the beer-reviewed literature. That would make sense."

ivyprivy wrote: Who's got good material on Cornelius Hunter? He's appearing at Cornell University on April 5, 2006.

Having now read both Dr. Witt's article and Dr. Meyer's rebuttal, it sounds to me like Dr. Witt's article is factual and makes sense.

Given that Witt has made some howlingly bad factual errors, I'd say you need to read more carefully. In particular, reading the source material is usually more helpful than reading just an interpretation of the source material.

I think he's just lying about reading "Meyer's" article. (dang. two errors in 6 letters. that's something). I think he's lying because PZ's article was here, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/no_more_coffee_for_mr_witt.php , and it's quite obvious that PZ is not a woman.

Or if he is, he's a powerful ugly one.

Comment #91586 posted by Steve Reuland on March 31, 2006 12:42 AM

From Witt`s article -- ``Take one particularly frustrating example. Evolutionists routinely appeal to a peppered moth experiment as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But then further investigations by mainstream scientists revealed that, in all likelihood, the experimental results were propped up by fudged photographs.``

There were never any experiments based on photographs. Jonathan Wells' [you mean Witt`s] attack on the photographs was based on the fact that ones appearing in text books were staged. That in itself is a silly and irrelevant complaint given that lots of photograhps in text books are staged, and these particular photos are only meant to show what the contrasting moths look like.

Comment #91594 posted by Steve Reuland on March 31, 2006 12:53 AM

PZ Mayoursh wrote: First we get evolution compared to Castro's newspapers, with no criticism allowed; then the defense for including ID in Ohio is that there is a 3:1 margin of popular support.

About that poll he refers to, it's much worse than simply being an appeal to popular opinion. The poll consists of a loaded question, one that is so bad it needs to be adopted as the text book example of how not to conduct a poll.

The fact that they keep pulling this poll out --- indeed, they keep commissioning new polls with the exact same question --- shows them to be base propagandists of the worst kind.

This is my commentary on the Dover case. I am a Christian and a keen supporter of the intelligent design hypothesis. I do feel that intelligent design's assertions constitute a valid critique of the Darwinian notion that random variation/natural selection can (by itself) account for all diversity and sophistication in living things, and I do wish that Darwinism's central tenet could be critically examined in the high-school biology classroom. However, I honestly fail to see how such critiques could be admitted in that particular setting without simultaneously violating church-state separation and eroding the public's esteem for intelligent design.

Intelligent design advocates cannot count on biology instructors to make consistently neutral presentations of their idea nationwide. If intelligent design was allowed widespread dissemination in biological science lectures, some teachers would remain suitably vague regarding the designer's identity. This would be proper because the designer's specific characteristics are unknown. However, other teachers would inevitably hint that Jesus Christ was the designer and append pro-Christian remarks to any discussion of ID. They would make biased statements with a missionary zeal that is very characteristic of members of the Christian far-right. Such religious fervor would be delivered in many cases with an assertive demeanor that would prove offensive to both students and their parents. The negative reactions would be amplified by the often mandatory nature of high-school biology courses. Students exposed to such overtly religious content in a setting where their attendance is compulsory would justifiably regard themselves as a captive audience. The leaders of the intelligent design movement invoke academic freedom and Darwinism's arguably questionable conclusions regarding species origins and the rise of metabolic complexity as reasons for an intelligent design counterpoint in the classroom, and insist that the result would be a balanced treatment of evolutionary theory. They fail to appreciate another consequence: that Christian missionary sound bytes would lace biology lectures nationwide and condition many students to respond to intelligent design with resentment - not appreciation.

Therefore, I propose a compromise to both sides of the Dover, Pennsylvania debate: intelligent design advocates should promote voluntary exposure to their ideas rather than mandated instruction. One ideal venue of exposure would be elective philosophy courses. Philosophy has been arguing teleology for centuries. Student organizations and clubs promoting intelligent design outside the classroom could also disseminate the idea. Voluntary public meetings and publishing would supplement their campaign. Such relative humility would maximize student (and public) receptivity to intelligent design, whereas mandated promotion of ID would precipitously erode sympathy for the concept. Science students should hear intelligent design's critiques of Darwinism on a voluntary basis only. Best regards to all! - apollo230

After viewing the trackback at UD and the original post and comments at PZs place, I propose that there exists a phenomenon which I will call the "Bozone Layer". This is an aura that surrounds certain bozos and prevents intelligent ideas from penetrating. Unlike the ozone layer however, there are no known methods for creating holes in the aura. Further, I believe people exhibiting a Bozone layer rely on the "Dopeler Effect". That is, if they repeat a dopey idea long enough and rapidly enough it won't seem quite so stupid. I believe the scientific description of persons so afflicted is "ignoranus", what laymen generally call a "stupid a**hole".

Lawrence Fafarman a Creationist supporter who is a Holocaust denier confederate flag supporter and who know what else posts under the name of J Simes as well as almost a dozen other names (which HE WILL NOT DENY)

Has the utter gall to say

Scientific fraud is a very ugly charge and I think that Jonathan Witt should have backed up his charge that the photographs were altered for the purpose of fraud.

Larry is that not the pot calling the kettle black ?

You are a fraud AND a hypocrite, still in the company you keep that MUST BE A REQUIREMENT !

This is my commentary on the Dover case. I am a Christian and a keen supporter of the intelligent design hypothesis. I do feel that intelligent design's assertions constitute a valid critique of the Darwinian notion that random variation/natural selection can (by itself) account for all diversity and sophistication in living things, and I do wish that Darwinism's central tenet could be critically examined in the high-school biology classroom. However, I honestly fail to see how such critiques could be admitted in that particular setting without simultaneously violating church-state separation and eroding the public's esteem for intelligent design. ...

— apollo230

Comment #91858 Posted by gj on March 31, 2006 12:39 PM (e) Having now read both Dr. Witt's article and Dr. Meyer's rebuttal, it sounds to me like Dr. Witt's article is factual and makes sense. The comparrisons he makes to Cuba newspapers seems to be appropriate in light of the supression of dissent in Ohio.

But it sounds like Dr. Meyers is splitting hairs and whistling in the dark. Her primary argument is that there is something wrong with Dr. Witt himself, which there isn't, of course. And she does no better than make unconvincing, beside-the-point comments on Dr. Witt's assertions.

I was surprised, too, by the vitriol, the attacks on religious faith and the rather infantile word games of the majority of comments on this site. Such comments do not reflect well on the quality of the intellectual accumen here.

and it's quite obvious that PZ is not a woman. Or if he is, he's a powerful ugly one.

Seriously. What is the point of Larry using all of these different usernames when he basically just makes the *exact same post* in every single thread he posts in, regardless of the thread's subject matter? I mean, why carry on the charade of using different usernames when your distinct and repetitive posts identify you more clearly than your name does?

There were never any experiments based on photographs. Jonathan Wells' [you mean Witt's] attack on the photographs was based on the fact that ones appearing in text books were staged.

Scientific fraud is a very ugly charge and I think that Jonathan Witt should have backed up his charge that the photographs were altered for the purpose of fraud. If the textbook photos were altered for purposes of illustration, captions on the photos should have so noted in order to prevent any misunderstanding.

— J Simes

Here are the relevant poll results, from an Ohio public opinion poll conducted in 2002 ---

— J Simes

A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

And what is so bad about "an appeal to popular opinion"?

— J Simes

If Darwinists think that scientists' opinions on the evolution controversy are so much more important than the public's, then why don't Darwinists commission more opinion polls of scientists on the subject?

— J Simes

The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." Only a tiny percentage of them (7%) thought that "intelligent design" was either "strongly" or "partly" supported by scientific evidence. Most (90%) believed there was no scientific evidence at all for the idea of "intelligent design". And 3% were "not sure". Furthermore, when asked if they ever used the ID concept in their research, virtually all of them (97%) said "no."

That was not the poll Witt was referring to. The poll you cite shows strong support for teaching both evolution and ID, but the Discovery Insitute says specifically they don't want ID taught.

— I previously

J Larry Simes says:
If Darwinists think that scientists' opinions on the evolution controversy are so much more important than the public's, then why don't Darwinists commission more opinion polls of scientists on the subject?

There's a place where people who actually know something about biology make their ideas public. They're called journals. You should read one sometime.

Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed with the following statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Modifiying DaveScots comments for my own purposes I note, "Lo and behold I find the guy's got a the degree in theoretical astrophysics from Cornell in something else from somewhere else. Granted in 1967 another time and a lot can damage a mind in 40fewer years but even so, once upon a time Newman was an egghead's egghead and even if he doesn't have two brain cells left to rub together today, he can still see the failings if ID. that's still out of Matzke's junior-league baby-bottle ballpark so I took it back.

Another prize tool. Nobody is suppressing criticism of evolution from the standpoint of a valid, scientific criticism. They're protecting the Constitution from State-sponsored rabid Christians (the kind that caused my family to come to America in the 1630's from England) who are trying to force their particular (and not necessarily widely held) Christian beliefs down the throats of all of our children. Simply put, many of us don't want YOUR RELIGION in our children's heads. Period.

Looking at that press release, it appears that, on top of commissioning a dishonest poll, the DI staff adds another layer of either dishonesty or (how best to put this?) mathematical carelessness in presenting the data. To wit: (or to Witt, if you will): How do they calculate their "more than a 3-to-1 margin" from "Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed with the following statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

— Russell

Because with 68% agreeing and 19% disagreeing, that makes it a more than 3 to 1 margin. There were 12% who are unsure.

Because with 68% agreeing and 19% disagreeing, that makes it a more than 3 to 1 margin. There were 12% who are unsure.

This was followed by 6 weeks of testimony where ID was allowed to present it's case which failed miserably.

This is what I find humorous about Uncommon Descent's complaining about "Judicial Fiat" in their post about this very thread-- Mr. William Dembski himself had the opportunity to effect the outcome of that court case, but he declined. Some "fiat"...

If ID wishes to receive even the slightest consideration it must first separate itself from creationism.

Even if some people have a version of ID which is not creationism, most ID supporters seem to think its creationism.

First the discovery institute appears confused because they promoted "Of people and pandas" as a reference on design. It is a fact that this book is nothing more that a creationist text with "creator" replaced with "designer".

In those case where ID has been proposed for schools it has usually included creationist sources for its material (in a California case 23 out of 24 videos planned as part of the curriculum where from Christian organizations). Perhaps there is not enough ID material for a course? I'm not saying all ID is creationist either, "Darwin's Black Box" is an example (even if you would argue its not suitable for a course it is ID and is not creationist).

Also take the Dover case for example, even if they has somehow convinced the judge that they weren't really creationism (Of peoples and Pandas destroyed any chance of that), then they still would have lost because the school board showed obvious signs of religious motivation.

If ID really wants people to believe it is something other than a cheap trick to sneak creationism into schools, then the people they need to convince first is not the evolutionists its their own supporters.

Having now read both Dr. Witt's article and Dr. Meyer's rebuttal, it sounds to me like Dr. Witt's article is factual and makes sense. The comparrisons he makes to Cuba newspapers seems to be appropriate in light of the supression of dissent in Ohio.

— gj

Therefore, I propose a compromise to both sides of the Dover, Pennsylvania debate: intelligent design advocates should promote voluntary exposure to their ideas rather than mandated instruction.

— apollo230

Your "God lied to Adam" argument is downright silly and you must know it. A threat removed due to mercy and forgiveness does not constitute a lie, period.

— Carol Clouser

I do feel that intelligent design's assertions constitute a valid critique of the Darwinian notion that random variation/natural selection can (by itself) account for all diversity and sophistication in living things, and I do wish that Darwinism's central tenet could be critically examined in the high-school biology classroom.

the attacks on religious faith

Larry:

Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you. (shrug)

Therefore, I propose a compromise to both sides of the Dover, Pennsylvania debate

intelligent design advocates should promote voluntary exposure to their ideas rather than mandated instruction.

some people have a version of ID which is not creationism

I applaud William Provine. Richard DAWKINS and Daniel DENNETT for their implacable and indefatigable defence of naturalism against creationism in the wider sense-theism period. I contemn those like Michael Ruse who disparage them.They know that reality is causal[unplanned], not teleological[planned].It cannot be both.[See Weisz's 'Science of biology."] REASON SAVES!

I applaud William Provine. Richard DAWKINS and Daniel DENNETT for their implacable and indefatigable defence of naturalism against creationism in the wider sense-theism period. I contemn those like Michael Ruse who disparage them.They know that reality is causal[unplanned], not teleological[planned].It cannot be both.[See Weisz's 'Science of biology."] REASON SAVES![sEEE ME @SKEPTICS]

Y&OU SUCK@!

Red Reader-

Congratulations for having the courage to post in a forum in which you might find your assertions getting challenged. Given the nature of your assertions, however, I'm not sure courage is the right word; perhaps foolhardiness would be more appropriate. Yet again, your words reflect shoddy reading and reasoning. Myers' comments are 'beside the point' and Witt's article is 'factual and makes sense'? You really shouldn't be surprised that people make fun of you for saying things like that. Let me spell out one area of substantive difference between the two articles: Myers says that the peppered moths experiments are 'sound,' whereas Witt says that 'in all likelihood, the experimental results were propped up by fudged photographs.'

Myers provides a link to back up the assertion; Witt hedges a baseless accusation with an 'in all likelihood' qualifier. How typical of the science vs. ID debate can you get? Yet Witt is factual and makes sense? Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide a quote from one of my favorite Monty Python sketches: explain the logic underlying that conclusion. Please do explain to those of us with low intellectual 'accumen' how Witt got this one right. You will provide us all with a few more laughs.

However, if you've run away in humiliation because you couldn't even get Myers' name and gender correct, I'll provide the laughs with a few more lines from the 'Cheese Shop' sketch. John Cleese's quest for some cheese at the National Cheese emporium is a fine metaphor for the search for science in ID:

Customer: All right. Okay. 'Have you got any?' he asked, expecting the answer 'no'.

Owner: I'll have a look, sir........nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Customer: It's not much of a cheese shop, is it?

Owner: Finest in the district!

Customer: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

Owner: Well, it's so clean, sir!

Customer: It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese....

Owner: (brightly) You haven't asked me about Limburger, sir.

Customer: Would it be worth it?

Owner: Could be....

But dear Red Reader, we've seen it's never worth it to ask for the science in ID. You'll have better luck searching for angels.

This is a little off-topic, but I just couldn`t help myself. This is hot off the press --

A special front-page report in today`s Los Angeles Times is titled, ``Testing Darwin`s Teachers -- Sometimes disruptive but often sophisticated questioning of evolution by students has educators increasingly on the defensive.`` This is a three-page article on the Internet, so don`t miss pages 2-3. See http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-evolution31mar31,1,4480969.story?page=1

Strangely, the recent lawsuits concerning evolution education -- Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County (evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers), and Hurst v. Newman (El Tejon, Calif., did not go to trial) -- were not mentioned in the report.

The cat is out of the bag, and the pro-Darwinism court decisions in Dover and Cobb County are virtually moot. (shrug)

Larry:

Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you. (shrug)

Then you'll see for yourself how "moot" they are.

Lenny Flack is right aobut the I.D.whiners! As far as judicial fiat sanctioning the teaching of evolution,that is fatuous.The judge recognize sound science rather than allowing gibberish being taught.A theory requires facts;there can be no facts for I.D.It is a desperate notion to say we don't understand science and neither should school children. I t is a desperate notion to say we don't under stand how someting happened ,but we demand that children learned that mind did it. It is a desperate notion that no judge can allow to pervert the science class.I,D.sucks!

often sophisticated...

Witt wrote -- ``According to the Darwinists` Ohio logic, scientists who merely point out weaknesses in Darwinism (Stephen Jay Gould, Franklin Harold, Stuart Kauffman, etc., etc.) are arguing for intelligent design, are card-carrying design theorists.`` -- from http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/darwinism_from_strength_to_str.html

Hey Larry, where do the flying saucers fit in to your conspiracy theory?

oh? as sohisticated as your arguments larry? as laughable more like.

Comment #92297 Posted by J Simes on April 1, 2006 05:32 AM (e) Witt wrote --- "According to the Darwinists' Ohio logic, scientists who merely point out weaknesses in Darwinism (Stephen Jay Gould, Franklin Harold, Stuart Kauffman, etc., etc.) are arguing for intelligent design, are card-carrying design theorists." --- from http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/03/darwinism_fro... The above statement is not just a wild exaggeration --- it is actually happening!

Red Reader- Congratulations for having the courage to post in a forum in which you might find your assertions getting challenged. Given the nature of your assertions, however, I'm not sure courage is the right word; perhaps foolhardiness would be more appropriate.

— deejay

Well, well, well
Lawrence Fafarman's (posting under the FALSE name of J Simes) true paranoia is showing through now.

When he said above:
The same sort of credibility gap arose in official holocaust history when the official figure for the number of deaths at Auschwitz,..... DENY DENY DENY.

Conveniently DISPARAGING all the other deaths elsewhere.
Mr. Fafarman is not alone...
Evolution Deniers and Holocaust Deniers in a locked step.

What do you call your theory of Creationism/ID Larry ?

The David Irving version of evolution ?

Lawrence Fafarman you are SCUM!

I used to think that Witt was just an English major rube that was given the mushroom treatment at the Discovery Insitute, and only regurgitated the bull pucky they fed him, but it looks like Jonathan Witt is just another creationist misnomer because he has none. Creation science, Discovery Institute, IDEA, SEAO....

Comment #91916 posted by Steve Reuland on March 31, 2006 03:06 PM

J Simes wrote: Here are the relevant poll results, from an Ohio public opinion poll conducted in 2002 ---

The poll you cite shows strong support for teaching both evolution and ID, but the Discovery Insitute says specifically they don't want ID taught.

-- from http://www.nmidnet.org/OhioZogbyPoll.pdf Here are the questions [from a 2002 Zogby poll] A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. This is a loaded question because it leads the respondant to believe that there actually exists valid evidence against evolution.

putting aside the fact that we are not in the business of churning out propaganda like the IDists do, there was such a poll conducted of Ohio scientists in 2002 which showed overwhelming support for evolution and virtually none for ID

Comment #91920 posted by Steve Reuland on March 31, 2006 03:17 PM I previously wrote: ``That was not the poll Witt was referring to. The poll you cite shows strong support for teaching both evolution and ID, but the Discovery Insitute says specifically they don't want ID taught.`` Looking at Witt's piece again, I see he referred to three polls (without bothering to cite any of them --- some English PhD he turned out to be). So the one refrenced by "J Simes" may have been one of the ones Witt referred to. However, it`s clear that he was also referring to the one I cited. And the Disco Institute commissioned an identical poll in Ohio just a couple of months ago for reasons that escape me, unless they felt they really needed material for a press release. That press release, by the way, uses the "3 to 1" language specifically, so this is obviously what Witt was referring to.

Lawrence Fafarman you are SCUM!

DI has not said that they don't want ID to be taught --- DI has only said that they do not want the teaching of ID to be required.

It's sad to think we all have ancestors in common with Larry.

Posted by J. Biggs on April 1, 2006 01:36 PM (e) It's sad to think we all have ancestors in common with Larry.

We also have ancestors in common with cockroaches. Don't belittle the processes that have led to the wonderful diversity of life on Earth!

We also have ancestors in common with cockroaches. Don't belittle the processes that have led to the wonderful diversity of life on Earth!

We also have ancestors in common with cockroaches. Don't belittle the processes that have led to the wonderful diversity of life on Earth!

Nonsense! How come we still have cockroaches?

An even better question is "How come we still have Larry?".

That's one of those theological dilemmas that science isn't qualified to answer.

How come we still have cockroaches?

In Dover, they insisted that physical evidence presented against their theory wasn't an argument for intelligent design. Darwinist Kenneth Miller made this argument on the stand and the judge concurred. But in Ohio they wanted to scare people into thinking that simply teaching students the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism was somehow legally dangerous. Since it isn't, the Darwinists had to get creative, had to change their story. So now they asserted that simply exposing students to the evidence against Darwinism constitutes the teaching of intelligent design. Thus, their Ohio position flatly contradicts their Dover position.

'cause we never wash the dishes. Me, I use paper plates. :)

Re "'cause we never wash the dishes.

Me, I use paper plates. :)"

Why not just eat the pizza right out of the box it came in? ;)

Henry

I myself did not hear about ID until just several months ago.

Why do we still have cockroaches is to ask if Iam her ,why is my mother also here? A great-grand mother can outlive grand children.Why do not monkeys still evolve into persons is gibberish.We and the monkeys stem from common ancestors.Different enviornments operate ,causing differernt outcomes on populations.Some of a population change little ; others change more appreciably. Look at the finches:they differ from island to island. After millions of years enough mutations cause a new species,then a new genus ,the changes happen gradually or faster.Puntuated equilibrium is a further extension of the synthetic theory of evolution, not a contradiction.Gould implied that. He stated creationists had misunderstood him. Macroevolution is nothihng but microevolution across time.Larry,do not let your faith-based reasoning lead you astray[self-delusion, refusal to accept facts will make one believe gibberish. Flank has tried to educate you creationists ,but you revere in your non-comprehension of evolutionary theory.Larry ,you and FRANCISCO AYALA are wont to believ ,because you have dread of death and a need of meaning;y'all need to kearn that we all can over come that dread and find our own meanings in life without the need for a god.Read Albert Ellis to learn to stand on your own self.Reason saves, not a quack!

Huh?

Sorry, I don't speak Gibberish very well.

Comment #92678 posted by J. Biggs on April 1, 2006 04:22 PM Disproving one theory does not at all prove some alternative true.

Judge Jones also recognized the arguments used against evolution were unscientific long refuted creationist assertions. So when the same negative assertions were made in Ohio's science educations standards, it stank of ID.

And if the crap that was inserted in Ohio's education standards was not their work, why is Witt so angry that it was later removed?

Iexpect creationists tomisunderstand me:faith keeps them in bondage. I try to be peluccid.I like elaborate sentences,but I can do simple ones.Science requires honesty and competence,something creationist "researchers" do not display.They misquote even to make a real scientist state the opposite of what she stated.They flaunt Nebraska MAN and Piltdown Man as scientific nonsense when real scientists showed the men wer e phony.Creationists cannot fathom evolution because of their faith.They cling to fables that speak of a talking donkey and a talking serpent,yet cannot undrstand change across time .They deride life coming from non-life but believe a god breathe life into dust.They speak of probabilities without understanding that probabilities arise across time.One event causes others,prohibiting others .There is no probalbility all at once to cause all the changes as their probability argument requires.I'll ask Flank to expatiate on this point. But I can state that their billion and billion to one argument is specious.Read "Sense and Goodness without God" for a full exposition of naturalsim-how the cosmos is.Reason saves1

Iexpect creationists tomisunderstand me:faith keeps them in bondage. I try to be peluccid.I like elaborate sentences,but I can do simple ones.Science requires honesty and competence,something creationist "researchers" do not display.They misquote even to make a real scientist state the opposite of what she stated.They flaunt Nebraska MAN and Piltdown Man as scientific nonsense when real scientists showed the men wer e phony.Creationists cannot fathom evolution because of their faith.They cling to fables that speak of a talking donkey and a talking serpent,yet cannot undrstand change across time .They deride life coming from non-life but believe a god breathe life into dust.They speak of probabilities without understanding that probabilities arise across time.One event causes others,prohibiting others .There is no probalbility all at once to cause all the changes as their probability argument requires.I'll ask Flank to expatiate on this point. But I can state that their billion and billion to one argument is specious.Read "Sense and Goodness without God" for a full exposition of naturalsim-how the cosmos is.Reason saves!

Do you really believe that people's beliefs are actually going to be altered by such a subtle hint? If a person already believes that valid evidence against evolution cannot possibly exist, then that belief will be reflected in how the person responds to the questions.

— J Simes

OK, to make you happy, maybe Question B above could be prefaced with --- "Assuming that valid evidence against evolution theory exists, then --- "

Yes, I am aware of that poll, but it is pretty old, from 2002, and I know of no other reliable poll of scientists that is more recent.

The DI's previous Ohio poll was conducted in 2002, so I don't think that 2006 is too soon for another one, especially considering how much the evolution controversy has been in the news lately.

Witt's use of the "3 to 1" language is not proof that he was referring to the above press release ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.ph... ), since all the polls roughly had 3:1 ratios of one sort or another.

Lennie,you understand their gibberish quote well,pal.You understand what Iwas getting at.I make amends.I laud you for trying to enlighten the creationists.Keep up the good work.SEE ME AND ARTICULETT AT SKEPTICS BLOG.We skewer creationists there .

Larry writes:

"Darwinists are trying to give the false impression that all criticism of evolution theory is "ID.""

Larry, you really need to take a decent course in evolutionary biology. There are lots and lots of criticisms of evolutionary theory, nearly all coming from evolutionary biologists (your evil 'Darwinists'). Look in the journal Evolution or in Molecular Biology & Evolution or in hundreds of other peer-reviewed publications. They are chock-full of criticisms of evolutionary theory. Those criticisms are evaluated by other evolutionary biologists; and, if they pass muster (i.e., they're supported by data), they are then incorporated into evolutionary theory. From this process emerges a stronger, more complete explanation for life.

Contrast this with intelligent design/creationism, where we are asked to supplant science with superstition and nonsense. ID/C criticisms can be safely ignored. Those criticisms aren't based on data, only conjecture.

Criticisms of evolution theory at least serve the useful purpose of forcing scientists to confront weaknesses in the theory.

Judge Jones never judged the scientific merits of the "negative assertions" in the Ohio evolution lesson plan (and I am not conceding that he or any other court judge has the authority to do so). Darwinists are trying to give the false impression that all criticism of evolution theory is "ID."

And if the crap that was inserted in Ohio's education standards was not their work, why is Witt so angry that it was later removed?

Oh boy. So they have no right to protest the removal of the lesson plan just because the plan was not their work?

Larry: Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you. (shrug) Then you'll see for yourself how "moot" they are.

Comment #92891 posted by Steve Reuland on April 1, 2006 11:17 PM I don't think anyone believes that evidence against evolution cannot possibly exist

OK, to make you happy, maybe Question B above could be prefaced with --- "Assuming that valid evidence against evolution theory exists, then --- "

That would be an improvement, but again, my answer to that question would be "yes" in spite of the fact that I think the DI has no business trying to dictate science curricula. Therefore it is not a useful guide to how much support their policies have.

Yes, I am aware of that poll, but it is pretty old, from 2002, and I know of no other reliable poll of scientists that is more recent.

2002 is old? I'd say it's quite recent.

Comment #92046 posted by `Rev Dr` Lenny Flank on March 31, 2006 08:17 PM Sorry that you don't like the judge's ruling. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like the decision or not. All that matters is that you FOLLOW it. If you don't, then we'll sue the crap out of you. (shrug)

. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like this cheating or not. All that matters is that neither you nor anyone else can do a darned thing about it. (shrug)

Politicians, school boards, schools, teachers, and students are going to cheat to get around the judge's ruling. In some cases, this cheating will consist of not teaching evolution theory at all. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like this cheating or not. All that matters is that neither you nor anyone else can do a darned thing about it. (shrug)

He not only banned ID permanently but banned all scientific criticism of evolution permanently.

I think that it is very undemocratic to tell the general public that their opinions should not be considered. It is not uncommon to poll the general public about controversial technical subjects. Polls generally have a "don't know" or "no opinion" option that can be used by respondents who honestly believe that they do not know enough about a subject to give an informed response.

Politicians, school boards, schools, teachers, and students are going to cheat to get around the judge's ruling. In some cases, this cheating will consist of not teaching evolution theory at all. Please feel free to whine, weep, moan, groan, jump up and down, and throw as many hissy fits as you want to over it. After all, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like this cheating or not. All that matters is that neither you nor anyone else can do a darned thing about it. (shrug)

By the way Larry, you can ape Lenny all day long, and you still will never be as clever as he is.(shrug)

Larry; RE Comment #92040. Somehow I get the impression that you think having kids disrupt their high school biology class with the blatant lies they have been told by misguide parents and misguiding preachers is a good thing. Taking up the valuable time of the both the teacher and the students who actually want to learn something is inexcusable. All over the country this crap is happening day in and day out. Teachers too scared to teach real science because of the local fundiloons, teachers who can't handle the frustration of trying to teach children that are wallowing in the self-assured ignorance that passes for religious teaching in way too many parts of this country. What's so pathetic that there are so many people like you who support and encourage this foolish behavior. Why don't you take everyone's advice and shut up long enough to actually think about the constant stream of nonsense you produce and try to come up with something that is actually useful.

Comment #93241 Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 2, 2006 03:14 PM in cases where state standards mandate the teaching of evolutionary theory (almost ALL do), teachers who refuse to teach it on grounds of religion can be legally fired. Individual school districts that refuse to teach it can be legally sued.

Comment #93297 posted by `Rev Dr` Loony Flake on April 2, 2006 05:56 PM

He not only banned ID permanently but banned all scientific criticism of evolution permanently.

Bullshit, Larry. Can you support this statement with a quote from the decison? Oh, that's right ---- you haven't READ the decision, have you. Liar.

Comment #93204 posted by GT(N)T on April 2, 2006 01:16 PM

Darwinists are trying to give the false impression that all criticism of evolution theory is ``ID.``

...you really need to take a decent course in evolutionary biology. There are lots and lots of criticisms of evolutionary theory, nearly all coming from evolutionary biologists (your evil 'Darwinists').

Good god, how many times is he going to spam that one link?

Do you suppose he thinks that if he takes one link about high school students objecting to evolution, and posts it three times, that will mean three times as many high school students are objecting to evolution?

"To preserve the separation of church and state......, we will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants.........from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution......

"To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

There are lots of ways to cheat on evolution education. The Fordham Institute's report on state science education standards gave the evolution education standards of several states "failing" grades, zero points out of a maximum three, or both --- so there is a good possibility that those states do not even require that evolution be taught. And even if evolution education is required, teachers can sabotage it in various subtle ways, e.g., by teaching it as though it is not true. I have heard that some public-school science teachers are even sneaking creationism into their teaching. And increasingly, the students themselves are asking questions about evolution that the teachers can't answer --- see 'Testing Darwin's Teachers --- Sometimes disruptive but often sophisticated questioning of evolution by students has educators increasingly on the defensive" ( http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-e... ) , a Los Angeles Times front-page article. This is a three-page article on the Internet, so don't miss pages 2-3.

"We're in science class now, so we're going to use our science tools," he told them. "I don't want to be in a debate about religion or literature or art. My job is to explain evolution so you can understand it. Whether you accept it or not, that's your business."

By "criticism," I was obviously not referring to disagreements over minor details of evolution theory --- I meant challenges to the very foundations of evolution theory, particularly the notion that evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection. To make myself clear in the future, I will not use the term "criticize" but will use more forceful terms like "challenge," "attack," and "assault" when referring to ID and other challenges to evolution theory.

Comment #93315 posted by J. Biggs the bigot on April 2, 2006 06:44 PM Larry/J. Slimes writes: ``I think that it is very undemocratic to tell the general public that their opinions should not be considered.`` Since when is science about democracy.

Politicians, school boards, schools, teachers, and students are going to cheat to get around the judge's ruling.

So if you can't accomplish your goals by legal means you'll resort to ones that are illegal.......And rather than whining, weeping, moaning, groaning, jumping up and down, and throwing hissy fits(all of which the ID camp does so well) I think we will just stick to legal action when your side's cheating is exposed.

Comment #93416 posted by Red Mann on April 2, 2006 11:26 PM RE Comment #92040. Somehow I get the impression that you think having kids disrupt their high school biology class with the blatant lies they have been told by misguide parents and misguiding preachers is a good thing.

Comment #93382 posted by `Rev Dr` Loony Flake on April 2, 2006 08:56 PM

By the way Larry, you can ape Lenny all day long, and you still will never be as clever as he is.(shrug)

I can always tell when a tactic is getting under a nutjob's skin, because invariably they always try to use it themselves. And never do a very good job of it.

Comment #93514 posted by Andrew McClueless on April 3, 2006 03:58 AM Good god, how many times is he going to spam that one link?

"I meant challenges to the very foundations of evolution theory, particularly the notion that evolution was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection."

Larry, where in the world have you ever found an evolutionary biologist who believes evolution is solely driven by natural genetic variation and natural selection? Remember that course in evolutionary biology I urged you to take? Pay special attention to the terms genetic drift, founder effect, and stochastic processes.

Why do I find you, Larry, more irritating than the typical creationist/ID proponent?

Why is it that the world's scientists can agree on the principles and practices of science (although they might disagree about the explanations/theories/etc) yet the people of the world cannot agree on any one religion? Makes you wonder...(or it should make anyone who pushes religiously motivated pseudoscience wonder)

Why do I find you, Larry, more irritating than the typical creationist/ID proponent?

And those who have borrowed your messages of "shut up" and "no one cares what you think (shrug)" have done a much better job of aping you. Monkey see, monkey do --- no originality at all. Perfect aping.

Sorry, the second quote in comment 93732 should be attributed to Larry and not G T(N)T.

Whether you like it or not, the general public's opinions on scientific issues are often important because many scientific issues are also very important political issues. And the political responses to some crucial scientific issues --- e.g., global warming and nuclear-power safety --- may have far greater consequences than the political responses to the evolution controversy.

Why did you blame me ? I was just the messenger --- mostly all I did was just bring attention to a special news report. And the news report said that though the students sometimes make "snide comments" about evolution, they also sometimes ask "sophisticated questions" --- "Loyal to the accounts they've learned in church, students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments but also with sophisticated questions --- and a fervent faith." If students have legitimate scientific questions about evolution theory, then why shouldn't the students ask those questions in class?

Good god, I "spammed" that link only twice in this thread.

Most of the "cheating" methods that I mentioned are not illegal. And I suppose that the tactic of ripping off and intimidating government entities by driving up potential attorney fee awards by assigning excessive numbers of attorneys to these lawsuits --- 9-10 at Dover and 6 at El Tejon --- is completely ethical.

ID creationism does not offer real scientific critisism.

driving up potential attorney fee awards

Comment #93594 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 3, 2006 07:10 AM

"To preserve the separation of church and state......, we will enter an order permanently enjoining defendants.........from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution......``

Quote mining at its finest. Gee, Larry, what's hidden by all those ellipses that you don't want anyone to see?

Lenny Flank continues -- Note that it is the RELIGIOUS ALTERNATIVE THEORY KNOWN AS ID that is being banned, not "scientific criticism of evolution".

Comment #93691 posted by GT(N)T on April 3, 2006 11:52 AM Larry, where in the world have you ever found an evolutionary biologist who believes evolution is solely driven by natural genetic variation and natural selection? Remember that course in evolutionary biology I urged you to take? Pay special attention to the terms genetic drift, founder effect, and stochastic processes.

Comment #93743 posted by J. Biggs on April 3, 2006 01:57 PM

Whether you like it or not, the general public's opinions on scientific issues are often important because many scientific issues are also very important political issues.

Give me an example of a scientific theory or law that was implemented into a branch of science using political means.

J. Biggs continues --

the news report said that though the students sometimes make "snide comments" about evolution, they also sometimes ask "sophisticated questions"

I can't speak for Red Mann, but you seem to be happy about this sort of thing happening........It shows considerable disrespect to education in general to encourage kids to interrupt their teachers with specious arguments in order to deprive other kids from learning a relevant scientific concept.

J. Biggs continues -- Even in that quote you mined it says the questions are based on "religious" concerns.

Comment #93751 posted by J. Biggs on April 3, 2006 02:12 PM

Most of the "cheating" methods that I mentioned are not illegal.

There could be a legal case made for every one of your methods of cheating.

J. Biggs continues -- Your other claim about the number of lawyers has been refuted at least one time (not by me) that I can remember, so I won't go into it.

Comment #93663 posted by J. Biggs on April 3, 2006 10:02 AM as far as questioning teachers, (with "sophisticated" questions that the students themselves often don't understand), who choose to follow the law and be true to science education, I think this quote from Frisby in your article sums it up best.

"We're in science class now, so we're going to use our science tools," he told them. "I don't want to be in a debate about religion or literature or art. My job is to explain evolution so you can understand it. Whether you accept it or not, that's your business."

He is not obligated to debate his students.

Comment #93744 posted by Andrew McClure on April 3, 2006 02:02 PM

Good god, I "spammed" that link only twice in this thread.

Which, after the two posts in the other thread, brings us to four times in two days, only one of which was actually relevant to the conversation in some way I can discern...

Our definition of legal fees must be different, Lenny, since the ACLU and AU split about $750,000 in attorney fees. Pepper Hamilton did work for free, however, and that is where the lion's share of the attorneys fees would have gone.

It is still quite amusing that Larry continues to use this particular argument after he so publicly embarrassed himself by invoking Blum v. Stenson, which completely contradicts all of his arguments regarding attorney fees. Those interested in the exchange should do a search on "Larry bullet lodged groin" and scroll up a few posts (it's in the Dover Trap thread)

By the way, when are you going to remove Larry's posts, PZ? He is banned, after all.

larry, attempting to address you makes me feel like Two-Face in that Batman/Robin movie, after he blowtorches batman, who then walks out unscathed and Two-face says:

"Why won't you just die??!!"

Comment #93881 Posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 3, 2006 08:58 PM Our definition of legal fees must be different, Lenny, since the ACLU and AU split about $750,000 in attorney fees. Pepper Hamilton did work for free, however, and that is where the lion's share of the attorneys fees would have gone.

It is still quite amusing that Larry continues to use this particular argument after he so publicly embarrassed himself by invoking Blum v. Stenson, which completely contradicts all of his arguments regarding attorney fees.

By the way, when are you going to remove Larry's posts, PZ? He is banned, after all.

Larry writes:

"Genetic drift is just a slow random mutation. The founder effect and stochastic processes also concern natural genetic variation. I started using the term "natural genetic variation" because a lot of people complained that the term "random mutation" is not inclusive enough."

No, Larry, genetic drift isn't 'just slow random mutation'. Genetic drift is change in gene frequency across generations due to chance factors. Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution that does not require natural selection.

Random mutation and natural genetic variation are not synonyms. Natural genetic variation is the result of mutation.

Mutation is not truly random. In the simplest form, point mutation, some changes (transitions) are more likely than others (transversions) so substitution is not random. More complex changes, e.g., additions and delitions, can be contrained by the chromosomal environment, thus again being non-random.

Take that course,Larry. Though I pity the poor instructor that has to put up with you.

I will carry out my threat to start posting under their names.

Nothing is "hidden" --- I gave a link and a page number for those who want to see the original text. I only deleted extraneous material. You asked me for a quote that supported my assertion that Jones banned all scientific challenges of evolution theory, and I gave you exactly what you asked for --- neither more no less.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The cunning Judge Jones gave the false impression of sticking to the subject of the lawsuit by mentioning only ID in the official "Order" on page 139 of the Dover opinion while he sneaked a much broader ruling --- prohibiting all "disparagement" and "denigration" of evolution theory --- into the "Conclusion" section of the opinion.

The Sticker also has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science. In this regard, the Sticker states, in part, that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things" that should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." This characterization of evolution might be appropriate in other contexts, such as in an elective course on theories of origin or a religious text. However, the evidence in the record and the testimony from witnesses with science backgrounds, including the co- author of one of the textbooks into which the Sticker was placed and Defendants' own witness, Dr Stickel, reflect that evolution is more than a theory of origin in the context of science. To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists. While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, this Sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community for the benefit of the religious alternatives. By denigrating evolution, the School Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the Sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.

the message communicated to the informed, reasonable observer is that the School Board believes there is some problem peculiar to evolution. In light of the historical opposition to evolution by Christian fundamentalists and creationists in Cobb County and throughout the Nation, the informed, reasonable observer would infer the School Board's problem with evolution to be that evolution does not acknowledge a creator.

Due to the manner in which the Sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the Sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life. As Plaintiffs argue and Dr Miller, the co-author of the science textbook, testified, the use of "theory" in the Sticker plays on the colloquial or popular understanding of the term and suggests to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable "opinion" or a "hunch ". The Sticker thus has a great potential to prompt confusion among the students. While there may be an educational benefit to students spending time learning the general difference between a theory and a fact as a scientific matter, teachers have less time to teach the substance of evolution. Thus, although evolution is required to be taught in Cobb County classrooms as a technical matter, distracting tangential issues effectively dilute evolution instruction to the benefit of the anti- evolutionists who are motivated to advance their religious beliefs.

Defendants persuasively argue that the Sticker in this case does not explicitly reference any alternative theory of origin, religious or otherwise. Nor does the Sticker explicitly urge students to consider alternative theories of origin or remind them that they have the right to maintain their home teachings regarding the origin of fife. Nevertheless, the Sticker here disavows the endorsement of evolution, a scientific theory, and contains an implicit religious message advanced by Christian fundamentalists and creationists, which is discernible after one considers the historical context of the statement that evolution is a theory and not a fact. The informed, reasonable observer is deemed aware of this historical context.

Commenters here who continue to ask that I be banned or deleted will run the risk that I will carry out my threat to start posting under their names. That way some of their posts may be accidentally deleted along with mine. Calls for bans and deletions on PT show the same pro-censorship mentality as the calls for bans on scientific challenges to evolution theory. As for the PT staff, I say again --- the PT staff should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in PT's Scientific American magazine web award.

— Larry le pissoir

Goodbye, Larry. Further posts by you on this thread will be disemvoweled.

Comment #94100 posted by `Rev Dr` Lenny Flank on April 4, 2006 07:11 AM ``I will carry out my threat to start posting under their names.`` You may expect a lawsuit to follow.

Lenny,

Here's a page describing the result of Larry demonstrating his legal skills in court. Look for "Fafarman" in this.

Here's a page describing the result of Larry demonstrating his legal skills in court. Look for "Fafarman" in this.

Yours would be the one with the greasy pizza pawprints all over it, naturally.

Whereas Larry's emails only come with drool.