Michigan backs teaching evolution in science class

It would seem that the only avenue left for IDeists is to focus completely on "critical analysis" and ignore the phrase "Intelligent Design".

They've been trying that ever since Dover. They just fail to understand that science is already critical and that evolution has stood up to "critical analysis" for a century and a half. Let the bozo's carry on.

If I see that last sentence in another quote by someone supposedly "qualified" to criticize evolution, I may projectile vomit (then attack the person in a fit of insanity).

I say before ANYONE thinks of adding to evolution, we critically analyse ID first. How many of you are with me?

I say before ANYONE thinks of adding to evolution, we critically analyse ID first. How many of you are with me?

Intelligent Design has as much place in a science class as does alchemy. There is a clear distinction between verifiable/falsifiable intellectual honesty ... and silly superstitions ardently defended only by the ignorant --- and those who would rather see the ignorant remain so.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that universal gravitation is. The effects are undeniable; the force is real; the facts are inarguable. What is theoretical is some of the mechanism that results in the effect.

Arguing that this itself calls evolution into question is similar to arguing that a belief the world is flat invalidates its sphericity, that the ancient Greek belief that the sun was Apollo's chariot somehow negated the reality of a heliocentric solar system.

These damned fools must be shamed into silence, and treating IDiots as though they "deserve" to have a hearing in science classes only elevates their inanity to a level that it has not earned.

Science is not democratic.

I fully agree with Richard Simmons. ID SHOULD be taught in science class! The problem is, to be taught properly, it would be flayed and dissected as an excellent example of pseudoscience -- something that would throw Johnston, Luskin, Behe and Dembski into apoplectic fits. In fact, I have used ID and creation science material in graduate seminars to teach the philosophy of science. It seems to work quite well, because the stuff is so obviously bad that it highlights what constitutes real science. *sigh* If only Mr. Thompson could understand what a pathetic joke ID really is.

Unfortunately, very few people in the K-12 business are qualified to teach ID for what it is. Moreover, most high school students are not really prepared with a background that lets them see through the bullshit. It would be sort of like teaching classical French literature to first year French students still struggling with the conjugation of avoir. The IDiots, knowing this full well, will never stop at trying to force this crap into public schools. They may as well be pushing for legislation to teach homeopathy and faith healing at Johns Hopkins medical school. They're like bullies. They pick on the ignorant and deluded, selling snake oil and miracle cures, and totally avoid dealing with real scientists who know what this crap is all about. Kudos to the school board! Realizing that this is the situation, they have done what's right -- keep the predators away from the prey.

What the clowns in the DI or TMLC don't get (or conveniently neglect to mention) is that evolutionary theory is critically evaluated every time a new fossil is found or a biological experiment is done in the lab.

And by the way, why is an organization that "defends the religious freedom of Christians" getting involved in a "scientific" debate? After all, ID is "all about the science", isn't it?

Why doesn't the DI get involved with a theory of intelligently designed hurricanes or thunderstorms? After all, there must be plenty of "gaps" in current meteorological theory.

Richard Thompson, leader of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, said intelligent design should have a home in science classes. The center describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians.

It would seem that the only avenue left for IDeists is to focus completely on "critical analysis" and ignore the phrase "Intelligent Design".

I fully agree with Richard Simmons. ID SHOULD be taught in science class! The problem is, to be taught properly, it would be flayed and dissected as an excellent example of pseudoscience --- something that would throw Johnston, Luskin, Behe and Dembski into apoplectic fits.

— mplavcan

Many thanks to Robert Pennock and the Michigan Citizens for Science for staying on top of this and informing the Board of Education and legislators about the history of this ploy. This history shows that evolution is alive and well in the creationist/ID movement, and we can only anticipate more virulent strains of this meme brain disease in the future.

what more needs be said?

— Sir_Toejam

How to teach ID in the (university) class room:

Day 1. Let students write half a page on what they think explains the biological diversity on earth. (whether ID, creationism, evolution, extra-terestial, etc)
Day 2. Teach scientific method. Homework: Let students write half a page to the day 1 page on how they would test that idea, and if they can not test it, why not.
Day 3. Discuss.
Day 4 and on, teach evolution.

I disagree with the notion that teaching ID for what it is would necessarily target a Christian religious idea. If they want to play science, we can play science. As long as they are insisting that these are only scientific hypotheses, we can treat them as such (heh heh heh....).

Fails to meet the criterion of a scientific hypothesis? Good, chuck it out. Example: "God did it." Answer: not a scientific hypothesis because it is not falsifiable. Not appropriate to be addressed in a science class.

Makes a testable prediction? Good, test it. Example: The earth is 6000 years old. Answer: False on the basis of multitudinous radiometric and other tests, and a lack of consistency with multitudinous geological and paleontological observations. Absolutely zero empirical evidence in favor of such a date. Technical critiques of radiometric dating are false or irrelevant. Any conflict of these results with personal religious viewpoints is not the subject for this class.

Makes a claim about fact? Fine, check to see if the claim is true. Example: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. Answer: false. Explicit analogues exist for flagellar subunits, and the claim rests on the demonstrably false assumption that proteins cannot have multiple functions, or vary in the efficiency of their functions.

See? No religion required! Conversely, religion IS required to claim that ID or creationism belongs in a science classroom as a viable "alternative" to evolution. This is because the claims are scientifically bankrupt or demonstrably false, thereby requiring faith to maintain them in the face of contradictory evidence. To paraphrase what Behe himself has said (under oath), one's acceptance of ID as science is contingent on one's faith in God.

Of course, they would try to sue, but wouldn't that be fun to see the tables reversed?

I say before ANYONE thinks of adding to evolution, we critically analyse ID first. How many of you are with me?

I will be particularly interested in how this plays out in the gubernatorial race. If Granholm wins then we all win.

Teachers are going to be up against it when this book is released:

http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-261

I disagree with the notion that teaching ID for what it is would necessarily target a Christian religious idea. If they want to play science, we can play science. As long as they are insisting that these are only scientific hypotheses, we can treat them as such (heh heh heh....).

— mplavcan

Anton wrote: It seems to me, too, that most of the more testable creationist claims can already be discussed in the context of history of science. Age of the Earth, for example---no need to mention modern creationists, just talk about Lyell, Kelvin, etc., the evidence for each alternative and which one turned out to be right. If a student then asks whether modern creationists have any better evidence, then great, discuss; but hopefully most will be able to apply the info to their personal beliefs as necessary in their own heads.

I've seen at least 4 and a half creationists abandon strict literalism when faced with evidence *and* theological arguments that literalism was unsound.

So, yes, you can argue with them, just not with evidence alone.

And, so far, without a huge success rate.

What creationists will say Anton is: "Evolutionists and creationists both have the same evidence available. It's just a matter of how you interpret it. When you look at the facts through biblical glasses you'll see that there's a lot of evidence for creation and a young Earth".

— Peter Henderson

When I suggested a lesson plan for teaching ID, I wasn't thinking that this would actually be given to a class, rather that it would be used like a 2 by 4 to get the attention of board members etc who might otherwise be inclined to give 'fair time' to ID, and perhaps to draw out from ID supporters just what they would want to offer in a class.

According to the Bible, the water for Noah's Flood was first released when the "fountains of the great deep burst forth" (Genesis 7:11). Imagine volcanoes many times more powerful than Mt. St. Helens, going off all over the world at the same time. That may help you begin to imagine catastrophe on a Biblical scale! And it's catastrophe on that Biblical scale that science needs to explain many of the physical features of our earth, such as the Grand Canyon

Re "I've seen at least 4 and a half creationists [...]"

What good is half a creationist? ;)

Ummm, what use is a WHOLE creationist????

The half-a-creationist refers to one who was only convinced to drop YEC for OEC.

It's an improvement!

I must point out that while I've been debating online for seven years and only seen 4.5 converts to EVILution, I've seen no converts to creationism. There may be a reason for that.

I am, of course, being quite biased in my sampling. I am ignoring, for example, one whose very first post was "You're so right! I'm not going to believe in evolution anymore!" I'm ignoring this because:

A) The individual had no previous posting history to suggest she was actually an EVILutionist.

B) the "You're so right" bit referred to a post that totally failed to actually address creationism or EVILution (it was just a description of how much people suffered during crucifixion). As such, it's not like any evidence was involved.

C) The individual quickly proved to be just another sock puppet of a creationist we came to know as The Collective for his habit of creating dozens of identities and having conversations with himself (while forgetting which signature to put on which email address).

(Highpoint of The Collective's career: arguing that the existence of bats with "imperfect" radar didn't show that bats with imperfect radar could exist.)

When I suggested a lesson plan for teaching ID, I wasn't thinking that this would actually be given to a class, rather that it would be used like a 2 by 4 to get the attention of board members etc who might otherwise be inclined to give 'fair time' to ID, and perhaps to draw out from ID supporters just what they would want to offer in a class.

— Richard Simons

Didn't Judge Jones take careful note in his decision that the wording of the disallowed statement recommended 'critical analysis' for evolution, but conspicuously avoided such analysis for the proposed alternative? Aren't these statements (including the Santorum wording) crafted by a lawyer?

Didn't Judge Jones take careful note in his decision that the wording of the disallowed statement recommended 'critical analysis' for evolution, but conspicuously avoided such analysis for the proposed alternative? Aren't these statements (including the Santorum wording) crafted by a lawyer?

— Flint

The Ohio lesson plans in question, some of which you can get to from the Ohio Citizens for Science site, appear to have been crafted by monkeys.

— Anton Mates

My father-in-law is a professor at Penn State in the Anthropology and he uses ID regularly in the gen ed Physical Anthro/Evolution class. It's beautifully systematic to move through stuff like junk DNA and say, (paraphrase) "Intelligent designer? I don't think so. Look at all of this crap..." And on and on and on through the litany of poorly or mediocrely "designed parts" of existing species.

The link that Anton provided is to a page at the old site for Ohio Citizens for Science. The pages are still available there, but are no longer updated. Try this page at www.ohioscience.org to get a copy of the lesson plan that was deleted in February.

— Brian McEnnis

) My father-in-law is a professor at Penn State in the Anthropology and he uses ID regularly in the gen ed Physical Anthro/Evolution class. It's beautifully systematic to move through stuff like junk DNA and say, (paraphrase) "Intelligent designer? I don't think so. Look at all of this crap..."

— Peter

Great Anton, then you could call it the theory of "Vindictive Design". It's a more appropriate acronym anyway.

The Ohio lesson plans in question, some of which you can get to from the Ohio Citizens for Science site, appear to have been crafted by monkeys.

— Anton Mates