"Shocking" revelations

It's moments like these that I'm glad to now be living in the great state of Massachusetts where, while we can't afford to let our guard down, I can't foresee someone like McElroy occupying any position not involving a pulpit. With all the bad news about people of McElroy's ilk out there these days, it really was nice to find a good story about my new home state. I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy and ready to support independence for Texas whenever it wants it.

I just read the transcript of McLeroy's talk. If he is successful in getting Explore Evolution selected as a biology textbook in Texas, I expect this transcript will be the ACLU's Exhibit One. Thank goodness these people tell the truth about their beliefs when they are amongst friends!

Nuff said... Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a 'friendly' audience. I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings

Logan Gage has a post up on DI's website whining that ID could in no way be linked to creationism.

DI reminds me of the output of Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda machine during WWII:
"When you tell a lie, don't tell a little white lie. Tell a big red lie, and tell it over and over and. . . ."

this moron has never even bothered to read Judge Jones's decision

The taxonomy of creationists is about as confused as the "baraminology" is.

And it's for roughly the same reason, there is nothing that can decide what the "truth" is in their schemata. The only thing they can all rally around is their hatred of science, at least when it goes against their holy beliefs. The latter can cause either splitting or joining, depending on how much they recognize the need to unite for political power.

I mean, you have hyper-evolution coming out of the YECs, and God reduced to an evolutionary mechanism for Behe. They don't know anything about science (I suppose Behe knows biochemistry, but not enough about evolution even to know what data to address), they don't know much about theology, they just know that they hate "materialism" and anything that agrees with science's verdict on the origins of organisms.

The good thing is that sectarianism would immediately destroy the big tent if science were destroyed, as they have nothing of substance to back up either their "science" or their theology. The bad thing is that if science were destroyed there would be nothing other than sectarian fights.

Science exists to transcend mere belief by according with the evidence, and that is the only thing that all of these pathetic science haters have to unite them.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

A certain bad astronomer has blogged about this . . .

His verdict? Texas: Doomed!

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/09/texas-really-really-doomed/

This is a very important document - good for whoever took the time to make the complete transcript. We had some similar episodes in Kansas where we got audio or video of creationist leaders speaking frankly in friendly audiences and saying things antithetical to their public stance that "it's just about science, not religion."

I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings :-)

There's a covert shell game going on here. Christians like Leroy put their emphasis on the Old Testament mainly so that they can't be held to the standards of the New. In other words, they don't want you to know that they are bad Christians when it comes to issues such as wealth. So they jump up and down on their Bibles to divert your attention from their extravagant, materialist lifestyles and barbarism.

The price that we pay is lousy science education, for one thing.

Don't worry. We are ready for any antics he might pull now that he is chairman of the state board of education in Texas. It will be interesting to see what tact the creationists take after Dover. I am sure it will sound reasonable to the scientifically challenged.

The way to respond to this is to get working to get this a$$hole off the school board, along with any other creationists who promote their pseudoscience publicly.

When is the next election? What is the structure of school board elections? Do they have primaries? A primary challenge by a science-respecting citizen would be a cheap and easy way to deal with this.

Wow, listening to that thing was a real jump through the looking glass. Amazing.

Interesting that the press release uses the phrase "sound science education". My impression is that "sound science" is a code-word frequently used by the anti-science proponents. Look how the term has been used for example by global warming deniers.

I read as much of McLeroy as my head could stand from the links, not much.

He is a babbling idiot and a Kook. QED.

In a deposition or courtroom he isn't going to come across any better than in his transcripts and writings.

Looks like this is headed to federal court. McLeroy was appointed by the governor who was elected by the people of Texas. Seems to be a race to the bottom among some states. Kansas and Texas are in the lead with a second tier close behind.

In Texas, the state board of education members are elected. There are 15 districts in Texas. McElroy is from College Station, the folks in that area like him, he would be tough to beat in an election. This talk was made before Dover. Our state science standards are coming up for revision. His initial comments were that he did not see the need to change how evolution is addressed. We will see if that really happens on his part.

If you live in Texas make sure you write Rick Perry about it (don't know if it'll do any good but maybe). I grew up there and I'm not there now but I certainly plan on sending him a little note.

WOW this is terrible for the students in Texas.

I'm a Christian. Mostly I'm a liberal one, and a theistic evolutionist. So I've heard the "you're not a true Christian" line before. I've never been quite impressed with it. Christian salvation is not based on works or beliefs. Once you get into that category you end up asking what specific denomination will be saved. I also found this specific quote interesting:

We can tolerate a lot, but they can't tolerate anything.

Apparently everything but the evidence.

Bad Astronomy Blog: When I posted about Don McLeroy, a creationist who the Texas governor just appointed to head the State Board of Education,...

Perry was Bush's choice to succeed him as governor. In the last election, Perry only received 40 % of the votes. It would not do much good to write Perry. The people we have to watch out for on the state board are the other far right members. They will do things covertly when the science standards revision occurs. I will watch out for the phrase "sound science education" that probably is one of their code words.

Election to the Texas State Board of Education is consistently the least paid attention to of all election races. Those who would not agree with McLeroy's brand of extremism never vote against him because they don't pay attention to the race.

I am not arguing that we could defeat him anyhow given the political climate in Texas. You really should internet search the platform of the Republican Party in Texas. It is unbelievable, and I suspect an embarrassment to republicans who are not social right idealogues - if there are any.

McElroy is from College Station, the folks in that area like him...

Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a 'friendly' audience.

Election to the Texas State Board of Education is consistently the least paid attention to of all election races. Those who would not agree with McLeroy's brand of extremism never vote against him because they don't pay attention to the race.

I am not arguing that we could defeat him anyhow given the political climate in Texas. You really should internet search the platform of the Republican Party in Texas. It is unbelievable, and I suspect an embarrassment to republicans who are not social right idealogues - if there are any.

This is the book of the Bible to develop your mental skills.

Quoth the raven, in comment #194750

"The republican party platform in Texas is pure Xian dominionist/reconstructionist."

The latest version is at http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/Platform_Updated.pdf?docID=2001. Here are a few excerpts:

"America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles."

"We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength as a nation. We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state. ... The church is a God-ordained institution with authority separate from government."

"We oppose any restrictions by the IRS or any other government rules on taxpayer contributions to faith-based charities." - but on the other hand: "We urge that the IRS be abolished and the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution be repealed."

"We understand that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols."

"We support the immediate adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States of America."

"We urge Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation."

No specific mention of evolution or biology.

But see also http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm and http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/gop2004/.

I feel I must remind evolutionists of the certainty of belief in the knowledge of the facts that were once held without doubt by the world's leading scientists.

no such thing as little critters that can't be seen that cause disease and death

the human body can't withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour

all existence consists of 4 elements : earth, wind, water, and fire

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can't fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can't fly so it just continues to fly.

I am a creationist and from the above ravings of main stream science you may get an idea of why I distain your current ravings. I have two recent items to contribute for your edification:

1) a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper which stated that evidence has been found which shows dino-type critters walking arround the same time as their supposed ancestors and descendants.

2) when particle creation occurs there are times when both the particle and its anti-particle are created. According to a discussion by Feyman (sp?) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle traveling back in time. The big three characterists Charge, Parity, and Time are unbroken by this observation and in fact are the idea behind it.

Based on item 2 above perhaps you may forgive me if I remain open to the possibility that at creation time both matter and anti-matter were created, whereas some of the anti-matter was actually normal matter traveling back in time - I can see an imbalance in the presently observed matter and anti-matter quantity resulting and I can also see that since some matter such as neutrinos which oscillate between electron, mu, and tau on their journey from the sun to the earth other type or similar reactions may occur during the back travel in time, especially since time began with creation and some particles are traveling back beyond the time of creation. Briefly, what is claimed to be 12 billion years old may just be the result of anti-particles which traveled back in time and through yet as unknown processes or decays collapsed into or formed standard matter.

You see I am opened to new discoveries in science but you guys are forever locked into your claims of the universe being 12 billion years old regardless of what future since discovers. You are repeating the rants of those world class mainstream scientists that we kind a laugh about these days.

Bill

McLeroy quoting Johnson said: "Eventually the answer to our prime question becomes too obvious to be in doubt. When philosophy conflicts with evidence, real scientists will follow the evidence."

"First thing, you point out the dependency of evolution on naturalism. The only proper way to address the naturalist is to challenge the elements of their naturalism."

Bill Cavico wrote: I feel I must remind evolutionists of the certainty of belief in the knowledge of the facts that were once held without doubt by the world's leading scientists. no such thing as little critters that can't be seen that cause disease and death the human body can't withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour all existence consists of 4 elements : earth, wind, water, and fire it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can't fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can't fly so it just continues to fly.

harold: I am honestly shocked by the idea that a state like Texas, a diverse state with some of the very top research universities in the country, is somehow implicitly a write-off to creationists. It's nuts. This site exists because we FIGHT BACK.

From the Texas Education Agency website:

"Discussion of Process for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills Review

July 19, 2007

FUTURE ACTION EXPECTED: The process for review of the science TEKS is scheduled to begin in the fall 2007. Proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 112, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, are scheduled to be presented to the SBOE in 2008."

It looks like we will not know of any future changes to the science standards until 2008.

no such thing as little critters that can't be seen that cause disease and death the human body can't withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour all existence consists of 4 elements : earth, wind, water, and fire

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can't fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can't fly so it just continues to fly.

I am a creationist and from the above ravings of main stream science you may get an idea of why I distain your current ravings. I have two recent items to contribute for your edification:

1) a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper which stated that evidence has been found which shows dino-type critters walking arround the same time as their supposed ancestors and descendants.

J Biggs writes... Secondly, it was scientists that discovered all of these views to be false.

You are repeating the rants of those world class mainstream scientists that we kind a laugh about these days.

Someone asked earlier when Mcleroy's term expired...2009. The process of revising the science standards in Texas has not yet begun. I am sure the creationists will try and interject their beliefs, the last time that occurred was during the biology textbook adoption process. Despite bringing in the DI and others, they failed, that was the biggest defeat for DI until Dover. But we appreciate any national support that we can get for science.

As for an earlier post about a "newspaper" article providing information, that is a pretty high level source compared to what they normally bring in as "evidence". No amount of facts will ever convince that group, they cannot distinguish between science and religion, as evidenced by the many statements regarding "believing" in evolution.

Hey we are not stuck on the universe being 12 billion years old, it's 13.7 billion!!!

Bill Cavico wrote: 1) a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper which stated that evidence has been found which shows dino-type critters walking arround the same time as their supposed ancestors and descendants.

2) when particle creation occurs there are times when both the particle and its anti-particle are created. According to a discussion by Feyman (sp?) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle traveling back in time. The big three characterists Charge, Parity, and Time are unbroken by this observation and in fact are the idea behind it.

Based on item 2 above perhaps you may forgive me if I remain open to the possibility that at creation time both matter and anti-matter were created, whereas some of the anti-matter was actually normal matter traveling back in time - I can see an imbalance in the presently observed matter and anti-matter quantity resulting and I can also see that since some matter such as neutrinos which oscillate between electron, mu, and tau on their journey from the sun to the earth other type or similar reactions may occur during the back travel in time, especially since time began with creation and some particles are traveling back beyond the time of creation. Briefly, what is claimed to be 12 billion years old may just be the result of anti-particles which traveled back in time and through yet as unknown processes or decays collapsed into or formed standard matter.

You see I am opened to new discoveries in science but you guys are forever locked into your claims of the universe being 12 billion years old regardless of what future since discovers. You are repeating the rants of those world class mainstream scientists that we kind a laugh about these days.

(The High Point Church of Arlington) canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Officials ... knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, ... But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, it was called off.

stevaroni wrote: I'd rewrite the line to read "It was people who carefully examined the evidence that discovered all of these views to be false."

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can't fly - however the critter is too dumb to know that it can't fly so it just continues to fly.

Fossils show dinosaurs rose gradually: study Fri Jul 20, 12:08 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Fossils found in the United States show dinosaurs lived along side their ancestors for tens of millions of years, disproving long-held theories assuming they quickly replaced their predecessors, according to a new study. Dinosaurs appeared at the end of the Triassic period about 235 to 200 million years ago and came to dominate the planet during the Jurassic period about 200 to 120 million years ago. "Up to now, paleontologists have thought that dinosaur precursors disappeared long before the dinosaurs appeared, that their ancestors probably were out-competed and replaced by dinosaurs and didn't survive," said Kevin Padian, professor of integrative biology at the University of Calfornia at Berkeley and one of authors of the study. "Now, the evidence shows that they may have coexisted for 15 or 20 million years or more," said Padian, whose findings were published in Friday's edition of the journal Science. The study was based on an analysis of fossils discovered in the desert of New Mexico at the Hayden Quarry by a team of paleontologists from the UC Berkeley, the American Museum of Natural History and The Field Museum in Chicago. The bones reveal anatomical information that sheds light on the evolution of dinosaur ancestors, the study said. The newly discovered fossil, some 235 million years old, is a dinosaur predecessor called Dromomeron romeri. Lead authors Randall Irmis and Sterling Nesbitt of the University of California and New York's American Museum respectively, said the new fossils shed light on anatomical evolution in dinosaurs' ancestors, their transition into dinosaurs and the ways in which dinosaurs diversified. "Finding dinosaur precursors ... together with dinosaurs tells us something about the pace of changeover," said Irmis. "If there was any competition between the precursors and the dinosaurs, then it was a very prolonged competition." An alternative hypothesis was that the sudden extinction of many animal species at the end of the Triassic period helped dinosaurs diversify and dominate around the world. But the new findings of New Meico fossils show "quite a few of the groups...[continues]

You Texans might want to save Bill Cavico's blog entry for evidence when you're fighting the creationists over scholastic standards. It's an excellent example of why America desperately needs better science education.

You Texans might want to save Bill Cavico's blog entry for evidence when you're fighting the creationists over scholastic standards. It's an excellent example of why America desperately needs better science education.

I am a Christian, and a fairly conservative one at that. (Admittedly, I should admit that many Christians don't consider my denomination to be as Christian as theirs - but then their definitions are flawed.) As such, I can understand to some degree how this mindset works. But understanding something, and not being terrified of it, are quite different things. It is . . . nice to be told that my belief that Jesus is my savior, is less relevant to my salvation* than to insist that writings that I consider spiritual in nature anyways, are to be considered more important than actual observations.

*Not that I am saying non-Christians can't be saved, of course.

"You Texans might want to save Bill Cavico's blog entry for evidence when you're fighting the creationists over scholastic standards. It's an excellent example of why America desperately needs better science education."

You mean that was for real??!?
I thought it was a joke! It wasn't even subtle!

No specific mention of evolution or biology.

Theories of Origin --- We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory.

"You Texans might want to save Bill Cavico's blog entry for evidence when you're fighting the creationists over scholastic standards. It's an excellent example of why America desperately needs better science education."

I will add it to the arsenal !!!!

Wesley R. Elsberry said

"I followed your link and found this bit... "Texas GOP Platform: Theories of Origin --- We support the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories, including Intelligent Design. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as scientific theory not scientific law; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory." This is all standard DI-style boilerplate antievolution, with nods to Wendell Bird's approach to getting "creation science" into classrooms."

Good catch - I surfed the 31-page document too lightly and missed that. (blush)

Yet he described theistic evolution --- which is opposed to naturalism --- as "a very poor option," continuing, "no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it."

I wonder how the many Christians who disagree with McLeroy feel about this?

One only has to look at the Answers in Genesis website to see countless article written about theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and even those who embrace intelligent design, to see this kind of opinion.

— Peter Henderson

Yet he described theistic evolution --- which is opposed to naturalism --- as "a very poor option," continuing, "no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it."

Do you have to believe in a literal Creation to be a Christian? The short answer is 'No'. The long answer is 'No, but ...'.

Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.

Frank: Does the above not sound familiar ? :

— Peter Henderson

YEC organizations don't explicitly reject heliocentrism, but you can find them making excuses for holding geocentrism. Explicitly adopting geocentrism knowing what we know now would just make them look silly, but if ever they thought that would change, you'd see them saying that they knew heliocentrism was wrong all along.

Re Bill Cavico

Mr. Cavico is an example of the old saw that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As an example, in his discussion of C (charge conjugation), T (Time reversal) and P (parity) he has joined the totally wrong club. The fact of the matter is that all three of these transformations are violated by the weak interactions. It is the product of the three that is conserved (i.e. the conservation law is CPT). Furthermore, the concept that positrons travel backwards in time is an artifact. An electron/positron pair is created when a photon knocks a virtual electron out of the quantum vacuum. The hole left behind in the vacuum manifests itself as the positron.

Can we expect anything else from the Lone Brain State?

I must remind evolutionists

the human body can't withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour

it was either the humming bird or the bumble bee that science proved can't fly

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread. It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke. [Bold added.]

a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper

According to a discussion by Feyman (sp?) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle traveling back in time. The big three characterists Charge, Parity, and Time are unbroken by this observation and in fact are the idea behind it.

locked into your claims of the universe being 12 billion years old

The current estimate is 13.7 +/- 2 Gyr, not 12.

Bill Cavice:

Another thought. Did you notice how a bee myth have changed into a bumble bee myth?

Probably because bumble bees look awkward, especially since they can fly in lower temperature than other insects due to insulation and mass - they can keep their flight muscle core temperature high enough at a lower surrounding temperature. But AFAIK the rest of the body, especially the sensory antenna and legs may be a bit "frozen stiff". Hardy beasts in any case.

But it could also simply be bee-cause ... if a bee can't fly like a plane, then a presumably heavier insect is even more assured not to do so at the approximate same velocity and wing area. (Or rather, simply because they are bigger and presumably heavier - the myths should fool ignorants, remember?) Myth inflation, just like then the "finger in the chain in the car door" becomes first a hand and then an arm to ensure that it is really gross...

the human body can't withstand an acceleration greater than 15 miles per hour

I just read the transcript of McLeroy's talk. If he is successful in getting Explore Evolution selected as a biology textbook in Texas, I expect this transcript will be the ACLU's Exhibit One. Thank goodness these people tell the truth about their beliefs when they are amongst friends!

4. Rewriting the history of DI's involvement with Dover. DI opposed Dover's policy at every stage of the process, and Irons's contrary suggestions are false.15 The DI's position in Dover was consistent with its publicly stated science education policy, 16 and with its recommendations in Ohio in 200217 and 2004,18 and in Wisconsin in 2004,19 where DI also opposed mandates of ID. Irons's only source for rewriting history is a statement of a Dover board member whom Judge Jones said "testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath" and is therefore "not credible."20

Peter Henderson: The very fact that this politicion has been appointed to this position is the symptom of the disease in the church that seems to be sweeping across the US. i.e. that of the evangelical church embracing YECism.

Bill Cavico said: I am a creationist and from the above ravings of main stream science you may get an idea of why I distain your current ravings.

a recent science article summed up in my local newspaper which stated that evidence has been found which shows dino-type critters walking arround the same time as their supposed ancestors and descendants.

The question to ask is not whether there is evolution, there certainly is, but what is evolution?

"Evolution"

Is described by Webster dictionary as a "process of change by degrees." The operative word is "Change."

(noun) the Darwinian account of the origin of species
(synonym) Darwinism, evolutionism, natural selection
(related) selection

So we can, simply say that evolution is a process of change and/or adaptation. There is nothing as constant in the universe as change itself.

What is the one ingredient that s needed for a change to occur? In simplicity one needs something to change. With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur. This is where we run into a problem with evolution. If there is nothing, it cannot evolve. Now, to change that situation one would have to say that evolution is creative. To be creative, one needs intelligence. Is anyone ready to try to defend the position that evolution is intelligent?? I cannot.

What do you think?

Stevaroni quoted: (The High Point Church of Arlington) canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Ed said: What is the one ingredient that s needed for a change to occur? In simplicity one needs something to change. With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur. This is where we run into a problem with evolution.

Hmmmmm.....science avenger, we are in the same neck of the woods. Good to know allies are close by. We will have lots of folks ready if the creationists try their usual tactics when the revision of the state science standards begin.

...if the creationists try their usual tactics when the revision of the state science standards begin.

I feel I must remind evolutionists of the certainty of belief in the knowledge of the facts that were once held without doubt by the world's leading scientists.

What is the one ingredient that s needed for a change to occur? In simplicity one needs something to change. With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur. This is where we run into a problem with evolution. If there is nothing, it cannot evolve. Now, to change that situation one would have to say that evolution is creative. To be creative, one needs intelligence. Is anyone ready to try to defend the position that evolution is intelligent?? I cannot.

— Ed

Ed wrote:

"What is the one ingredient that is needed for a change to occur? In simplicity one needs something to change. With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur."

So then, by that logic, once there was at least one organism that was alive it would have to evolve. Assuming of course that the environment changed, which it obviously does. So then, the only problem is the origin of life and that is not evolution.

I think Ed's comments highlight a common confusion about science and language.
The Webster's definition of evolution can be different from the way the term is used by scientists. In fact Darwin himself was very reluctant to use the term evolution to describe his ideas about the development of life on earth because the term was already in use in the English language and Darwin understood it not to have the exact meaning he was after. In it's original use the term implied "improvement" as well as change and Darwin did not want that baggage attached to his theory.
I also think we're seeing another example here of a semantic rather than data-based argument. Quite useful in a philosophical debate, but irrelevant in a scientific discussion.

To be creative, one needs intelligence.

Re "Is evolution intelligent? Perhaps looking back in time one may get that impression but that may be very well an artifact. "

A better question might be is a gene pool intelligent. It experiments (mutations and recombination), and it retains a record of degree of success of the more successful of those experiments. Those are two of the properties normally associated with intelligence.

Of course, it also lacks some other properties that are associated with intelligence, such as foresight (i.e., simulating a result ahead of time to see if it should be tried or not), or combining major results from totally separate technologies when such would be useful.

So whether or not a gene pool as "intelligence" depends on the specific definition of "intelligence" that one is using at the time. But I don't know what definition of that word is intended by ID advocates, or whether they agree with each other on said definition. (I strongly suspect that they have no consensus on said definition.)

Henry

What is the point of being a crazed religious fanatic with political power if one doesn't use it? It is obvious that McLeroy could care less about public education but is passionately devoted to the Texas Theocratic party.

Not seeing that there is any "if" there. More like when. Count on it happening, in the dead of night with no advance warning if they can arrange it.

True Raven, we are on constant guard

(forced cheerful chirp)

Hello all....I can't wait to share this with my folks, one of whom is a graduate of Texas A&M (College Station) and both of whom live in Arlington. What a travesty.

On a slightly less depressing note, I know for a fact some of y'all are smarter than yours truly, and it amazes me that guys like you even bother to to answer the weirdly insipid post from Mr. Cavico.

Thorbear, I have met few people smarter than you, based on your many posts at PZ's place. Your erudition is completely wasted on this guy. Based on his post, even if he was inclined to listen, he wouldn't have enough education or intelligence to understand your points, in my judgement.

I will now take my run-on sentences and go lie down, afraid to dream about what's happening to science education in my parent's neck of the woods....SH

Ed.: "With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur. This is where we run into a problem with evolution. If there is nothing, it cannot evolve."

Ed, please, I'm begging you, for all our sakes. LOOK UP ABIOGENESIS. That's what you're describing. Not evolution. Abiogenesis.

(Jeez, if we could just get this one, little discussion point to evolve....)

Just three examples of how science does change when new discoveries come to light. I have no doubt that science will be completely different in 100 years time, and people will probably say "remember when we used to believe". Of course, if the YEC's have their way .......

— Peter Henderson

Nuff said... Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a 'friendly' audience. I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings :-)

. . . up until the 1960's astronomers thought lunar craters were volcanic in nature. Eugene Shoemaker was able to demonstrate that lunar craters where as a result of impacts. By the end of the decade all astronomers accepted Shoemaker's discovery as fact.

— Peter Henderson

What is the one ingredient that s needed for a change to occur? In simplicity one needs something to change.

— Ed

With the absence of something to change, neither evolution nor change can occur.

This is where we run into a problem with evolution.

If there is nothing, it cannot evolve.

Now, to change that situation one would have to say that evolution is creative.

To be creative, one needs intelligence.

Is anyone ready to try to defend the position that evolution is intelligent?? I cannot.

What do you think?

So we can, simply say that evolution is a process of change and/or adaptation. There is nothing as constant in the universe as change itself.

What is the one ingredient that s needed for a change to occur?

To be creative, one needs intelligence. Is anyone ready to try to defend the position that evolution is intelligent??

There are some threads here where someone took a definition of Dembski for "design" and proceeded to show that then evolution is also a theory of "design" and "intelligence".

— Torbjörn Larsson

Mr. McLeroy's statements to the effect that "theistic evolutionary beliefs" do not belong in the big tent (despite it being a really big tent) are transparently anti-Catholic bigotry. He is saying, "We must unite in our beliefs about intelligent design in order to have any chance of influencing public policy." Indeed, those who are allowed to enter the big tent must do so despite their own diverse and fractious beliefs. Were they to permit entry to Roman Catholics, they would not only have to appear to agree with people they (absurdly) deny are "true Christians" but they would also have to engage in dialogue that would quickly undermine their theories. Any parish priest could make short work of these morons. But their potential as a political--and therefore public--threat demands that they be vigorously contradicted.

Mr. McLeroy's statements to the effect that "theistic evolutionary beliefs" do not belong in the big tent (despite it being a really big tent) are transparently anti-Catholic bigotry.

Ben,

McLeroy would certainly make exceptions for Catholics like Michael Behe, and "kick out" any Protestant, however politically conservative, that criticizes any anti-evolution pseudoscience. The point about the big tent is that one can believe anything one wants, but there are only certain things that one is allowed to say to others. For example, it's OK to admit, as Behe did, common descent and only an unknown, possibly deceased designer --- things that would make a YEC faint 30 years ago --- as long as one criticizes "Darwinism." Yet Kenneth Miller, who freely speaks of the designer as God is unwelcome, not because of what he believes, but because he dares to criticize what these scam artists know is pseudoscience.

I think someone needs to raise the point that included in McElroy's big tent against evolution are the Muslim extremists. I'm sure they'll be welcomed by McElroy with open arms.

Science Avenger,

When I first heard of McLeroy I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was just another clueless rube. Then, I read some of his more recent sound bites, and conclude that he is in on the scam (though he needs some coaching to be more subtle). So he must know and approve that radical Muslims - most or all creationists who denounce evolution - are welcome in the big tent. And people like me who support the war on terrorism are not (not that I'd want to be of course).

Yet another irony of ID/creationism that is sadly underexploited.

us christians are not too fond of the ignorant anti-science crowd
as i personally believe that they will cause a lot of deaths if they get their ways

Logan Gage has a post up on DI's website whining that ID could in no way be linked to creationism.

— waldteufel

And specifically, I doubt that any scientist would mistake a velocity for an acceleration.

The trails linking ID to creationism are well documented. That ID attempts to hide the trails is understandable given the goals of ID.

ID == Stealth Creationism

and still scientifically vacuous.

Not that I am saying non-Christians can't be saved, of course.

Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution
These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory.
To me(as a Christian) this seems so obvious i can hardly believe the amount of energy people put into furthering the divide between both camps.
It would be so much better to spend this energy on more scientific research.

Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory.

— peerke

Peerke,

One camp spends all of its paid time and energy on scientific research, and a small amout of its own time and money fighting misrepresentation. The other camps (representing several diverse anti-evolution strategies) spend nearly all of their time and money on peddling pseudoscience. The few members that do conduct legitimate research have not even tried, let alone succeeded, in supporting the alternative science they peddle elsewhere.

That ID attempts to hide the trails is understandable given the goals of ID.

— PvM

Situations of relative acceleration can, in fact, be dangerous to human health. I don't think the mechanisms are all that well understood,

Wouldn't the most compelling bit of evidence against evolution be the creationists inability to come up with any new thoughts in several hundred years??? I thought the far right was anti-environment, and wouldn't recycle.

Peerke wrote:
"Evolution = Creation and Creation = Evolution
These two concepts are not in anyway contradictory."

What you're describing is a philosophical position called 'theistic evolution,' or the belief that God created the living world as we know it through the mechanism of evolution. Some scientists have philosophical differences with this view. Most scientists, however, probably are theistic evolutionists, although they may not have thought deeply about it, one way or the other.

No scientist that I have ever read or heard about has ever argued that atheism should be taught in American public schools. They are only asking that they be allowed to teach scientific facts in science classes, without censorship from fundamentalists, who want science censored whenever it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible.

In trying to undermine the teaching of modern biology, the fundamentalists have repeatedly resorted to underhanded techniques including slander of legitimate scientists and outright lies. Many of us have reached the conclusion that these so-called 'scientific' creationists are really only interested in undermining public education in America (and collecting money from church members to line their own pockets.)

If you find yourself in agreement with theistic evolution, then you are on the side of the scientists, not the so-called 'scientific' creationists.

Most scientists, however, probably are theistic evolutionists, although they may not have thought deeply about it, one way or the other.

If you find yourself in agreement with theistic evolution, then you are on the side of the scientists,

Wouldn't the most compelling bit of evidence against evolution be the creationists inability to come up with any new thoughts in several hundred years???

— kevin

T. Larsson wrote in response to me,
"... society finds TE [theistic evolution] an acceptable solution along separation of state and religion, compared to creationists outright trying to sabotage science classes by pushing religion into them. And then you don't have to go into the problem that some scientists attack TE."

Agreed. That was my basic point. Whether TE is the position of a majority or minority of scientists, it's still a perfectly respectable position to take in contemporary America. In fact, regardless of their personal beliefs, I think I'm on safe ground saying only a minority of scientists actively oppose TE. Most of them just don't see it as an important issue.
So, someone like Peerke, above, is much closer to the scientific mainstream than to the so-called 'scientific' creationists.

Whether TE is the position of a majority or minority of scientists, it's still a perfectly respectable position to take in contemporary America.

It isn't the beliefs that are at issue, it is trying to force them on other people.

— raven

Make that "..won't read it hastily.."

So, someone like Peerke, above, is much closer to the scientific mainstream than to the so-called 'scientific' creationists.

I find it interesting when some anti-science type brings up this particular canard, in that it shows that science must change to fit reality. It is the anti-science folks who insist that reality must change to fit their ideas about it. This would be like the scientist insisting that the analysis was correct and that the bumblebee’s flight is in fact an illusion.

raven says,
You have to pick your issues and battles well. The TEs aren’t trying to push their views in kid’s science classes and send the USA into the dark ages.

For me, that's the whole issue. I really don't care what scientists do on Sunday morning (or non-Xtian equivalent.) If they can work effectively in the lab and don't undercut public schools, more power to them.

Wire,

I've seen myself quoted without attribution before, but never in the same thread.

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned (by anyone but me) is at least the possibility, if not likelihood, that anti-evolution activists promote beliefs that they do not necessarily hold themselves.