The next time ID people cry 'censorship'

I know Jason personally, and I am an active researcher and University teacher here in Arkansas, actively working with other faculty to help ameliorate the problem. I am delighted to see that he did such a wonderful job with that article.

My take on the situation here (and I am sure that it is true elsewhere) is that we have effectively lost the battle over science teaching in the public schools. Our impression is that science education is horrible in many parts of the state, in spite of heroic efforts on the part of individual teachers and programs that aim to ameliorate the problem. Court decisions are great, and they provide some backing and comfort to our efforts, but the reality is that evolution is not being taught in a large number of high schools. The simplest explanation is that parents and administrators are hostile to the subject. So not only is it not taught, but students are indoctrinated against evolution in the home and church. Even tonight I was noting to my wife over diner that in spite of the whining of the likes of Ken Hamm and the good honest folks at the DI, in fact virtually nothing supporting evolution is shown on TV, in opposition to the regular programming promoting creationism and critiquing evolution (10% of our cable channels are devoted to religious broadcasting).

We see students who know virtually nothing about biology because their teachers have avoided it for fear of their jobs. We had one student who said that her entire high school biology experience consisted of designing web pages. She has subsequently gone on to graduate school, and is doing well, but only by virtue of diligence and hard work on her part to catch up and fill in the gaps in her education.

But the effect is not just on evolution. It is on all science. Many students are being taught that science is an ideological atheistic exercise, and they are overtly hostile to all science that they perceive as challenging their personal faith and even political ideology (I am dealing with such a student who is vocal about it in one of my classes this semester). In fact, we have had numerous independent reports that our classes are listed on the "do not take list" at the large Baptist church just off campus. And we wonder why science education in this country is declining.

I love the Panda's Thumb, and regularly recommend the Talk Origins archive to students and interested parties. But the DI, AiG, and the IRC people know that the battle is really in the home and churches, and in the public arena. These guys aren't dumb, and at least in places like Arkansas, they are skillfully winning a battle of rhetoric and propaganda. My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can't live a lie forever.

My father was a paleontologist in his early college years, but eventually became a biology teacher in TX. (when he found out I was on the way, he had to get a more secure job). Each year when he got to the evolution portion of the lesson plans, he would encounter students wanting to leave the class and angry parents threatening to sue his school. It got so bad for him that he quit teaching biology. Luckily his school district stood behind him and his lesson plans, but he still had to have the countless parent/teacher conferences where he literally had parents yelling in his face about "evilution".
My highschool teacher in TX spent five minutes on Darwin and it was immediately after he discussed Pasteur disproving spontaneous formation of life from rotting meat.

This was all back during the 80's and 90's, so I can't speak for TX these days.

If I was Intelligently Designed, why have I been laid up for two days with a bad back? All I did was get out of a chair...

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can't live a lie forever.

It will be quite interesting to see what comes next.

The Democans will nominate Hillary Clinton, who is unelectable. So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope ---- he has no love for the fundies.

I really feel for these teachers and administrators having to deal with the attitudes of folks who have been taught that scientists are atheists and not to be trusted. A crying shame.

I'm sure that there are parts of the world where people would be thrilled to see the US economy crippled. It's easy to think that other countries will benefit if the USA falls behind because of the fundamentalist war on science, but it's a mistake to consider economy a zero-sum game. In today's global economy whatever happens to the USA will affect every other country, and more so the more important the trade with the USA is to them. And, as Renier pointed out, much of the fundamentalist, anti-science movement around the world draws its power (and its arguments) from groups that are based in the US.
To me, that means that creationism in the US is something that should concern people everywhere. It's not just something for the Americans to sort out for themselves, because if we who live outside the US do nothing we will find ourselves in the same situation that they are in.

Don't forget that to a lot of fundies, athiesm is a crime worse than being an axe-murderer, ergo, athiests definitely can't be trusted. Why science should fall into athiesm is probably just their bizarre worldview.

This is truly one of the most discouraging articles I've ever read on PT. I hope all of you in the States can continue fighting the good fight, but if it really gets you down, you're always welcome up here in Canada, where, last I checked, we still had at least some evolution teaching in highschool.

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple because you can't live a lie forever.

BTW, has anyone noticed the link on WAD's blog to a "review" of the Jones decision? The link is to a site called americanvision.org, which appears to be a Christian Reconstruction site!!

But the effect is not just on evolution. It is on all science.

So I think that leaves Republicrat McCain as our best hope ---- he has no love for the fundies.

— Lenny

My only hope is that eventually, the truth will win out simple[y] because you can't live a lie forever.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

UNBELIEVABLE. What are we coming to?

It sure makes me glad to be living on the West Coast, where the religious right is merely a vocal minority and good science teaching is still the norm.

I think the next step is obvious, given the current obsession with standardized testing and NCLB.

We need to change the standardized testing in science and especially biology to allow for ID.

The creationists point to polls showing that a minority of Americans believe in evolution and claim that it's been taught and rejected. The truth is closer to what's described in this article: evolution, even when mandated, isn't necessarily taught.

During the appeals process, Cobb County, GA defended its anti-evolution disclaimer sticker by saying that they used to not teach evolution at all. So in that context their policy of "teaching" evolution with a disclaimer is an improvement.

I see over at the York Daily Record (http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology) that Judge Jones has had to use the Marshall Service for protection agains threats. It says something about the mentality of these fundamentalists.

Maybe fundies know themselves better than we do, and are just barely able to hold themselves together. Teach them evolution or deny the literal meaning of their bible, and they know they will become raging killers and endulge in all sorts of evil, destructive bahaviors. Maybe they know in their heart-or-hearts just how dangerous they are.

Maybe they know in their heart-or-hearts just how dangerous they are.

*Yawn*

Man, PT has become fatally boring. You guys are so 2005. You should bring back Gary Hurd and Great White Wonder to liven things up. Lenny's black-helicopter theocracy conspiracies are very long in the tooth.

Man, PT has become fatally boring

Yep, that's right, David.

But if we're so "fatally boring," why is it that you just can't seem to keep away? Either we're not that boring after all, or we're boring only to the extent that you keep showing up to repeat your tired old arguments ad nauseum...

To disentangle these causative factors--and given that you're the one claiming to be so "fatally bored" (and even I wouldn't wish that to be literally the case, even in your case!), let's try an experiment: you will stay away from PT (that is, don't post under your own name or any psuedonym on any thread, or on any discussion at After the Bar Closes) for, oh, let's say, the rest of 2006.

Please feel free, should you succeed--which of course you will not, since you're addicted, but never mind that--to drop by (once, please, will be enough) in early 2007 to tell us how fatally boring we were in 2006.

Since we know you can't really keep away, however, try this instead: don't post until you have something genuinely new to say. Not only would that mean that we won't see you for several years--possibly decades!--but it will also help us with our alleged fatal-boredom problem (in case you're not quite tracking here: less same-old-David automatically equals less boring--see how easy it is to help when you make a sincere effort?).

Again, if--after conscientiously restraining yourself--you sincerely find that PT has not grown more interesting in your absence, then please feel free to come back and tell us that.

But, again please, only after allowing a truly representative and fair test period to pass.

Deal, head-dull?

Seriously, there must be something we can do besides ranting. I like to say that if each pro-science person could convert one anti-science person, then this problem would go away. I don't think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

I don't think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

"The fundies will be in retreat. Under Dubya, they had the best chance they ever WILL have of reaching their goals, and they couldn't do it. They controlled the White House, the Senate, the House, and the courts ---- and they STILL couldn't pass a single portion of their social agenda."

The latter part is true, but the former is, IMO, not true. The wingnuts have succeeded in making many parts of their agenda a part of the national culture, and their destruction of the public education system in many parts of the country will result in many future voters not having a clue about what is going on. This will only further the fundie agenda in the future.

Until the media and mainstream Christian churches start to systematically point out the real agenda of the fundies, and decry their principles and actions as non-Christian, there will always be a chance that the fundies will win.

A lot more goes on here besides ranting, including staying abreast of the news on this gust-front of the culture wars, discussion of the latest evolutionary research, and meticulous, detailed, and persuasive debunking of the recycled creationist arguments.

Whether any of that will dislodge the entrenched anti-rationalists from their positions is debatable. But, if we believe that there are significant numbers of non-entrenched, "independent," genuinely-confused or perplexed on-lurkers, who aren't quite sure about this whole evolution thing, or who have been bamboozled into suspecting there is an actual scientific controversy that is being "suppressed," and so forth, then following the discussions here--

--and, in particular, watching our favorite collection of trolls do their utmost to demonstrate precisely how vacuous, moronic, boring, repetitive, and resistant to evidence the ID/creationist positions really are! Not to mention humor-impaired!!--

--does arguably serve a useful purpose that goes well beyond mere "ranting."

And, of course, PT (and its allied organizations, like the NCSE and TalkOrigins) has helped mobilize the, um, reality-based portion of the populace on any number of occasions involving media, PR, school district, legislative, or judicial challenges to the Theory-
With-The-Mostest-Evidence.

Sure, we're not perfect and we could always do better (feel entirely free to suggest something specific), but we're about a whole lot more than merely reflecting back the ranting of the IDiots.

(Not that we don't indulge in a certain amount of that, as well, in our own inimitable, genteel, and much-more-humorous manner.)

*shudder* *twitch*

From my experiences in public school, Jefferson freed all his slaves (and never had a mistress), our Founding Fathers were staunch Christians, the Puritans who first settled in the US were uptight prudes who somehow got along famously with the 'noble savage' Native Americans, the US joined WW2 to get rid of evil Nazis, and the government always looks out for the people.

In private school, I learned Jefferson freed all his slaves except his mistress, our Founding Fathers were staunch Deists and scientists, the Puritans who first settled in the US were intellectuals and believed in restraint and moderation of behavior (the prudes came in the second wave of settlement) appealed to the then-200-year-old democratic tribal government, the US around WW2 were more Nazi-friendly than not, and the government limits both freedom of the press, the original intent of fair-use and copyright stipulations, and legal contracts between consenting individuals.

Whitewashing and language takeover happens everywhere in public schools, even in "liberal" California.

if you know any creationists, spend a day walking them thru the talkorigins archive; explain to them what they are seeing, what the evidence means.

Sorry if I come off as negative. I'm just frustrated, that's all.

maybe we can get these guys, the Kratt Brothers, to do a series on evolution. They keep my kids captivated.

http://www.krattbrothers.com/

Staffan S wrote:

" To me, that means that creationism in the US is something that should concern people everywhere. It's not just something for the Americans to sort out for themselves, because if we who live outside the US do nothing we will find ourselves in the same situation that they are in."

The rest of the world should be very concerned about the fundie movement in the US. What if the U.S. elects a president who is a real fundie and a Reconstructionist, who has control over all of America's nukes?

OK, I couldn't resist. I looked up the Governor's Web site and sent him a note via the handy e-mail contact form. You can read it here:

http://monado2.blogspot.com/2006/03/open-letter-to-mike-huckabee.html

Man, PT has become fatally boring. You guys are so 2005. You should bring back Gary Hurd and Great White Wonder to liven things up. Lenny's black-helicopter theocracy conspiracies are very long in the tooth.

"...virtually nothing supporting evolution is shown on TV..."

I have to differ. It depends on where you look. Places like The History Channel, The Science Channel, PBS, and The National Geographic Channel tend to have lots of programs in support of evolution. Just last week there was a fascinating recently produced hour long show on The History Channel (I think) devoted entirely to the evolution of feathers in dinosaurs/birds.

Yeah, there are also a lot of religous channels to choose from too, and the mainstream channels probably don't have anything that touches on the subject, so the overall percentages may be low. But you can find some stuff out there.

"I like to say that if each pro-science person could convert one anti-science person, then this problem would go away."

This would be a good idea but it's completely impossible. Talking to a creationist is no different from talking to a dog. Logic and evidence mean nothing to these people.

i just love pandas!!

Talking to a creationist is no different from talking to a dog. Logic and evidence mean nothing to these people.

— roger

At least the dog doesn't understand because its brain is incapable. Creationists just refuse to in order to defend their insecurities.

Certain concepts have become neurologically disallowed.

I think the issues is a lack of federal standards.
We have testing requirements for Math and English, but not for Science.

I would like to see a government agency like the National Science Foundation add some basic science standards. (We should probably add some geography and history standards as well)

Its not an issue of belief. You can claim that the sky is green and that objects fall up for all I care, so long as you know what the accepted standards are.

That may sound harsh, but I am sick of hearing how evolution is being debated in the scientific community. In reality I would guess that less than 1% of scientists in a relevant field would disagree with the basics evolution or agrue for an earth that is only 6,000 years old.

Oh and as for elections, I actually kind of like McCain he is not as partisan as other republicans; while I despise Hilary she is trying too hard to appear conservative (I'd still take her over someone like Frist).

blackandwhitebear: i just love pandas!!

Yeah, pandas are great, but do remember they can get pissed off, and do some serious damage too:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/PandaAttack.wmv

I wonder if Steve Steve knows this Panda?

Just because this particular old-stlye iron-barred zoo negligently failed to provide its pandas with the latest in stone-washed denim jackets is no reason to impugn this poor fashionwear-challenged panda as violent.

And, please, don't try to turn a straightforward case of animal abuse into some sort of unprovoked assault by a wild beast...!

Indeed, I have it on the best of authority that the "injured" party was first politely asked to donate his jacket to the panda. Not only did the recalcitrant jacket-hoarder apparently lack even the most rudimentary understanding of clearly-enunciated Pandaese, but his abject refusal was allegedly couched in highly-objectionable terminology that I simply can't repeat on a family blog (although there is some evidence, primarily from lip readers, that Carol's secret name of G*d was somehow involved).

Sheesh!

This seems like the perfect opportunity for private industry to step in and provide a service to the public sector. In this case helping students reach state mandated bench marks in science. A company geared toward only teaching evolutionary theory at the high school level would contract with local school boards to present topics in evolution that would satisfy the state mandated benchmarks, a traveling road show. The private contractor would get the blame for teaching evolution and would take the heat for local school boards and teachers. The students would get a good foundation in evolutionary theory and someone would make some money. I don't see the teachers union complaining since they don't want to teach the subject for fear of reprisals. Administrators don't like the complaints either, a private contractor is the perfect scapegoat. The only requirements would be a general teaching background of some sort and a firm grounding in evolutionary theory.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Bruce Thompson suggested:

"This seems like the perfect opportunity for private industry to step in and provide a service to the public sector. In this case helping students reach state mandated bench marks in science. A company geared toward only teaching evolutionary theory at the high school level would contract with local school boards to present topics in evolution that would satisfy the state mandated benchmarks, a traveling road show."

Sounds good, but in Wile's article, what you describe sounds exactly like the science center where "Bob" works. They cannot economically afford to teach evolution, because no school district in the area will support them if they do.

There's a difference, I'm not proposing a fixed structure with high overhead costs but rather a service. I don't envision a "science center" where students from surrounding schools visit a central site but a single purpose company which would deliver a single service to the school then leave. The service is focused on the evolution bench marks only. If developed correctly at a national level say with NCSE, it is something a biology graduate student could teach, they could have their own small business on the side. Instead of just TAs they could supplement their income with additional work.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

you're always welcome up here in Canada, where, last I checked, we still had at least some evolution teaching in highschool.

I have been saying for a few years now that I believe future historians will regard the Bush II administration as the beginning of the end of American ascendancy.

Man, PT has become fatally boring.

What if the U.S. elects a president who is a real fundie and a Reconstructionist, who has control over all of America's nukes?

The truth is closer to what's described in this article: evolution, even when mandated, isn't necessarily taught.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

Seriously, there must be something we can do besides ranting. I like to say that if each pro-science person could convert one anti-science person, then this problem would go away. I don't think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

Sure, we're not perfect and we could always do better (feel entirely free to suggest something specific), but we're about a whole lot more than merely reflecting back the ranting of the IDiots. (Not that we don't indulge in a certain amount of that, as well, in our own inimitable, genteel, and much-more-humorous manner.)

In any fight between God and Mammon, Mammon wins every time.

I just find this so sad. What is happening to America? What will this country look like in 20 years? In 50? I honestly think this cancer of religious fundamentalism may have spread too far and will sink us all in the end.

Seriously, there must be something we can do besides ranting. I like to say that if each pro-science person could convert one anti-science person, then this problem would go away. I don't think that calling the fundies stupid is going to change their ways. What is a more constructive approach?

Sure, we're not perfect and we could always do better (feel entirely free to suggest something specific), but we're about a whole lot more than merely reflecting back the ranting of the IDiots. (Not that we don't indulge in a certain amount of that, as well, in our own inimitable, genteel, and much-more-humorous manner.)

In any fight between God and Mammon, Mammon wins every time.

The law is crushingly clear --- school districts cannot drop evolution simply because it offends people. If they do it anyway, we have the option to SUE THE CRAP OUT OF THEM.

— Lenny

As frustrating as creationists are, I found recently (to my surprise) that I do have some compassion for them. I was talking to a woman I worked with, and she said if she became a "Darwinist" she would essentially be leaving her entire life behind. She would be, if not disinherited, at least removed as the executor of her parents' wills, because they would no longer trust her. She couldn't go back to family reunions, class reunions, etc. No one she grew up with and loved would look at her the same way again.

She grew up in this creationist, biblical literalist subculture, and that sort of immersion isn't something you can just walk away from because you have followed the logical arguments of evolutionary theory through to their conclusion. What do you do when everyone you love, and everyone who loves you, thinks that evolutionary theory is an affront to God? She's stuck, and no number of conversations with any "evolutionist" or printouts from talk.origins is going to make any difference.

But then again, she isn't one of the people trying to take over the school-boards or running a PR campaign. Her presence does serve to swell their numbers, and I'm sure she gives financial support, but I can't help but feel sorry for her.

The problem is not our ability to sue if we find it, it's our ability to find it and deal with the consequences. Finding proof that evolution was dropped solely because it offended people is HARD.

Look in the bible and count how many folks kills and then count how many mammon kills.

maybe we can get these guys, the Kratt Brothers, to do a series on evolution. They keep my kids captivated.

Wow, ok, anytime that one "theory" is allowed to be studied and another is not, that to me is censorship. To my knowledge, the case in Dover wasn't even based on evolution being discredited and ID being taught, it was based on a statement that there was a book in the library on another "theory".

Come guys, are you guys a bunch of bigots, or are you so terrified that someone might actually think for themselves and find their own conclusions on the origins of life? Must you try to monopolize the educational system in the US?

If your evidence is so sound, then it shouldn't bother you that an alternative "theory" is offered.{not actually taught}

Tell me, Bone Saw, would you be upset if your children's public school library had historical texts written by Holocaust deniers?

Bone Saw, you are obviously confusing the intellectually deficient(ID) definition of a "theory" with the definition that actual scientists use. How hard is it?

BoneSaw demonstrates why I think the DI will at least partly win the socio-religious PR war. They can convince laypeople they have a theory, and their scientific-sounding jargon looks enough like real science-talk that many ordinary people can't tell the difference. That strategy, on a playing field of 80% religious folk, I think will succeed.

How can they lose? Do you think the 80% of the public BoneSaw represents will ever have the necessary knowledge to reject the specious claims of the ID charlatans?

Comment #89181: "Must you try to monopolize the educational system in the US?"

Must you try to dumb down the educational system in the US?

Why do you think religion should be taught in a science class?

Come guys, are you guys a bunch of bigots, or are you so terrified that someone might actually think for themselves and find their own conclusions on the origins of life?

Bone saw,
My friend Lenny I am sure would ask. What alternative theory? Does ID have one,if so would you please show us?(well we're waiting) no, thought not.

All the IDiots rave about the ID "theory". Yet, asking them what it is (scientifically) will get you banned on some pro ID blog/s, or they start spouting the biggest contradicting bullshit you have ever heard.

Wow, ok, anytime that one "theory" is allowed to be studied and another is not, that to me is censorship.

Comparing a book on Intelligent Design to anything related to Holocaust denial is absurd, and it also shows your obvious paranoia. I think all of you know what ID is, even if it doesn't fall under your definition of what a "theory" is.

I think there is a book on it in the Dover library for those of you who don't know.

I think there is a book on it in the Dover library for those of you who don't know.

Bonesaw, I though you might have been DaveScot, but even he would not have been stupid enough to mention "the book". But, since you are here, and know "the book", could you please tell me what the hell a "cdesign proponentsists" is?

even if it doesn't fall under your definition of what a "theory" is.

"I think all of you know what ID is, even if it doesn't fall under your definition of what a "theory" is."

You're right Bone Saw - everyone knows ID isn't a theory - is that really so hard to comprehend?

More paranoia. My definition of a scientific theory is "a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community". You probably have a different one. That isn't my point though. I just don't agree with not allowing students to explore other scientific ideas, and saying that this particular school{Dover} was teaching religion is absolutely dishonest.

"The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families." noone was pushing religion on anyone in this case. This to me is censorship.

Come on Bonesaw, Now tell us who the "Intelligent Designer" really is,you know you want to (well,we're waiting)

This case in Dover shows the world how in-trenched the evolution theory is in public schools and how fearfully guarded it is. I think many of the people who are opposed to "ID" or "Creationism" show themselves to be anti-religious bigots. That's just my opinion.

Bone Saw, the "dishonesty" is trying to promote an idea that a federal judge concluded "was not science" (after hearing from both sides) in a science class! There is a clue in that statement: science class should only contain science. By default ID is naturally excluded - got that - super!!

George Carlin. Ok, you got me to say it.

How is trying to maintain standards (science in science class) anti-religious?

Bjm, I understand that , but in this case I don't believe anyone was "trying to promote" anything. There was zero promotion. Many people don't think evolution is sound science, but it's not only taught, it's freakin exalted! I don't understand why you guys are so afraid.

Once again, there was nothing being taught in or out of science class, therefore the "standard" of which you speak is not in jeopardy. They mentioned that there were other theories or hypothisys or whatever you want to call it on the origins of life. Nothing was being taught in the calss room.

Once again, there was nothing being taught in or out of science class, therefore the "standard" of which you speak is not in jeopardy. They mentioned that there were other theories or hypothisys or whatever you want to call it on the origins of life. Nothing was being taught in the class room.

Bone head; George Carlin is an atheist,try again,(come to think of it, so is God)

You seem to have dodged the question. You equated opposition to ID/Creationism to being anti-religious. It's not, it's anti-pseudoscience. Contrary to belief there is no opposition to anyone believing in the concepts of ID/C. The problem arises when you try to replace genuine science with something that doesn't operate on the same principles.

Bonesaw wrote: I think many of the people who are opposed to "ID" or "Creationism" show themselves to be anti-religious bigots. That's just my opinion.

First, I didn't dodge your question. I was referring to the particular case in Dover where in my opinion, some of the people involved were being dishonest and anti-religious. I would also make the case again, that no one was trying to "replace" so-called genuine science with anything.

Whether or not something "doesn't operate on the same principles" can be debated all day long. That is not my point.

B, I respect your post, and I appreciate your civility, but I just disagree with the conclusion that the Dover school board was trying top promote a sectarian religious agenda. You know this as well as I do that there are many who think that taxpayer money should not be spent on promoting the idea of God not existing either.

Many consider evolution a religion. I don't think that's true, but that point can be argued. As far as honesty goes, I think both sides of the debate have fallen short in this department.

ID wants to be taken seriously but doesn't want to be held to the same principles that real scientific theories are held to (research, testability etc). That's what the Dover trial was about, in part.

I understand you do not accept evolution but it is currently the only scientific explanation that makes sense, despite what the ID/C say. If ID were ever to play by the same rules it would be taken seriously by the scientific community but would also be shown to be totally vacuous as a "science".

You refer to evolution (though not explicitly) as a "so-called" science but it has stood the test of time. Why is that?

Bone Saw: "My definition of a scientific theory is "a hypothesis that is widely accepted by the scientific community". You probably have a different one. That isn't my point though. I just don't agree with not allowing students to explore other scientific ideas, and saying that this particular school{Dover} was teaching religion is absolutely dishonest."

ID is not a scientific idea, it is a religious belief that a designer, also known as God, had something to do with creating life.

ID is widely ridiculed by the scientific community, not widely accepted, not accepted at all.

The only people being dishonest are the ID proponents who deny ID is a religious belief.

Do you have some problem with the wall of separation between government and religion?

Also, why do you think ID is not a bunch of garbage? Why do you think students should be wasting time learning garbage? Do you understand ID was invented only to try to sneak creationism into public schools? Do you understand that Dembski and the others who promote ID are liars?

This was a pretty good thread for a while. But I always stop reading once it has become clear that the thread has been permanently hijacked by a troll.

Bone Saw: "taxpayer money should not be spent on promoting the idea of God not existing either."

What are you talking about? God is never mentioned in science classes. Why would you think teaching science is the same as teaching atheism?

You speak as though the theory of evolution has been decisively proven. It has not. Many things have stood the test of time, but that doesn't make them right or good.

Bone Saw: "You speak as though the theory of evolution has been decisively proven. It has not. "

Again, what are you talking about? Evolution has been proven beyond all doubt.

May I suggest you do some research on the internet but skip the bible/ID/creationism websites.

Roger, you took that comment out of context. Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture, and would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs.

Roger, you are a disgrace to this site.

later

Bonesnore:

anyone ever tell you you're a waste of time?

don't bother, I already know the answer.

Bone Saw: "Roger, you took that comment out of context. Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture, and would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs."

What are you suggesting here? Should we stop teaching evolution because some idiots think it opposes their religious beliefs?

Science is never so arrogant as to claim anything is ever decisively proven. It gives a reasonable explanation of what it observes and it subject to re-interpretation and revision in light of new evidence (real, not contrived). ID/C is a concept that is closed to re-interpretation (we know who did it - what else is there to explain? From what I can gather this is the extent of ID "theory")

Bone Saw: "Roger, you are a disgrace to this site."

I going to repeat a previous comment I made just for you: "Talking to a creationist is no different from talking to a dog. Logic and evidence mean nothing to these people."

Just to follow up on this thread, since I posted previously. First off, I agree with one of the comments above that there is some good evolution programming available. However, here in Arkansas, simply channel surfing regularly brings up religious programming, much of which has anti-evolution content (ranging from an off the cuff comment to outright hour long programs devoted to the subject), and virtually never yields pro-evolution stuff.

In support of Jason's article, my wife and I took our kids over to the Tulsa Aquarium yesterday. The aquarium is on the whole marvelous, and we commend the staff for running a marvelous facility. However, we noticed that information about evolution is studiously avoided throughout the display. There is a large tree of metazoan life in front of one room, but no explanation of what it means. There is another room devoted to adaptation, but it all seems to carefully avoid discussing HOW species come to be adapated. There is no discussion of relationships among animals (even though there is plenty of mention that an organism belongs to a taxonomic group). On the whole, we both found that in terms of visual effect, the display was spectacular, but educationally, it seemed empty.

bone saw wrote "You speak as though the theory of evolution has been decisively proven. It has not." Since Intelligent Design theory is severely lacking in positive evidence, the main strategy is to simply discredit evolution. Evolution is, therefore, presented as a "theory in crisis," in which many scientists are beginning to have doubts. Ironically, most of the negative argumentation creationists' use against evolution arises from within the scientific community. Evolutionary biologists are quite open about the areas within evolution that are not fully understood. As with all fields of scientific inquiry, some details are simply not yet resolved. Nevertheless, the vast majority of scientists in the field have no doubt evolution has occurred and does occur; the controversy, where it exists, centers on the specific mechanisms. Falsely representing evolution as anything resembling a "theory in crisis" would be a tremendous disservice to the nations youth.
You like many Americans already have an inadequate understanding of what science is and is not. If ID were to become commonplace in science classes throughout the country, the line of distinction between science and pseudoscience would be obliterated.
ID also utterly fails at any attempts to predict and explain natural phenomenon. If the Earth and it's creatures were designed purposefully, why have most animal species gone extinct? Why do whales have hipbones? Why do humans get goose bumps when they are cold? Why is DNA replication error prone? Why do blind mole rats develop embryonic eyes? Why are geographically isolated species so divergent from other species (consider Australian marsupials as an example)? Evolutionary theory can easily explain all these observations, whereas ID answers each question in exactly the same way, "the designer works in mysterious ways." Would an understanding of ID lead to the prediction of antibiotic resistant bacteria arising from overuse of antibiotics? No, but an understanding of evolution and natural selection certainly would. The plain fact is Intelligent Design theory is not a science. ID is a theory only in the colloquial sense of the word, as an idea or guess. A scientific theory is something very different. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that, as part of their war on evolution, creationists' also wish to replace naturalism with their own so-called "theistic science." They also recognize that only by redefining science, to allow for supernatural causes, is it possible to define ID as scientific.My suggestion would be that you to go away and read some books and come back when you have a better understanding of science

"Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture, and would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs."

I do understand this dilemma but it's a bit like claiming that wanting to visit a foreign land would make you unpatriotic? It would seem (to me) that any percieved opposition to personal belief is just that - percieved (learned?). There are plenty of scientist for whom science and faith are not incompatible.

I just don't agree with not allowing students to explore other scientific ideas

, and saying that this particular school{Dover} was teaching religion is absolutely dishonest.

"If the Bible is right, God created us. If God did it, it's history and also science". -- Dover School Board member John Rowand (Washington Post, Dec 26, 2004, p A01) "Our country was founded on Christianity and our children should be taught as such." -- Board Member William Buckingham (Washington Post, Dec 26, 2004, p A01) "Nearly 2000 years ago, someone died on the cross for us. Shouldn't we have the courage to stand up for him?" -- Board Member William Buckingham (New York Times, Jan 16, 2005) "Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. . . . You can teach creationism without it being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power." -- Board Member Heather Geesey (York Daily Record, June 27, 2004)

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." -- Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" "1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. 2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." -- Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" "What I always say is that it's not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary?" Phillip Johnson quoted, The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe, Silicon Valley Magazine, January 9, 2000. "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." (Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast) "Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." (William Dembski, Jul/Aug 1999, Touchstone, p. 84) "So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"---the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." (Phillip E. Johnson, Touchstone Magazine interview, June 2002.) "The first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." (Phillip Johnson, "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, July/August 1999.) "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed." (Phillip Johnson. "Keeping the Darwinists Honest", an interview with Phillip Johnson, Citizen Magazine, April 1999.)

Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture, and would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs.

I think many of the people who are opposed to "ID" or "Creationism" show themselves to be anti-religious bigots.

would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs.

Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment." The Court found that there can be no legitimate state interest in protecting particular religions from scientific views "distasteful to them," and concluded "that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma.

I never said "Jesus saves" you shmuck. I also said that the school board was not "teaching" religion, and that is correct, so those quotes mean nothing. Get over yourself. You can also take that stupid bigoted label "fundie" and stick it.

Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture,

— Bone Saw

Boner said :
"Many think that when you teach evolution that you automatically take God out of the picture,

Well THAT's interesting.
So what bone-saw said is; "there are 2 ideas one of which is wrong," is that right?

And by deduction the people promoting those ideas fall into 2 groups liars and not-liars, is that right ?

So to keep the children from finding out that one group is telling a lie you simply don't tell them the truth, is that right?

So ultimately the children then become liars and make liars of the their own children.

The parents don't get to be told by their own children they are liars and everyone is happy, is that right.

Bone-head:- I'll leave it to you to work out who the liars are.

Just keep in mind an organization or individuals that promote lying can't be trusted.

and would rather their tax money not go to teaching a theory that opposes their religious beliefs."

Jesus and the Roman Penny story covers that one nicely don't you thing? Or is that not part of your lie er religion.

Or do you go for the "Tho shalt not cast pearls before swine" ?
I agree just don't teach evolution to the er ......swine , that way they can just remain blissfully unaware of their own ignorance. After all when the (war hero) pres. needs more cannon fodder he doesn't want people who ask questions or are able tell the difference between BS and army breakfast cereal.

Bone Saw: "you shmuck".

Bone Saw: "Roger, you are a disgrace to this site."

Someone spends a long time trying to explain to you why ID is a religious belief and you call him a shmuck. Bone Saw, you are a disgrace to this site.

I never said "Jesus saves" you shmuck. I also said that the school board was not "teaching" religion, and that is correct, so those quotes mean nothing. Get over yourself. You can also take that stupid bigoted label "fundie" and stick it.

Quoth Bonetroll:
"I never said "Jesus saves" you shmuck."

Don't worry, he was just making fun of you :P

"I also said that the school board was not "teaching" religion, and that is correct, so those quotes mean nothing."

Quoting 'teaching' does not make your point clear in any way... what are you trying to say? That the board didn't make a 'religion class'? You'd be right but that point is moot. What Lenny's quotes show is that at the very least the board was religiously motivated in getting ID into classrooms, then shows they themselves think of ID as religious apologetics.

Whether you agree with this is a question of whether you agree with the constitution. That is really the crux of the matter and whether people are civil about it doesn't matter much.

Bonesaw??!? This person is positively grating. I never thought I would miss Larry....or Carol...At least they attempt (poorly) to address the issues.

"Many people don't think evolution is sound science, but it's not only taught, it's freakin exalted!"

What"people" are you referring to here? If it is the general public, why do you think science cares what the public "thinks" about anything? Perhaps you need to understand what science is and how it works.

Quoting 'teaching' does not make your point clear in any way... what are you trying to say?

"The attorney for the Dover Area School District said no one will be teaching intelligent design. . . The entire statement on the subject of intelligent design in next semester's ninth-grade biology class will take about a minute, said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing the district. And because intelligent design -- the concept that life is too complex to have evolved through natural selection, and therefore must have been created by an intelligent designer -- is only "mentioned," Thompson said; it's not being "taught."

In some places, evolutionists may have to choose between the following two alternatives-- (1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all. Which of these alternatives do you evolutionists prefer ?

Public opinion polls show that the majority of the public feels that both evolution and criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools. A lot of the resistance to the teaching of evolution is the result of prohibitions against the teaching of criticisms of evolution.

The courts might be able to prohibit the teaching of certain criticisms of evolution on the grounds that those criticisms constitute an endorsement of religion, but the courts cannot require that states or school districts require the teaching of evolution, relativity, or any other theory.

I don't specifically remember evolution being taught in my biology classes in high school in Los Angeles in the early 1960`s. Evolution was just something that we took for granted.

Though evolution theory has been described as the ``foundation`` or the ``unifying concept`` of the biological sciences, I feel that the theory is really not essential in the biological sciences. It is possible to describe the relationships between organisms without assuming that evolution actually occurred, and it is certainly not necessary to assume that evolution was driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.

"(1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all. Which of these alternatives do you evolutionists prefer ?"

I'd almost prefer the former. To teach non-science "criticisms" of evolution as science is counter-productive; it obscures the true nature of science and weakens the teaching of science. It is also dishonest; lying to students is about the worst thing anyone can do.

Nobody: "In some places, evolutionists may have to choose between the following two alternatives--- (1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all."

Would teaching science and only science in science classes be ok with you?

Nobody: "I don't specifically remember evolution being taught in my biology classes in high school in Los Angeles in the early 1960's."

Then you know nothing about evolution?

Nobody: "I feel that the theory is really not essential in the biological sciences."

I guess you do know nothing about evolution.

Sorry-I meant the latter. Long day in the cold...

LOL. What we do without opponents like Bonesaw. They argue science unfairly excludes their supernatural ideas, and then immediately argue that their ideas are purely scientific, and not at all religious, then they call you an atheist when you criticise ID.

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire

"I never said "Jesus saves" you shmuck."

Don't worry, he was just making fun of you :P

In some places, evolutionists may have to choose between the following two alternatives--- (1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all. Which of these alternatives do you evolutionists prefer ?

I feel that the theory is really not essential in the biological sciences.

Nobody is Larry. He still thinks science and what is taught as science should be decided by opinion polls.

I feel that the theory is really not essential in the biological sciences.

It is possible to describe the relationships between organisms without assuming that evolution actually occurred...

...it is certainly not necessary to assume that evolution was driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.

Nobody: "Public opinion polls show that the majority of the public feels that both evolution and criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools."

Do you think the public (including people who know nothing about science) should vote on every theory that is taught in science classes? Or would it be better to let scientists make these decisions?

Nobody: "A lot of the resistance to the teaching of evolution is the result of prohibitions against the teaching of criticisms of evolution."

This resistance is coming from people who do not understand evolution and never will understand it. This resistance includes wasting taxpayer money in court, and it includes harassment of teachers. Are you suggesting we let these Christian thugs force the teaching of their ID/Creationism religious beliefs in science classes? Would this end the harassment? Or would the harassment continue until the teachers give up and never mention evolution? Actually this is already happening in Arkansas and other states. Some teachers water down evolution to avoid the harassment, and the best teachers get sick of Christian parents yelling at them and quit their jobs.

Since Intelligent Design theory is severely lacking in positive evidence...

I really feel for these teachers and administrators having to deal with the attitudes of folks who have been taught that scientists are atheists and not to be trusted. A crying shame.

A lot of the resistance to the teaching of evolution is the result of prohibitions against the teaching of criticisms of evolution.

Nobody is Larry.

Hey Bone, are you gonna answer my simple questions, or aren't you.

Comment #89305 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 25, 2006 07:23 PM

In some places, evolutionists may have to choose between the following two alternatives--- (1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all. Which of these alternatives do you evolutionists prefer ?

both of your "alternatives" are already, uh, illegal.

Comment #89308 posted by pough on March 25, 2006 07:40 PM

It is possible to describe the relationships between organisms without assuming that evolution actually occurred...

Is that what you think biology is, describing the relationships between organisms? What about the study of populations that change when their environment changes? Does that need to assume that evolution ("populations of living things can change over time") actually occurred?

...it is certainly not necessary to assume that evolution was driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.

Who thinks that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection, apart from creationists?

Who thinks that mutations are purely random?

Who thinks that natural selection is the only thing that happens?

Comment #89309 posted by roger on March 25, 2006 07:42 PM Nobody: ``Public opinion polls show that the majority of the public feels that both evolution and criticisms of evolution should be taught in the public schools.`` Do you think the public (including people who know nothing about science) should vote on every theory that is taught in science classes? Or would it be better to let scientists make these decisions?.

It is not what I think --- it is the reality. You can argue until you are blue in the face that only scientists should decide what is taught in public-school science classes, but the general public has the final say, subject to the approval of the courts in regard to the establishment clause. Get used to it.

In some places, evolutionists may have to choose between the following two alternatives--- (1) the teaching of both evolution and criticisms of evolution in the public schools, and (2) evolution not being taught in the public schools at all. Which of these alternatives do you evolutionists prefer ?

both of your "alternatives" are already, uh, illegal.

Uh, wrong.

I feel that

Larry (a nobody) said:

It is not what I think --- it is the reality. You can argue until you are blue in the face that only scientists should decide what is taught in public-school science classes, but the general public has the final say, subject to the approval of the courts in regard to the establishment clause. Get used to it.

hahhahahhahhahah Larry WHAT do you know about reality ?

Tell us all about 'imaginary numbers' you know the ones you can't imagine (giggle).

Tell us all about David Irvine and how you agree with him.

there, there

deny and project the creationism two step.

It is not what I think --- it is not the reality. You I can argue until You are I am blue in the face that only scientists should decide what is taught in public-school science classes, but the general public has the The constitution has final say, subject to the approval of the courts in regard to the establishment clause. I can'tGet used to it.

Larry (Nobody) and Bone Saw and any other ID/creationists,

In Arkansas and other states there are Christian thugs who harass science teachers and these thugs are often successful in keeping evolution out of science classes even when they lose in court. In my opinion these Christian thugs need to get their teeth punched down their throats. What do you think should be done with these thugs?

Another question - since you disagree with the almost 100% of biologists about evolution, how do you explain all the life on earth? Did some god make every species of plant and animal that ever lived? Did this god make every species of insect, plant, worm, primate, dinosaur, etc. If this is what you believe, why do you think this god was so stupid that he didn't let evolution do all this for him?

Man, PT has become fatally boring. You guys are so 2005.

— David Heddle

Well, Heddle does think a bat is a bird...

Comment #88973 Posted by David Heddle on March 24, 2006 01:41 PM (e) *Yawn* Man, PT has become fatally boring. You guys are so 2005. You should bring back Gary Hurd and Great White Wonder to liven things up. Lenny's black-helicopter theocracy conspiracies are very long in the tooth.

Heddle's just bored. Nobody visits him at his jesus blog.

This from a man whose thinking is so 1805? Sheesh, what a loser.

The topic of this entry was apt and relevant, until it got hijacked by closed-minded trolls. So let me comment on the original notion, that in places like Arkansas local administrators and teachers, either willingly or under pressure from parents and preachers, will block the teaching of up-to-date science.

I don't think we who accept the validity of scientific pursuits should allow ourselves to get so gloomy over the obvious political and social obstructions that block the teaching of science. Despite appearances, the condition differs not one whit from what existed forty years ago. I'm now retired but I spent forty plus years supplying schools with science textbooks (as an editor, writer and publisher) and laboratory equipment and supplies. The current situation in Arkansas is the same that I encountered when I visited schools in that state and elsewhere in the 1960's, '70's and '80's. The schools there, and in many other places in the country don't care what the Federal courts, the National Academy of Sciences, the AIBS, or the National Biology Teachers Association may have said. They all believe that science is atheistic and contradicts their world-view. And you know something, they're right about the latter is not the former. They don't want to live in the 21st (or the 20th) century. They'd much rather live in the past. This nation will move past the debate only when this particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, that objects to the 20th century, begins to die out culturally. The best we can probably do in the meantime is make sure they never again get as close to claiming dominant national political power as they do now. I don't think the nation will stand for it, but never underestimate the duplicity and conniving of the religious right and its allies. Honesty is not among their strengths. I should know; I grew up amongst them in the Old South.

In Arkansas and other states there are Christian thugs who harass science teachers and these thugs are often successful in keeping evolution out of science classes even when they lose in court. In my opinion these Christian thugs need to get their teeth punched down their throats.

I'm opposed to creationists intimidating school districts, but IMO this last comment crosses a line that simply shouldn't be crossed in this debate. Not by anyone, not ever.

B. Spitzer, you are right, my comment was inappropriate and I regret it.

I am still interested if anyone has a suggestion for what to do about Christians who yell at and intimidate science teachers who are just trying to do their jobs. Should we just give up and let these thugs have their way?

Renier, "What comment, and what line?" It was #89353. Sorry about my inappropriate comment.

in places like Arkansas local administrators and teachers, either willingly or under pressure from parents and preachers, will block the teaching of up-to-date science.

This nation will move past the debate only when this particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, that objects to the 20th century, begins to die out culturally.

The best we can probably do in the meantime is make sure they never again get as close to claiming dominant national political power as they do now. I don't think the nation will stand for it, but never underestimate the duplicity and conniving of the religious right and its allies.

I am still interested if anyone has a suggestion for what to do about Christians who yell at and intimidate science teachers who are just trying to do their jobs.

It would be nice to sue to get evolution taught in schools, but to do so one would have to have a plaintiff. Very few people are screaming about teaching evolution -- that's the whole point of Jason's paper. The pressure is subtle, effective, and very difficult to deal with.

For most people that I have spoken with, there really is no grounds for a suit, because there is no evidence. The people applying pressure and making threats are for the most part not yelling and screaming. Rather, they make comments, have little talks, and make things clear without actually saying them. Certainly it would take a rare fool to codify these policies on paper. Most people do not show the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover school board.

Teachers down here do not have tenure, and as anyone knows there is more than one way to get someone fired. Nobody is going to be dismissed because of teaching evolution. Instead, they'll get bad evaluations, begin to develop a paper trail of problems and issues, and so on. Harassment alone can make a job so unpleasant that only the most die-hard people can continue with their sanity intact. Furthermore, these folks live in communities, and they have to function outside of the classroom. I have several neighbors who have not spoken to me ever since I publicly spoke out against an attempt to ban sex-education books, and things have not improved since the local cable TV began broadcasting a talk that I gave in on ID. Fortunately, I have tenure, and my own circle of friends. But most public school teachers don't have my good fortune.

The only thing we can do is keep on educating as best we can, and publicly addressing the fallacies of the anti-science movement.

Rev Dr Lenny Flank, comment 89406 - That is excellent advice.

What do you think should be done about the 10% of Arkansas teachers who teach creationism? Should they be warned? I would suggest they be fired. But apparently in Arkansas only teachers that teach evolution are in danger of being fired.

This is from the news article for this thread: "According to his survey, about 20 percent are trying to teach evolution and think they are doing a good job; 10 percent are teaching creationism, even though during the workshop he discusses the legally shaky ground on which they stand. Another 20 percent attempt to teach something but feel they just do not understand evolution. The remaining 50 percent avoid it because of community pressure. On an e-mail to members of a list he keeps of people interested in evolution, Randy reported that the latter 50 percent do not cover evolution because they felt intimidated, saw no need to teach it, or might lose their jobs."

It would be nice to sue to get evolution taught in schools, but to do so one would have to have a plaintiff.

What do you think should be done about the 10% of Arkansas teachers who teach creationism? Should they be warned?

For most people that I have spoken with, there really is no grounds for a suit, because there is no evidence.

Comment #89422 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 26, 2006 11:54 PM Well, either the district is teaching evolution, or it's not. If it's not, and evolution is part of the state standards, then they have no defense whatsoever to offer. They have to meet the standards, and they're not.

If evolution is not in the state standards, they still lose ---- it's illegal to drop evolution in deference to anyone's feelings, whatever excuse they offer. If they think they can produce a valid secular reason why they're not teaching evolution, I'd sure like to see them try. In front of a judge.

Nobody cares what you think, Larry. (shrug)

As I've already noted, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to either (1) teach creationism or (2) blot out evolution because it offends someone's religious beliefs.

The court also ruled that there simply is no valid secular reason for not teaching evolution.

It's illegal to do. Period.

If teachers/school districts are doing it anyway, that is OUR fault for not using the legal remedies that are available to us.

Sue the crap out of them.

Quoth Nobody Fafarman:
"If the courts can require that education standards include evolution, then the courts can require that education standards include anything, including underwater basketweaving."

To see you dancing on the corpse of logic grieves me greatly. I can't even begin to fathom what the leap Evolution > Basketweaving is supposed to represent, so I'll just nod and let you desecrate human reasoning.

Alternatively, you could explain yourself. But I have a feeling I don't want to know.

Apparently Judge Jones' activism has gone to your head.

— Larry

Wow, ok, anytime that one "theory" is allowed to be studied and another is not, that to me is censorship. ... If your evidence is so sound, then it shouldn't bother you that an alternative "theory" is offered.{not actually taught} ... and later Comparing a book on Intelligent Design to anything related to Holocaust denial is absurd, and it also shows your obvious paranoia. I think all of you know what ID is, even if it doesn't fall under your definition of what a "theory" is. I think there is a book on it in the Dover library for those of you who don't know.

— Bone Saw

The courts can prohibit certain things from being taught if teaching those things violates the Constitution in some way, but the courts cannot require that education standards include anything. Setting education standards is not the business of the courts.

— Nobody (Larry?)

Comment #89333 Posted by Nobody on March 26, 2006 05:45 AM (e) Uh, wrong. As for the first alternative above, creationism is the only criticism that is illegal to teach in any public school in the USA....

Alann

Tempers can get a little flared but at least on this forum issues do get a hearing. Go to Uncommon Descent and ANY comment that deviates from the party-line is deleted - end of discussion. That is paranoia.

The accusation of censorship is also misguided. The ID people insist on calling their ideas science, despite a judge being able to clearly see they are religious constructs (that obviousl doesn't count though!). I don't see objections to deception as being censorship. As you stated "ID refuses to define itself...." Until it does why should it be given any time in a school environment, especially in contradiction to a well defined scientific theory such as evolution.

There may be personal objections to evolution but until someone comes up with legitimite contradictory scientific evidence (not the drivel the DI pump out) personal objections will only ever be a matter of opinion. That doesn't diminish them. To most rational people there is no contradiction between science and religion. You have to ask who is being rational here?

And we see some of the effects of greater information access today. Already, in America, people who identify themselves as secular non-religious are about 17% of the population or so. (Depending on study and question wording.) Back in the 1960's, it was just a few percent. But as the information flows, it becomes more and more difficult to remain ignorant of the various flaws of religion and the soundness of evolution. And, as more people go away, it becomes easier for those who have doubts about their religion to leave as well.

The anti-evolutionists on this thread have some reasonable points

and it is not fair to simply dismiss them.

This will now be my standard response to all the ID nutters who want to whine and weep about Judge Jones' decision:

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)

One judge's ruling does not a victory make. That buzzer you heard was just the one after the time-out. We're still in the first quarter. Game on!

So Pistol Pete, does that mean that there are three more quarters before the predicted demise of "Darwinism"? By my calculation that means about 450 years of listening to creationist/ID drivel. Can we call game over then?

According to comments in this thread, avoiding teaching evolution in the public schools is not just a possibility --- it is actually happening.

Putting words in my mouth again. I never said that biology consists only of describing relationships between organisms. But I feel that the most important applications of evolution theory are in the area of relationships between organisms, e.g., in phylogenetic trees, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, those kinds of things. And "changes over time" is not necessarily the same thing as evolution.

If creationists do not believe that evolution occurred at all, then how can they believe anything about what supposedly drove it ? Actually, Darwinists believe that evolution was driven solely by random mutation (plus some minor causes of genetic variation, e.g., genetic drift --- which is really just a slow random mutation --- and gene flow) and natural selection.

However, I think that the above two decisions are about as far as the courts are willing to go in regard to promoting evolution education in the public schools.

You have a very strange idea of the power of the courts. Apparently Judge Jones' activism has gone to your head. If the courts can require that education standards include evolution, then the courts can require that education standards include anything, including underwater basketweaving. The courts can prohibit certain things from being taught if teaching those things violates the Constitution in some way, but the courts cannot require that education standards include anything. Setting education standards is not the business of the courts.

One judge's ruling does not a victory make. That buzzer you heard was just the one after the time-out. We're still in the first quarter. Game on!

What it means is that if you think you have triumphed from one silly court decision "the buzzer has rung", "game over" then you folks are in for a big disappointment.

That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

Comment #89658 Posted by Pistol Pete on March 27, 2006 07:37 PM (e) One judge's ruling does not a victory make. That buzzer you heard was just the one after the time-out. We're still in the first quarter. Game on!

Comment #89674 Posted by Piston Pete on March 27, 2006 08:06 PM (e) What it means is that if you think you have triumphed from one silly court decision "the buzzer has rung", "game over" then you folks are in for a big disappointment. That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

Q: Are the changes educationally appropriate? It has been argued that many biology teachers will disregard them. A: Yes. They seek objective discussions of origins that are less stressful for students and teachers. Teachers testified that they are afraid to teach origins objectively because of pressure from institutions of science and education.

Posted by Piston Pete on March 27, 2006 08:06 PM (e) What it means is that if you think you have triumphed from one silly court decision "the buzzer has rung", "game over" then you folks are in for a big disappointment. That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

Comment #89435 posted by `Rev Dr` Lenny Flank on March 27, 2006 08:19 AM Nobody cares what you think, Larry. (shrug)

As I've already noted, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to either (1) teach creationism or (2) blot out evolution because it offends someone's religious beliefs.

Comment #89506 posted by Alann on March 27, 2006 12:50 PM This is true. The court has no business setting standards. Unfortunately this misses the point in this case, evolution is in the state standards. The question is to what extend should action be taken when the school neglects to teach those standards.

I think the states needs to include those evolution standards in standardized tests in order to objectively measure if the school is doing its job.

That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

The latest twist is that Georgia is considering requiring that Bible study courses be available to all public-school students in the state

J Simes comment 89713: "evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part)"

I don't think so. Biology without evolution would be boring. Many teachers don't want to be harassed by Christian parents so they don't teach evolution. The students of these teachers become bored and are then likely to hate science in my opinion.

This is from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/pda/A673319

The theory of evolution is a staggeringly beautiful and rather clever concept that aims to describe how animals, plants, bacteria and all other living things have adapted, and continue to adapt, to their surroundings. The theory allows mankind to perceive life's history down the eons and understand how and why all living things came to be.

Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It is a solid core running through all modern research from molecular biology to genomics to ecology. Where once biology was a disjointed group of subjects whose main role seemed to be just to classify life into neat categories, it is now at the forefront of scientific research. Indeed, the study of heredity - genetics - is said to be leading mankind into a biotechnological golden age with ever-more potent pharmaceuticals, cleaner fuels and improved crops.

I doubt that evolution is ever going to be a very important part of statewide standardized science tests --- after all, evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part)

Well, sir, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you have no idea what you're talking about.

After all, what biologists say is that evolution is the backbone organizing principle of biology (and at the very least, as important to biology as plate tectonics is to geology).

I think a BIG part of the problem is that evolution is NOT an important part of statewide standardized tests.

One judge's ruling does not a victory make.

Loony Flake

The latest twist is that Georgia is considering requiring that Bible study courses be available to all public-school students in the state

That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

Nobody cares what you think, Larry. (shrug)

Loony Flake, your above statement got old a long time ago. Can't you think of somethin

Here are eight major decisions concerning the teaching of evolution and criticisms of evolution --- http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8... That is just about all there is.

IMO J.Simes is 'nobody'...all the classic Loony Fafarman markers are there.

Gee Larry getting sick of being nobody ?

Or are you going to treat us with an arguement with yourself ?

Oh wait....the designer is bi-polar ...heck I thought he was just gay.

Comment #89674 Posted by Piston Pete on March 27, 2006 08:06 PM (e) What it means is that if you think you have triumphed from one silly court decision "the buzzer has rung", "game over" then you folks are in for a big disappointment. That's ok though, keep underestimating your opponent.

"evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part) and biology is a relatively small part of the sciences."

Not in secondary education, it isn't. To get a diploma in most states Biology is required, one of usually two courses required in science.

Besides, I'd rather hear what BIOLOGISTS think is relevant to their field, not the general public.

Another "Soap" to go with "As The Wingnut Turns": "All My Aliases".

IMO J.Simes is 'nobody'...all the classic Loony Fafarman markers are there.

Wilson is attempting to mimic true academic inquiry solely in order to baffle it and thus advance his "biblical" conclusions. The initial foolishness of his approach has given way to an increasingly sophisticated assault on the foundations of academic scholarship, made possible by Genovese's tutelage. Perhaps in ten years time, Wilson, Wilkins, or others inspired by them will have mastered the historical data and the scholarly literature sufficiently to cause genuine confusion among sincere students of southern history. It will mark an important step forward for Neo-Confederate, Christian Reconstructionist, and white supremacist activists, whether Pastor Wilson (or Genovese) consciously intends to advance these specific causes or not, and will open new legislative possibilities for them at both the state and national levels. There is more at stake, then, in efforts to challenge Neo-Confederate historical misinformation than the surface features of the portrait of southern slavery presented in private Christian academies and home schools. The very definition of evidence itself is under attack along with academic methods of analyzing evidence. This quarter of the rightwing assault on academia therefore shares a common ideological foundation with broader Fundamentalist campaigns to advance Creationist and Intelligent Design claims at the expense of legitimate scientific findings with respect to evolution.

Yes (Yes Yes) Lenny,
They can't help themselves, the pro-dominionist, manifest destiny, loony right wing wankers all fall into the same basket.
Holocaust,evolution,slavery,global warming,southern bigotry deniers.
And yet with a TOTAL FANATICAL social Darwinist agenda, death penalty support on the one hand and anti abortion on the other .....is that what Christ meant when he said "don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing"?.

Its almost as thought they hate their mothers and grandmothers...that may explain the high divorce numbers and the homosexual neighbor in "American Beauty".

It's so simple its stupid.

I doubt that evolution is ever going to be a very important part of statewide standardized science tests --- after all, evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part) and biology is a relatively small part of the sciences. If a state test includes evolution and some state schools don't teach evolution, students can improve their chances of passing the state test by studying evolution on their own. I think that including evolution in state tests is unfair to students who have not learned evolution because they transferred from out-of-state schools that do not teach evolution. Actually, I am against the whole idea of state education standards and I feel that if we are going to have any education standards at all, they should be national standards.

— J Simes

That is just about all there is. If it were possible to sue a government entity for failure to require the teaching of evolution in the public schools, do you think that it would not have been done by now?

I doubt that evolution is ever going to be a very important part of statewide standardized science tests --- after all, evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part) and biology is a relatively small part of the sciences. If a state test includes evolution and some state schools don't teach evolution, students can improve their chances of passing the state test by studying evolution on their own. I think that including evolution in state tests is unfair to students who have not learned evolution because they transferred from out-of-state schools that do not teach evolution. Actually, I am against the whole idea of state education standards and I feel that if we are going to have any education standards at all, they should be national standards.

A federal standard may be better; however, I think it is more practical to implement state standards based on federal recommendations, with some financial incentives to back it up.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights..."

John {freakin} Hancock

Actually it was mostly written by Thomas Freakin Jefferson and not at all by Hancock. He merely signed it first because he was president of the Continental Freakin Congress.

Well, he freakin helped with it.

Well, he freakin helped with it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights..."

Well, he freakin helped with it.

In particular, what's your freakin' point?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights..." John {freakin} Hancock

— Up Your Pavement

Comment #90078 posted by J. Biggs on March 28, 2006 12:06 PM

If it were possible to sue a government entity for failure to require the teaching of evolution in the public schools, do you think that it would not have been done by now?

Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. Many frivolous law suits are filed every day. As Dr. Lenny said, failing to require the teaching evolution because it offends certain religious sects is against the law, meaning a law suit in this case is far from frivolous.

I doubt that evolution is ever going to be a very important part of statewide standardized science tests --- after all, evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part) and biology is a relatively small part of the sciences.

Evolution is neither a small nor an unimportant part of Biology.

Students coming in from other states will not affect the outcome very much considering most states require the teaching of evolution.

Comment #89964 posted by `Rev Dr` Lenny Flank on March 28, 2006 08:01 AM http://hnn.us/articles/23113.html Some excerpts: ``It will mark an important step forward for Neo-Confederate, Christian Reconstructionist, and white supremacist activists ...... This quarter of the rightwing assault on academia therefore shares a common ideological foundation with broader Fundamentalist campaigns to advance Creationist and Intelligent Design claims at the expense of legitimate scientific findings with respect to evolution.``

Comment #89658 posted by Pistol Pete on March 27, 2006 07:37 PM One judge's ruling does not a victory make. That buzzer you heard was just the one after the time-out. We're still in the first quarter. Game on!

Shut up, Larry, you moron.

No, I take that back. My apologies to morons everywhere for comparing you to someone as genuinely and completely clueless as Larry.

Actually it was mostly written by Thomas Freakin Jefferson and not at all by Hancock. He merely signed it first because he was president of the Continental Freakin Congress.

Nobody cares what you think, Larry. (shrug)

The sued government entity could claim that there are valid secular reasons for not teaching evolution, e.g., that evolution is only a theory and not a fact, that teaching evolution is a waste of time, or that there are other priorities. And ironically, the government entity could even argue that teaching evolution would violate the establishment clause by appearing to be an endorsement of atheism and those religious beliefs that find evolution acceptable. LOL

This effort to link the intelligent design movement to other, often completely unrelated movements shows the growing desperation of the Darwinists.

Exactly. The Dover decision is just an unappealed and unappealable decision of a single federal district court judge. In the 9th circuit federal court of appeals (the largest circuit, not counting the Federal Circuit based in Washington DC ) in particular, district court opinions are regarded as little more than outhouse substitutes for corn cobs and Sears catalogs.

The sued government entity could claim that there are valid secular reasons for not teaching evolution, e.g., that evolution is only a theory and not a fact, that teaching evolution is a waste of time, or that there are other priorities. And ironically, the government entity could even argue that teaching evolution would violate the establishment clause by appearing to be an endorsement of atheism and those religious beliefs that find evolution acceptable. LOL

Also, even if the courts could require that evolution be taught, the courts could not dictate how it is taught --- i.e., how much time is spent on it (maybe just a few seconds or a few minutes of class time, or even just a reading assignment) and whether it is taught as a fact or just a theory.

Also, teaching the Bible as literature in public schools is now permitted, so according to your line of reasoning, a lawsuit against a policy or practice of not teaching the Bible as literature could be filed on the grounds that such a policy or practice is based on a desire to avoid offending non-Christians. http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id... says, " The Bible is already being used as a course study in as many as 1,000 American high schools, according to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools in Greensboro, N.C. The US Supreme Court allows it as long as it's presented objectively, and not taught as fact."

What I meant was that knowledge of evolution is not likely to be a critical factor in the students' ability to pass the test.

And ironically, the government entity could even argue that teaching evolution would violate the establishment clause by appearing to be an endorsement of atheism and those religious beliefs that find evolution acceptable. LOL

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

Here is another news article about the problem in Arkansas:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=dba867cd-482a-479a-8eef-b15eae316711

Comment #90406 posted by J. Biggs on March 29, 2006 10:55 AM For all practical purposes scientific "theory" and scientific "fact" are synonymous.

I would love it if some teacher teaching the subject of biology said that teaching a major biological concept was a "waste of time" in court. And if there were other concepts in biology that take precedence over evolution the teacher will have to explain why they consider those other concepts more important.

The courts can say that evolution can't be taught in certain ways; i.e. when it comes to "teaching the controversy" by leveling unscientific criticisms on ToE that have been refuted.

Also, teaching the Bible as literature in public schools is now permitted, so according to your line of reasoning, a lawsuit against a policy or practice of not teaching the Bible as literature could be filed on the grounds that such a policy or practice is based on a desire to avoid offending non-Christians.

I don't totally understand your argument here. I have no problem with "electives" such as bible study or a philosophy of religion class.

What I meant was that knowledge of evolution is not likely to be a critical factor in the students' ability to pass the test.

That is not what you originally said

Comment #90414

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

If you "never" use that argument then why do you say a government entity could use that argument?

J Larry Simes Different Name Same Transparently Stupid Dishonesty Feebleman wrote, for the umpteenth time:

The courts have no authority to ban bad science from public-school classrooms...

Having explicitly admitted that the "science" you want taught is indeed "bad," shouldn't you also be admitting that the alleged "controversy" over same doesn't really exist outside your imaginiation?

Such an admission would help restore your credibility here. Well, not a lot, but some...

Comment 91016 by J Simes (Larry, Nobody): "(indeed, one state, Iowa, does not even have state science education standards)"

Iowa uses the National Science Education Standards:

http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/tqt/tc/prodev/science.html

"Iowa school districts' science standards are aligned with the National Science Education Standards."

Here are the National Science Education Standards:

http://newton.nap.edu/html/nses/

The National Science Education Standards of course include the teaching of evolution:

Students have difficulty with the fundamental concepts of evolution. For example, students often do not understand natural selection because they fail to make a conceptual connection between the occurrence of new variations in a population and the potential effect of those variations on the long-term survival of the species. One misconception that teachers may encounter involves students attributing new variations to an organism's need, environmental conditions, or use. With some help, students can understand that, in general, mutations occur randomly and are selected because they help some organisms survive and produce more offspring. Other misconceptions center on a lack of understanding of how a population changes as a result of differential reproduction (some individuals producing more offspring), as opposed to all individuals in a population changing. Many misconceptions about the process of natural selection can be changed through instruction.

Here's some more National Science Education Standards that Iowa uses:

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
Species evolve over time. Evolution is the consequence of the interactions of (1) the potential for a species to increase its numbers, (2) the genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, (3) a finite supply of the resources required for life, and (4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring. [See Unifying Concepts and Processes]
The great diversity of organisms is the result of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution that has filled every available niche with life forms.
Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record of ancient life forms, as well as for the striking molecular similarities observed among the diverse species of living organisms.
The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors.
Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities which reflect their evolutionary relationships. Species is the most fundamental unit of classification.

Larry If the courts were to accept "bad science" as science then the cigarette companies would be over the moon don't you think?

Are you really that stupid that you think any Judge would risk his life's work to promote a personal agenda, in fact to be an "activist Judge", to promote bad science?

What you are proposing is not actually "bad science" it is science without facts or for that matter not even the tiniest shred of evidence and therefore not science at all, no court in the land will agree with you.

But then you already know that don't you....how did your Supreme Court application go ?

So do us all a favor, drop it, your just making a fool of yourself

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)

Comment #90406 posted by J. Biggs on March 29, 2006 10:55 AM For all practical purposes scientific "theory" and scientific "fact" are synonymous.

Wrong. Scientific "facts" are called scientific "laws," not scientific "theories".

It is not the business of the courts to fine-tune public-school courses. Anyway, it is possible to teach a good course in biology without ever mentioning the e-word.

The courts have no authority to ban bad science from public-school classrooms, because there is no constitutional separation of bad science and state. Also, some of the "refutations" that are presented, such as "exaptation " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation ), are highly questionable. The concept of exaptation does not change the fact that all of the parts of an irreducible system must simultaneously come together in their final forms to create the complete system, and that is doubtful; also, some of the changes required in the parts are quite far-fetched, such as jawbones evolving into middle-ear bones.

I only said that using your line of reasoning, a lawsuit could be filed because a course in religion is not offered, or even because a course in religion is not required.

Well, that is what I meant when I said that evolution is not likely to be a very important part of a statewide science test. How else could that statement be interpreted?

I doubt that evolution is ever going to be a very important part of statewide standardized science tests --- after all, evolution is just a relatively small part of biology (and IMO not a very important part) and biology is a relatively small part of the sciences. If a state test includes evolution and some state schools don't teach evolution, students can improve their chances of passing the state test by studying evolution on their own. I think that including evolution in state tests is unfair to students who have not learned evolution because they transferred from out-of-state schools that do not teach evolution. Actually, I am against the whole idea of state education standards and I feel that if we are going to have any education standards at all, they should be national standards.

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

If you "never" use that argument then why do you say a government entity could use that argument?

--- because I was discussing a situation where the government entity is being sued.

Comment #91047 posted by roger on March 30, 2006 11:57 AM

Comment 91016 -- "(indeed, one state, Iowa, does not even have state science education standards)"

Iowa uses the National Science Education Standards:

Comment #91030 posted by Raging Bee on March 30, 2006 11:32 AM

The courts have no authority to ban bad science from public-school classrooms...

Having explicitly admitted that the "science" you want taught is indeed "bad," shouldn't you also be admitting that the alleged "controversy" over same doesn't really exist outside your imaginiation?

Comment #91052 posted by k.e. on March 30, 2006 12:03 PM If the courts were to accept "bad science" as science then the cigarette companies would be over the moon don't you think?

Are you really that stupid that you think any Judge would risk his life's work to promote a personal agenda, in fact to be an "activist Judge", to promote bad science?

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)

Comment #91047 posted by roger on March 30, 2006 11:57 AM

Comment 91016 -- "(indeed, one state, Iowa, does not even have state science education standards)"

Iowa uses the National Science Education Standards:

Comment #91030 posted by Raging Bee on March 30, 2006 11:32 AM

The courts have no authority to ban bad science from public-school classrooms...

Having explicitly admitted that the "science" you want taught is indeed "bad," shouldn't you also be admitting that the alleged "controversy" over same doesn't really exist outside your imaginiation?

Comment #91052 posted by k.e. on March 30, 2006 12:03 PM If the courts were to accept "bad science" as science then the cigarette companies would be over the moon don't you think?

Are you really that stupid that you think any Judge would risk his life's work to promote a personal agenda, in fact to be an "activist Judge", to promote bad science?

Comment #91467 J Biggs the bigot wrote -- You seem to like Wikipedia a lot, lets see what they have to say.

from Wikipedia -- ``it is a `fact` that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the `theory` which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation."

It is not the business of the courts to fine-tune public-school courses. Anyway, it is possible to teach a good course in biology without ever mentioning the e-word.

It is when school districts are taken to court because their schools are breaking the law.

ID is creationism plain and simple, you can't observe, test, disprove a designer (God).

IC is not proof of ID and does not disprove evolution in the least.

Just because you "think" exaptation is far fetched doesn't mean it is. Go disprove that it happens using actual science rather than lame arguments about what you think.

That wasn't really the part I was objecting to, it was the stupid things your said about biology and evolution being small.

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

If you "never" use that argument then why do you say a government entity could use that argument?

--- because I was discussing a situation where the government entity is being sued.

That is such a cop out. Just admit you use that argument and quit being passive aggressive.

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)

Larry said:

In the lawsuits against the cigarette companies, it is necessary to judge the scientific merits of scientific findings that smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases.

Nice of you to agree with me that ID "bad science" is on par with cigarette company "bad science" and that the courts MUST decide what is bad science.

So you can't call Judge Jones an activist Judge because he has in the light of evidence made the only decision he could what with the future implications for ....oh cancer sufferers.

Not to do so would have been the same as a Judge letting the cigarette companies off because it would have run the risk of upsetting the cigarette companies and being called an "activist Judge" by their supporters.

and again you said:

However, because --- as noted above --- irreducible complexity appears to be non-religious, it is not necessary to judge its scientific merits.

Well as you pointed out in one of your earlier posts because Behe coined the private term
"irreducible complexity" to hide his religious disparagement of modern biological empirical science as he was kind enough to point out on the witness stand at Dover you did not think he had done his own subjective term justice.

He simply stated that he did not need to update his knowledge on what he thought might be not explained by current peer reviewed papers because he had reached the conclusion that his religious belief explained the observed phenomenon. Much to his surprise, there was literally a mountain of published material on the subject that he simply (and conveniently) had ignored, and reduced his ignorance and his personal definition "irreducible complexity" to "bad science"

But if there is such a thing as "irreducible complexity" the opposite must be "reducible simplicity" that is to say a basic descriptive term for "Behe didn't find an answer(because of laziness?)"... and because Behe has already made his decision as to the cause, he had no need to pursue further scientific investigation; that is to say he decided he had no need to perform any further science and let his religious convictions dictate his conclusion"

How would that work for Bird Flu, Larry?

It's all in Behe's testimony which I'm sure you are familiar with.

Face it Larry you were beaten by a better, smarter, much more capable side, just like you were a 140 odd years ago, it just takes a little longer for some people to wake up to the fact that they are bad losers

Comment #91467 J Biggs the bigot wrote -- You seem to like Wikipedia a lot, lets see what they have to say.

from Wikipedia -- ``it is a `fact` that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the `theory` which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation."

It is not the business of the courts to fine-tune public-school courses. Anyway, it is possible to teach a good course in biology without ever mentioning the e-word.

It is when school districts are taken to court because their schools are breaking the law.

ID is creationism plain and simple, you can't observe, test, disprove a designer (God).

IC is not proof of ID and does not disprove evolution in the least.

Just because you "think" exaptation is far fetched doesn't mean it is. Go disprove that it happens using actual science rather than lame arguments about what you think.

That wasn't really the part I was objecting to, it was the stupid things your said about biology and evolution being small.

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

If you "never" use that argument then why do you say a government entity could use that argument?

--- because I was discussing a situation where the government entity is being sued.

That is such a cop out. Just admit you use that argument and quit being passive aggressive.

I don't like Wikipedia all the time --- this is one time I don't like it. Anyone can edit most Wikipedia articles, so it is inevitable that these articles will sometimes get screwed up. It is remarkable that they are usually as good as they are. Anyway, Wikipedia is also a nice source of references.

I don't like the term "intelligent design" because it implies the existence of a supernatural "designer"; I prefer the term "irreducible complexity" because the term and the concept make no mention of a "designer" or anything else that might be interpreted as being religious in nature.

Why don't you go prove that it happens? Exaptation can be neither proven nor disproved. What we do know is that in many cases exaptation would be extremely unlikely to occur by what we normally consider to be "natural" means.

I didn't say they are small --- I only said that they are relatively small

Wrong. Scientific "facts" are called scientific "laws," not scientific "theories."

There are theories of gravitation, but there is also a law of gravitation --- Newton's law of gravitation.

Thank you Stevaroni you put that very concisely and you are much more diplomatic than I am. It is disheartening to me that we have to explain such basic scientific terms to Larry.

Comment #91774 posted by k.e. on March 31, 2006 09:32 AM

In the lawsuits against the cigarette companies, it is necessary to judge the scientific merits of scientific findings that smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases.

Nice of you to agree with me that ID ``bad science`` is on par with cigarette company ``bad science`` and that the courts MUST decide what is bad science.

Well as you pointed out in one of your earlier posts because Behe coined the private term "irreducible complexity" to hide his religious disparagement of modern biological empirical science as he was kind enough to point out on the witness stand at Dover you did not think he had done his own subjective term justice.

Lenny Flank won't even accept the idea that I am an ID proponent.

...You are only making yourself look stupid.

In many of these discussions of irreducible complexity, all I hear is Behe, Behe, Behe. Behe said this and Behe said that

Um, who do you recommend instead.

Comment #92033 posted by `Rev Dr` Loony Flake on March 31, 2006 07:45 PM

Loony Flake won't even accept the idea that I am an ID proponent.

Don't flatter yourself, Larry. You'd care a lot less what I thought about you if you really understood how rarely I *do*. (shrug)

But really I just want to know how nutty you truly are.

Why don't you go prove that it happens? Exaptation can be neither proven nor disproved. What we do know is that in many cases exaptation would be extremely unlikely to occur by what we normally consider to be "natural" means.

In many of these discussions of irreducible complexity, all I hear is Behe, Behe, Behe. Behe said this and Behe said that

Um, who do you recommend instead.

First you told me, "You'd care a lot less what I thought about you if you really understood how rarely I *do* (shrug)," and now you are telling me that you want to know more about me. Strange.

Tell us about your "meteor theory", Larry. Does it have anything to do with flying saucers?

Just how nutty ARE you, Larry?

Comment #91976 posted by Stevaroni on March 31, 2006 05:27 PM As used in science, `theories` are a much higher, more powerful level of abstraction than laws. Laws in general tend to be simple predictive rules; `a dropped apple will move thusly...` This is good stuff, and very useful, but it only answers the how part of science, not the more important why.

Comment #91981 posted by J. Biggs on March 31, 2006 05:39 PM Thank you Stevaroni you put that very concisely and you are much more diplomatic than I am. It is disheartening to me that we have to explain such basic scientific terms to Larry.

So I assumed that your reason for believing that I am not a real ID'er is that you believe I am not a fundy.

It is disheartening to me that you do not recognize that what Stevaroni said was quite a bit different from what you originally said in Comment #90406: "For all practical purposes scientific 'theory' and scientific 'fact' are synonymous."

I can relate to this censorship. While I haven't been forced to not teach evolution, this past year it was mandated that ID be taught in mandatory Saturday classes at my school. (My school is a private school, although ostensibly nonreligious, so they can do this.) Furthermore, if they didn't pass these 4 4-hour sessions, they were required to return a 2nd time to pass it. The final mark on their transcript was "Science Paradaigms". I've got a problem with the use of the first word, as well as the plural there.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can't trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can't trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

Creationists' pressure-group tactics remind me of the supporters of Hanns Hoerbiger's Welteislehre (WEL or Cosmic Ice Theory).

This was a crackpot theory to the effect that much of the Solar System, including the Moon, is covered by ice, and that the Earth has had several previous moons, which have all spiraled in. The most recent moon's final days are remembered in end-of-the-world myths like Ragnarok and the Book of Revelation, while the capture of the Earth's current moon had sunk Atlantis.

Hoerbiger was convinced that his theories were rejected only because he was not a recognized astrophysicist. Counterevidence he dismissed as having been "faked" by "reactionary" astronomers, and this mining engineer would declare about some numbers not working out that "calculation can only lead you astray."

After World War I, the WEL's advocates used pressure-group tactics to get their theory accepted; they would heckle astronomers' meetings with "Out with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hoerbiger!" Who once wrote to a critic that "either you believe in me and learn, or you will be treated as the enemy." And as the Nazis became prominent, the Hoerbigerites attached themselves to Nazism, saying that Hoerbiger was like Hitler, an Austrian "amateur" who got those pesky Jews out of the way.

Some leading Nazis became supporters of the WEL, and Nazi officialdom eventually had to state that one could be a good Nazi without believing in that theory.

Some WEL supporters stayed in business after World War II, though they have no Internet presence known to me as far as I've been able to discover.

I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not. After I spent a long time teaching them what a theory and a hypothesis is, they are coming back in to my classroom repeating the classic common definition that they learned in the Saturday school. They are saying nothing can be certain in science because it is only opinions, and they can't trust it. My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

The twentytwo lawsuits which I have brought against the Federal Government have given me an expertise in the American legal system surely surpassing that of any lawyer, and I can confidently tell you without reading it that Judge Jones' ruling is completely illegitimate and will be shortly overturned. If you do a global search, you will see that Judge Jones' ruling contained the word 'the' over 1,200 times -- the same number as found in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, a book about communism, and the same number as found in the closing arguments of murderer OJ Simpson's fourteen lawyers, who, by the way, probably demanded inexcusably high hourly fees throughout the trial, a fact which Judge Jones failed to address even once in his supposedly exhaustive indictment of Intelligent Design. (So much for Judge Jones being a responsible pulic servant.) And all this was done on the taxpayers' dime. The good people of Pennsylvania surely deserve better.

I am also disturbed by the shameful cowardice of the Ohio Board of Education. I heard something to the effect that the government hired well over a hundred attorneys, all of them probably charging inexcusably large hourly fees. Why was this necessary? The forces of the Darwinists should certainly have needed no more than one lawyer, preferably working voir dire, which I'm pretty sure is a real legal term that real (overpaid) lawyers use, meaning 'to work for free'. Why were the Darwinists lawyers not willing to work voir dire in Ohio? Didn't they think their cause was important enough? This is something none of the evolutionists will talk about, no matter how much they may crow about their so-called victory in Pennsylvania. I find this hypocrisy appalling.

Ever since their little 'victory' against ID in Dover, Darwinists have been trying to give the false impression that all criticisms of Darwinism are ID. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many criticisms of Darwinism in fact are Creationist, and since Intelligent Design and Creationism have nothing in common, this proves that criticism of the standard totalitarian Darwinist orthodoxy comes from all corners of scientific endeavor.

Another piece of evidence why the Dover ruling was completely illegitimate was the number of lawyers involved. I think I read somewhere that the evolutionists hired upwards of 28 attorneys, while the school district probably hired far fewer, let's say 8 just for the sake of argument. However, a cold hard revisionist analysis of the facts will surely show that 28 attorneys were certainly not enough to defeat the 8 attorneys dedicated to the promulgation of free speech. How would the Darwinist attorneys be able to recognize the attorneys for the school district? How would they know where to find them, in order to round them up? How would they know where they lived? The logistics clearly could not be made to work, as any unbiased observer would have to agree. So therefore it is inescapable that in fact the defeat of intelligent design was in fact far smaller than Darwinists like to claim, or indeed, I daresay it is entirely possible that the Dover trial in fact did not take place at all.

yup, that about sums up my name is legion's arguments alrighty.

lol.

Comment #92680 posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on April 1, 2006 04:27 PM I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not....... My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

there you go again larry, proving to us that you are the master of making yourself look stupid.

congrats on finally making something of yourself.

students all over are starting to question evolution theory.

I am a degreed mechanical engineer and the only scientific theories that I ever studied were atomic theory and some theories of stress failure.

Comment #92680 posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on April 1, 2006 04:27 PM I have found the students repeatedly coming into class confused as to what to believe, as the director of the school is teaching them ID, and their science teacher (me) is not....... My only recourse has been to declare my intent not to return next year, for I find the environment here does not allow for science instruction.

Hey, 'Jubal', you're repeating yourself. You posted that same message twice.

Comment #92814 posted by Arden Chatfield on April 1, 2006 08:42 PM Hey, 'Jubal', you're repeating yourself. You posted that same message twice.

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Comment #92832 posted by Arden Chatfield on April 1, 2006 09:17 PM

Seriously, though, stop asking people to delete my posts. That is very rude. You would not like it if someone did it to you.

Larry, they are not deleting your messages because we tell them to, they are deleting them because you have been banned from here, remember???

And threatening to post under my name is not going to get you sympathy points, genius.

Posted by J Simes on April 2, 2006 04:00 AM (e) ... I am not seeking sympathy. I am just seeking relief from all this damn banning and deleting. PT should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award. That is all there is to it.

I am just seeking relief from all this damn banning and deleting.

You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

Don't bullshit me. When a PT staffer deleted my posts on another thread, you invited him to come here and delete my posts on this thread (which ironically is a thread that condemns censorship).

PT should either stop persecuting anti-Darwinist commenters or turn in its Scientific American magazine web award. That is all there is to it.

You could use AC circuit analysis as an analogy. You could point out to the students that electrical engineers use complex-plane vectors (impedance vectors and rotating phasors) in the analysis of AC circuits, even though the engineers know that these vectors bear no direct physical relationship to the AC circuits.

Comment #93158 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 2, 2006 11:18 AM I am one of those electrical engineers who uses complex-plane vectors on a daily basis in designing AC circuits (specifically, for large manufacturing plants and municipal power distribution), and the vectors do indeed bear a direct physical relationship to the AC circuit response. Rotating machinery theory (this is a senior or graduate level course) even explains why the phasors are directly related to the AC response.

Because Larry's (Fundy) brain

The voltages and currents in the circuit are just the real components of the rotating phasor vectors.

Comment #93299 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on April 2, 2006 06:02 PM

The voltages and currents in the circuit are just the real components of the rotating phasor vectors.

That is a false statement. The voltages and currents in the circuits are the magnitudes and phase angles of the rotating phasor vectors, as is the complex power. It is the "real" power (power available to do work) that is the real component of the resultant phasors, and the reactive power is the imaginary component of the resultant phasors. You are out of your league on this topic. Your opinion is in fact wrong, not merely different from mine.

Almost anyone who has had to work with AC circuits will immediately see the advantage of using complex math in the analysis.

Almost anyone who has had to work with rotating machinery will immediately understand why phasors do in fact bear a direct physical relationship with the AC circuits being described.

Larry simply can not help himself. He even insists on arguing with people who are experts in their respective fields, telling them they are wrong about esoteric research they have done. Well, being that I also have a degree in EE, I must concur with W. Kevin Vicklund. I took courses called Advanced Circuit Analysis I and II, the second course dealt specifically with A.C circuits. We also had labs where we designed, built and tested A.C. circuitry and guess what; one could observe the relationships Larry says don't exist using an oscilloscope and other circuit testing equipment. A requirement of the course was that the student recognize the relationship between theory and what he/she observed. I had the second highest grade in this class (A.C.A II) and was one of two people who got an A. While my knowledge of E.E. is certainly not up to Mr. Vicklund's, I can recognize who is right and who is wrong. Larry is a dilettante who thinks he knows about these things but he doesn't. Goodbye Larry, I hope to never hear from you again.