Not this again...

It's like a never-ending parade of stupidity.

Ugh! It's like they all live in some alternate reality. If they accepted the critiques from the creationists then nothing of the underpinnings of modern biology would be left. Might as well bring the Bible back as a textbook (which is what they're after, of course).

Well if she's a YEC, then it would be only fair that she have a debate with an OEC and an IDer who accepts (or at least doesn't rule out) common descent. If there really is a potentially competing theory, then they should come to some consensus on the the basic questions - IOW just what set of facts does the theory explain. OTOH, if they show even the slightest signs of wanting to gloss over their differences, it's not unreasonable to think that, deep down inside, they know that mainstream science is right.

It’s like they all live in some alternate reality.

— tacitus

it saddens me that 51%+ of voting south carolinians voted for this yahoo

The "textbook selection process" link in turn has links to reviews by creationists (one associated with the Institute for Creation Research and one with Bob Jones University) of two mainstream actual biology textbooks. Here are are some choice quotes from their four page review of Miller & Levine:

"Charles Darwin shifted his thinking on origins after he became anti-God."

"Hitler, Stalin, Planned Parenthood, racists, and others have cited Charles Darwin in their genocide programs..."

"...Louise (sic!) Pasteur disapproved (sic!) spontaneous generation..."

...and from their four page review of Raven, Johnson, Losos & Singer:

"Charles Darwin's only degree was in theology..."

"If the fossil record is so rich, then authors should give one example of evolution from a simple cell to one complex organism. And show how much of each fossil is real versus how much is man-made."

"Statement that earth was formed about 4.5 BYA is speculation."

And so it goes. These reviewers are flaming Young Earth Creationists, not intelligent design creationists. Their review is utterly no match for Dr. Francisco Ayala's scholarly 34-page review of the bogus Bob Jones University text, Biology for Christian Schools (the link to which I can't find at the moment).

Isn't South Carolina being targeted for takeover by theocrats?

To clarify for jasonmitchell, the chair-of-the-board of education position is not popularly elected. Maguire was originally a governor's apppointee to the board, and then the board itself recently elected her chairwomen-elect by a close vote of the members of the board, 9-7. Or I guess to be precise, her opponent was voted down 9-7, and then she was elected by a voice vote.

If it had been a popularly-elected position, I'm afraid it wouldn't have been even that close.

And so it goes. These reviewers are flaming Young Earth Creationists, not intelligent design creationists. Their review is utterly no match for Dr. Francisco Ayala’s scholarly 34-page review of the bogus Bob Jones University text, Biology for Christian Schools (the link to which I can’t find at the moment).

I just happen to have it bookmarked -- it's a very entertaining read.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/expertreports/ayala.pdf

We should make certain that the Board of Education knows that they will be sued if they insert creationism into the public school curriculum. We should also make certain that the taxpayers can force them to pay the court costs out of their own pockets. I'm not sure how this could be accomplished, but it would probably put an end to this idiocy once and for all. Perhaps if they were sued as individuals instead of as representatives of the government. After all, they are pursuing their own religious agenda in violation of the Constitution they have presumably sworn to uphold.

Their review is utterly no match for Dr. Francisco Ayala’s scholarly 34-page review of the bogus Bob Jones University text, Biology for Christian Schools.

— Paul Burnett

Bill, perhaps bubbling at the back of your mind is the fact that Christian Exodus's resettlement destination is South Carolina :)

Ritchie Annand: Bill, perhaps bubbling at the back of your mind is the fact that Christian Exodus's resettlement destination is South Carolina :)

What I find most entertaining about Ayala's synopsis of the Bob Jones textbooks is the sheer, rock-headed determination to remain stone ignorant. Page after page, chapter after chapter, these "biology texts" say, in essence: We know the Truth, where reality conflicts, reality is wrong. Anything contradicting our interpretion of scripture is simply not evidence; analysis and conclusions from what is not evidence is not science. Therefore, our literal biblical interpretations are fully scientific, and nothing in science conflicts with the bible!

I'm getting increasingly convinced that, whatever its cause, we're looking at organic brain damage. These people are no more capable of learning from reality than they are of flapping their arms and flying to the moon. So long as they are permitted to become parents, the battle will never end.

@Frank J

Do you have a link for the review itself that Miller was responding to? Miller's response makes be believe that the review would be entertaining (but definitely not educational) reading.

BGT asked Frank J: "Do you have a link for the review itself that Miller was responding to?"

It's indirectly reachable from the top of this article ("Not this again…"), via the link to "textbook selection process" - here is the direct link to the review by the creationists that Miller was responding to:

http://www.thewilsonshouse.com/science/SCSE/M_and_L_critique.pdf

It's not the most scholarly thing you've read - but what can you expect from an ICR member and Bob Jones U "scholar"?

Holy mackerel! I read the Ayala review and I thought those books sounded familiar. They were the ones that Michael Behe reviewed a while back.

I didn't scrutinize Behe's review then, and just skimmed it now, but neither time did I get a hint the books were so blatantly Biblical literalist. From Ayala's review at least one is plainly YEC. Behe compared the two books to two mainstream texts (whether they are good or bad is another matter) and all that stood out was that all four books contain material that was "not strictly science" in Behe's opinion. Now we know that Behe both rejects YEC and the versions of OEC that deny common descent, and he even went so far as to say that reading the Bible as a textbook was "silly."

Is there anything that the DI gang won't do for the "big tent"?

Intelligent Design, alive and well:

Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 17, 2007; A01

It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought.

Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA.

Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce."""

Wow, intelligent beings creating life, go figure. that could never happen. Hope we don't get the gright idea of sending it into space to grow on other planets.....

I drop by your site from time to time to see if you have moved on. NEVER. It seems all that is ever done here is spend time worrying about what others are doing.

A scientific theory 'worth its salt' will be able to stand quite easily on the reliable evidence shown by research. It seems you rely solely on discrediting and silencing others.

Why are you so afraid of having the Intelligent Design argument heard?

If I did not already know that we have not an Intelligent Creator and Designer, One who created each species after it's own kind, your web-site would help convince me.

What "intelligent design" argument?

And, by "after it's own kind," Jan, do you mean the One is a cockroach?

I thought the One was Neo.

Rats.

Jan wrote, "Why are you so afraid of having the Intelligent Design argument heard?"

Jan, we are still waiting for the proponents of intelligent design to state ID in the form of a hypothesis; e.g., phenomenon A caused phenomenon B. But all we hear from ID proponents is the opinion that ID is the "best" explanation for "certain features of the universe and of living things."

When are YOU going to put ID into the form of a hypothesis? Put up or shut up!

Jan: I drop by your site from time to time to see if you have moved on. NEVER. It seems all that is ever done here is spend time worrying about what others are doing. A scientific theory 'worth its salt' will be able to stand quite easily on the reliable evidence shown by research. It seems you rely solely on discrediting and silencing others. Why are you so afraid of having the Intelligent Design argument heard? If I did not already know that we have not an Intelligent Creator and Designer, One who created each species after it's own kind, your web-site would help convince me.

Anyone ever notice that absolutely none of these Intelligent Design proponent idiots ever bother to demonstrate how Intelligent Design is even a science?

Hi, Jan.

Are you the Jan who frequented PT 2-3 years ago?

If so, please refresh my memory if I asked similar questions before. If not, please answer them anyway, just so we know where you stand. So there's no misunderstanding, we agree that a Creator/designer is the ultimate cause, though I think "merely intelligent" is an insult to the Creator/designer I have in mind.

But I'm not interested in your opinion of the Creator/designer. Rather, I'd like to know:

Do you you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do)

Also, do you agree (as many creationists and most IDers do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do

I drop by your site from time to time to see if you have moved on. NEVER.

Bach, the Moronic Troll, muses: Intelligent Design, alive and well: Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, December 17, 2007; A01 It has been 50 years since scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could make only small snippets of DNA -- an extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought. Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier: the creation of life forms driven by completely artificial DNA. Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.""" Wow, intelligent beings creating life, go figure. that could never happen. Hope we don't get the gright idea of sending it into space to grow on other planets.....

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales; birds with feathers, beaks and wings; etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appeared in the record with their distinctive features intact and apparently fully functional rather than gradual development."

I’m getting increasingly convinced that, whatever its cause, we’re looking at organic brain damage.

It's funny to remember back a few years ago when such comments were loudly derided in these parts.

Now: not so much.

Perhaps it's because most of us can see now that these people are, in fact, incapable of "learning" in the way reasonable humans understand the term. Rather, like zombies or psychopaths, they just keep going and going and going as long as there are a sufficient number of people willing to put up with their baloney or buy wholesale into their sick schtick.

In addition, we know that treating them with the level of "civility" that they demand but are themselves incapable of maintaining achieves precisely nothing. We will remain pawns in their game forever because their strategy involves only moving the pieces around until the moment we turn our backs.

Do you accept the Theory of Evolution? It's the number one poll on this site: http://www.apopularitycontest.com/poll_category.php?category=Believe%20It%20or%20Not

Bach sez... Wow, intelligent beings creating life, go figure. that could never happen.

No, no, Bach is saying these same scientists invented a time machine and went back and did their experiment on the primordial earth. Or that they will in the future. I mean in the past... Time travel is so confusing.

And Jan is saying that it's about the science, definitely NOT religion.

MPW: And Jan is saying that it's about the science, definitely NOT religion.

Evolutionist whine when Christians don't just give up after defeats in minor skirmishes such as the one in Dover. The Lord Jesus Christ is our captain and he will lead us to victory! Evolutionists control the media, the schools, and the courts but their power will wane because it is our hand that rocks the cradle and will eventually rule the world! One biological fact we can all agree on is that sodomy makes no new children. While we are creating new life in our families the lineages of sodomite evolutionists end with themselves! Ultimately, our numbers will become so overwhelming that your institutional power will eventually give way and you will be forced to accept Jesus as Lord or else!

Ultimately, our numbers will become so overwhelming that your institutional power will eventually give way and you will be forced to accept Jesus as Lord or else

The honesty is profoundly refreshing ... but I suspect parody.

Ritchie Annand: Bill, perhaps bubbling at the back of your mind is the fact that Christian Exodus's resettlement destination is South Carolina :)

Wow, intelligent beings creating life, go figure. that could never happen. Hope we don’t get the gright idea of sending it into space to grow on other planets…..

I drop by your site from time to time to see if you have moved on. NEVER. It seems all that is ever done here is spend time worrying about what others are doing.

— Jan

A scientific theory ‘worth its salt’ will be able to stand quite easily on the reliable evidence shown by research. It seems you rely solely on discrediting and silencing others.

Why are you so afraid of having the Intelligent Design argument heard?

If I did not already know that we have not an Intelligent Creator and Designer, One who created each species after it’s own kind, your web-site would help convince me.

Actually Pole at that particular point in the Bible it was God not Jesus granting dominion to MAN. There was yet no fall and so there was no recognizable religion. If your going to act over the top and ridiculous you could at least get a literal interpretation of the Bible correct.

Evolutionist whine when Christians don’t just give up after defeats in minor skirmishes such as the one in Dover.

— Pole Greaser

The Lord Jesus Christ is our captain and he will lead us to victory!

Evolutionists control the media, the schools, and the courts

but their power will wane because it is our hand that rocks the cradle and will eventually rule the world!

One biological fact we can all agree on is that sodomy makes no new children.

While we are creating new life in our families the lineages of sodomite evolutionists end with themselves!

Ultimately, our numbers will become so overwhelming that your institutional power will eventually give way and you will be forced to accept Jesus as Lord or else!

Yes, these cowardly Christians shamefully seek a separate peace with godless evolutionism. Our Lord Jesus granted us dominion over the whole world, not just South Carolina.

— Pole Greaser

but their power will wane because it is our hand that rocks the cradle and will eventually rule the world!

I wonder if he's ever seen Idiocracy?

I'm sure he and his 15 kids will really enjoy the movie where he gets to stare at someone's ass for 2 hours.

probably thinks watching someone get kicked in the balls over and over never gets old.

Nigel D: Well, you are wrong. Jesus said that the meek would inherit the Earth. You may be many things, but meek you ain't.

Ravilyn Sanders:

Nigel D: Well, you are wrong. Jesus said that the meek would inherit the Earth. You may be many things, but meek you ain't.

How can you teach the value of meekness to the Christians? Why would a truly meek person want to inherit the earth? The very fact that the statement "the meek shall inherit the earth" sells very well among the Christians show that they are not really truly meek. It is some 25 years since I read that work, but I vaguely recall a naive disciple asked something similar and stumped Ellsworth Toohey.

Stanton: Or, that various untermensch taxa, such as turtles and horseshoe crabs, have persisted for hundreds of millions of years with very little modification.

No.
Fundamentalists are not meek, and they do not comprise an untermensch taxon.
In fact, fundamentalists will probably be among the first to perish (probably willingly, in order to see the alleged paradise they've promised themselves)

I have a challenge for those creationists who claim that evolution is “only a theory which hasn’t been proven.” Will you promise to put your money where your mouth is and no longer use modern antibiotics and vaccines? I ask because we manufacture such medicines using the science of evolutionary biology; without our understanding of the evolution of living organisms, we wouldn’t have the drugs necessary to fight off MRSA and the Avian Flu, for instance. So for creationists who “don’t believe in evolution” to be true to their beliefs and not be hypocritical, they have to swear off these medical technologies and stick to good old penicillin the next time they become deathly ill.

So here's the question, I wonder if we’ll see them avoiding the health clinics (which hand out "godless evolution" medicine) during the next epidemic, or will they rely on nothing but their faith to help them get better?

My Answer: There's already a group of people who tried that - the Christian Scientists. Ever notice there's not too many of them about nowadays? They may be mostly dead, but at least they aren't hypocrites.

Will you promise to put your money where your mouth is and no longer use modern antibiotics and vaccines?

No, either because it’s “microevolution” or “goddidit.”

— Bill Gascoyne

No, either because it’s “microevolution” or “goddidit.”

John Giese, the girl's father, was grateful to the doctors and their novel treatment, but said that prayer had made the crucial difference. "The day after we found out, I called on everyone we knew for prayer," he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel this week. "We believe a lot of that snowballed and it really made a difference."

I'm amazed that in the whole history of rabies that's the first time anyone thought of praying.

It seems to me that you guys are the ones who believe that it is either/or when it comes to God or evolution. The process that you have termed evolutional and linked to Darwin isn't Godless and it is not a process that creates new species. The terms microevolution and macroevolution actually are new names for old concepts that have been observed for quite sometime. We called the processes 'adaptation' and 'mutation' a few years ago. While I am not a scientist, I do know that scientist throughout history have been forced to write and rewrite theories as new information comes into our realm of knowledge. Sometimes old ideas are re-examined and understood in a different way when new findings shed more light on a field. Would it not make more sense for those who term themselves 'evolutionist' to be less dogmatic and more open to this reality?

Many of you suggest that my Christian faith is threatened by your "science". True science will always support and prove the work of the Creator. It has throughout the ages and continues to do so.

What are you trying to say, Jan?

Your rant is incoherent.

Many of you suggest that my Christian faith is threatened by your “science”.

LOL, Jan. Actually we know from experience that it's extremely difficult to reverse the brainwashing you've undergone. We recommend hanging out with the most extreme Christians you can find, or letting your children hang out with them. Eventually one of those Christians may try to get in your or your kid's pants. At that time, you may experience an "awakening" of sorts that may cause you to reflect on some of what you've been taught about Christianity and its effect on human beings.

Good luck, my friend. Good luck.

Jan wrote:

"Sometimes old ideas are re-examined and understood in a different way when new findings shed more light on a field. Would it not make more sense for those who term themselves ‘evolutionist’ to be less dogmatic and more open to this reality?"

Jan, you complained that all we ever do here is talk about the anti-evolution effort. Check out the thread on eye evolution. Real scientists look at evidence. Real scientists evaluate their theories. Real scientists are open to reality. Perhaps you can explain how this evidence proves the work of the creator for us. Perhaps you can also explain why you don't believe that speciation is real.

By the way, I have no idea if your faith is threatened by science or not. I hope not, otherwise you have chosen the wrong blog.

Jan: It seems to me that you guys are the ones who believe that it is either/or when it comes to God or evolution. The process that you have termed evolutional and linked to Darwin isn't Godless and it is not a process that creates new species. The terms microevolution and macroevolution actually are new names for old concepts that have been observed for quite sometime. We called the processes 'adaptation' and 'mutation' a few years ago. While I am not a scientist, I do know that scientist throughout history have been forced to write and rewrite theories as new information comes into our realm of knowledge. Sometimes old ideas are re-examined and understood in a different way when new findings shed more light on a field. Would it not make more sense for those who term themselves 'evolutionist' to be less dogmatic and more open to this reality? Many of you suggest that my Christian faith is threatened by your "science". True science will always support and prove the work of the Creator. It has throughout the ages and continues to do so.

Dale,
Try reading "The Evidence Bible" or go to a web-site called "The Living Water" at http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml. You may find some of the information there food for thought.

It seems to me that you guys are the ones who believe that it is either/or when it comes to God or evolution.

— Jan

While Kristin Maguire may apparently be a YEC, it is completely untrue to say that she has no qualifications aside from homeschooling her daughters. She has served on the South Carolina State Board of Education since 2000. She co-founded the South Carolina Parents Involved in Education, "a grassroots organization committed to public school excellence through meaningful parental involvement". She is also Visiting Educational Fellow of the S.C. Policy Council, a member of the Educational Leaders Council, and is on the advisory boards of the S.C. Public Charter School Association, the Center for Education Reform PERC Grant, and the South Carolinians for Responsible Government. Even her critics call her "brilliant" and the board member who nominated her rival said that Mrs. Maguire is "the most prepared person I have known in my life."

She is not a public schoolteacher or a textbook writer, so why does it matter what she believes about the origins of life?

FWIW, I personally believe the best science supports an age of the universe around 4 1/2 billion years and that there was evolution of the hominid body over time from a common ancestor with other primates.

Jan: Dale, Try reading "The Evidence Bible" or go to a web-site called "The Living Water" at http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml. You may find some of the information there food for thought.

While Kristin Maguire may apparently be a YEC, it is completely untrue to say that she has no qualifications aside from homeschooling her daughters. She has served on the South Carolina State Board of Education since 2000. She co-founded the South Carolina Parents Involved in Education, “a grassroots organization committed to public school excellence through meaningful parental involvement”. She is also Visiting Educational Fellow of the S.C. Policy Council, a member of the Educational Leaders Council, and is on the advisory boards of the S.C. Public Charter School Association, the Center for Education Reform PERC Grant, and the South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

— Crimson Wife

She is not a public schoolteacher or a textbook writer, so why does it matter what she believes about the origins of life?

Stanton,
I did not say that all evidence could be found and explained in the Bible. I am saying that in many cases scientific facts were written in the Bible long before being discovered by men. That is because the Bible is the inspired Word of God and as the Creator, He knows about His creation.

Jan: Stanton, I did not say that all evidence could be found and explained in the Bible. I am saying that in many cases scientific facts were written in the Bible long before being discovered by men. That is because the Bible is the inspired Word of God and as the Creator, He knows about His creation.

There are no scientific facts in the Bible: it was written over the course of 2 to 4 thousand years by a long series of Jewish holymen. Please understand that these holymen were unconcerned with science, and scientists, in turn, are unconcerned with the Bible, if only because the Bible does not contain the answers scientists currently seek. Please also understand that ancient Jewish holymen, as with many, many, many other contemporary ancient writers, wrote in metaphor, and they would be horrified to think that their spiritual descendants would completely misconstrue the original intent of the writings in order to deny reality.

I like learning about placoderms, which are a taxon of ancient fish that lived before cockroaches roamed the earth. However, creationists always tell me, "the Bible holds answers to everything!" But, when I ask them about what the Bible says about placoderms, they don't say anything because, apparently, God did not see fit to inform Humanity about placoderms until the early 1800's. I mean, honestly, why do creationists, like yourself, Jan, tout the Bible as being a literal pandora's box of information, and yet, don't care one crap that the Bible does not have the answers to the questions I, myself, am asking?

Furthermore, all of these Creationist sites are useless: all they say is either "look at all the evil evilutionists have been doing since the dawn of time!" or "look at how smart the Bible is!" or "look at how smrt we are for pointing out the evil evils of evilution!"

Not a single one talks about placoderms. Why? Because creationists don't care about learning, they only care about bullying and manipulating people into sharing their warped world-view.

Jan said: Sometimes old ideas are re-examined and understood in a different way when new findings shed more light on a field. Would it not make more sense for those who term themselves ‘evolutionist’ to be less dogmatic and more open to this reality?

Yes, I know, I should have rearranged the two.

Jan: ...in many cases scientific facts were written in the Bible long before being discovered by men.

Jan sez, "I am saying that in many cases scientific facts were written in the Bible long before being discovered by men. That is because the Bible is the inspired Word of God and as the Creator, He knows about His creation."

But ID creationism is so totally about the science, not religion.

Sometimes all we have to do is let these people talk.

The bible states that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth. Maintaining that the solar system is heliocentric got Bruno torched at the stake and Galileo almost got the same.

26% of the US population still believes the sun orbits the earth. We just had a visit from one such.

Jan, I just looked at that site you recommended:

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml

At one point, we read: (((The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).)))

Idiot! Not only is this a lie (a circle is a FLAT shape by definition, so either the original writer was wrong, or the translator of the passage from the original Hebrew messed it up), but history records that a Greek scientist named Eratostenes of Alexandria discovered the roundness of the Earth about 300 BC and even calculated the approximate size of the Earth as well.

If you want to believe lies, go ahead. Just don't think you can fool us again!

She is not a public schoolteacher or a textbook writer, so why does it matter what she believes about the origins of life? FWIW, I personally believe the best science supports an age of the universe around 4 1/2 billion years and that there was evolution of the hominid body over time from a common ancestor with other primates.

— Crimson Wife

Jan,

While you're contemplating my questions above (or trying to figure how to evade them without being too obvious) here's another:

What do you think of Michael Behe's opinion that to read the Bible as a science textbook is "silly"?

The reason I ask is that, not only are anti-evolutionists hopelessly deadlocked on the age of Earth/Universe/life, and common descent, they can't agree on whether the Bible should be used as evidence, or whether evidence should be cherry picked - I mean obtained - independently of the Bible.

Jan: Many of you suggest that my Christian faith is threatened by your “science”.

"At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world "

It is a myth of American concoction (Washington Irving, early 1800s) that Columbus was arguing the earth was a round against Catholic churchmen who argued it was flat. That is entirely false. The Catholic Church had long accepted the Earth wasn't flat. The argument was over how big the Earth is. The churchmen went with Eratosthenes estimate of abour 25,000 miles in circumference. Columbus preferred another estimate that made the Earth only about half as big around. Columbus knew roughly how far it was to China going east and by subtraction of that figure from his gross underestimate of the Earth's circumference, concluded China was only about as far away as the Americas (unknown to Columbus) were. That's why he thought he could make it to China in ships that, in the event, could barely make it across the Atlantic. That is why, at a time when the width of the Caribbean Sea, Mexico and the whole Pacific Ocean stood between Columbus and China, Columbus and his crew were expecting to bump into China any minute. Columbus was stupendously wrong about the size of the Earth and the feaibility, with the ships of his day, of sailing to China by going west.

If the Scriptures inspired Columbus' belief he could make it to China, then the Scriptures were clearly wrong. I'm almost certain that's not what livingwaters.com wants folk to come away with.

At this late date, any site giving credence to the Washington Irving's story is either lying or profoundly ignorant.

Humans believe an incredible amount of weird stuff, bigfoot, flat earth, UFOs, Thetan ghosts, and on and on.

— raven

a Greek scientist named Eratostenes of Alexandria discovered the roundness of the Earth about 300 BC and even calculated the approximate size of the Earth as well.

The bible states that the earth is flat and the sun orbits the earth. Maintaining that the solar system is heliocentric got Bruno torched at the stake and Galileo almost got the same. 26% of the US population still believes the sun orbits the earth. We just had a visit from one such.

The properties of stars do not suggest an evolutionary origin; rather, they reveal the power and majesty of the Lord.

Stars Were of Supernatural Origin The properties of stars also confirm the biblical teaching that these objects were supernaturally created.

Despite claims to the contrary, we've never seen a star forming

It's a pattern. After numerous, largely failed attempts to affect curriculum through local school boards, ID/Creo folks are getting themselves onto state school boards. A creationist recently was elected to head the National Association of State Boards of Education, though it seems more of a figurehead position. Odds are, we're going to see more state-level battles.

And before this, they tried to get into Universities. Better watch out. Soon they'll probably try to graduate into Kindergarten!

After that: Teh Big Banging

Mark my words... or else not.

it saddens me that 51%+ of voting south carolinians voted for this yahoo

This may have been clarified upthread, but Maguire's position is elected by the board itself (to which Maguire was appointed by the governor).

We actually had a creationist up for popular election for the position of Superintendent. The creationist lost that vote by a razor-thin margin.

Steve R: Yes, this s__t again. My friends who work in the K-12 sector are not happy about Maguire - for more than just the taint of creationism.

Despite claims to the contrary, we’ve never seen a star forming Dr. Jason Lisle

It seems to me that you guys are the ones who believe that it is either/or when it comes to God or evolution.

— Jan

The process that you have termed evolutional and linked to Darwin isn’t Godless and it is not a process that creates new species.

The terms microevolution and macroevolution actually are new names for old concepts that have been observed for quite sometime. We called the processes ‘adaptation’ and ‘mutation’ a few years ago.

While I am not a scientist, I do know that scientist throughout history have been forced to write and rewrite theories as new information comes into our realm of knowledge. Sometimes old ideas are re-examined and understood in a different way when new findings shed more light on a field.

Would it not make more sense for those who term themselves ‘evolutionist’ to be less dogmatic and more open to this reality?

Many of you suggest that my Christian faith is threatened by your “science”.

True science will always support and prove the work of the Creator.

It has throughout the ages and continues to do so.

Dale, Try reading “The Evidence Bible” or go to a web-site called “The Living Water” at http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scienti…. You may find some of the information there food for thought.

— Jan

While Kristin Maguire may apparently be a YEC, it is completely untrue to say that she has no qualifications aside from homeschooling her daughters.

— Crimson Wife

She has served on the South Carolina State Board of Education since 2000.

She co-founded the South Carolina Parents Involved in Education, “a grassroots organization committed to public school excellence through meaningful parental involvement”.

She is also Visiting Educational Fellow of the S.C. Policy Council, a member of the Educational Leaders Council, and is on the advisory boards of the S.C. Public Charter School Association, the Center for Education Reform PERC Grant, and the South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

Even her critics call her “brilliant” and the board member who nominated her rival said that Mrs. Maguire is “the most prepared person I have known in my life.”

She is not a public schoolteacher or a textbook writer, so why does it matter what she believes about the origins of life?

FWIW, I personally believe the best science supports an age of the universe around 4 1/2 billion years and that there was evolution of the hominid body over time from a common ancestor with other primates.

Stanton, I did not say that all evidence could be found and explained in the Bible. I am saying that in many cases scientific facts were written in the Bible long before being discovered by men.

— Jan

That is because the Bible is the inspired Word of God and as the Creator, He knows about His creation.

Raven writes:
"We’ve never actually seen a single star forming from a gas cloud. Not too surprising since this process must take a million years or more and we’ve been looking for less than a century. Duh. But we’ve seen every stage between that and a supernova to white dwarf to neutron star to black hole."

Well, its difficult to directly observe a star undergoing ignition because nascent stars are still heavily shrouded in gas. Its until some time has passed that the stellar winds blow that gas away and the Star becomes visible. However, stellar "nuseries" have been found, and nascent stars can be "seen" not in the visible spectrum, but with X-rays.

You have understated the case. Many stellar nurseries have been discovered.

I am wondering if I should apologize for upsetting so many people here or just go away and forget the whole thing. My purpose here isn't to begin an argument or insult your beliefs. One thing that I would like to say is that science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive and recognizing and acknowledging that there is a Creator God should not be a problem for a scientist. When you consider music, beauty, self-sacrificing love, and the things that are unexplainable in scientific terms, it just amazes me that anyone gets so angry over the idea of intelligent design which seems so obvious. We miss so much when we miss this. I wish I could communicate better with you, but I realize that is impossible. You don't hear or understand what I am trying to say.

You have understated the case. Many stellar nurseries have been discovered.

Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado. Dr. Lisle did his undergraduate work at the Ohio Wesley University with a ...

Raven, you're wrong, we have seen Moses receive the Stone Tablets of the 15 10 Commandments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMMg-L7Lqu4

Jan writes:
"I am wondering if I should apologize for upsetting so many people here or just go away and forget the whole thing. My purpose here isn’t to begin an argument or insult your beliefs. "

Evolution is not belief. It is the foundational theory of biology which has withstood 150 years of scrutiny.

"One thing that I would like to say is that science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive and recognizing and acknowledging that there is a Creator God should not be a problem for a scientist."

Its not a problem for many scientists. What is it you suppose that ID has anything to do with that?

"When you consider music, beauty, self-sacrificing love, and the things that are unexplainable in scientific terms, it just amazes me that anyone gets so angry over the idea of intelligent design which seems so obvious."

Except not only is it not obvious, its not a scientific theory and should not be taught in science classes. I care not one bit if people like intelligent design; so long as they don't confuse it with science. You want to teach it? teach it in your church, teach it in a compartive religions class. Just don't teach it as science.

"We miss so much when we miss this."

No, we don't miss anything. Its hubris on your part to insinuate that we can't appreciate some of what life
has to offer simply because we don't accept pseudoreligious claptrap as science.
I'm sorry you need ID as crutch for your own beliefs and the need to tell yourself that your opponents can't appreciate the Universe as much as you do, but that is not an excuse to foist ID on science classes.

"I wish I could communicate better with you, but I realize that is impossible. You don’t hear or understand what I am trying to say."

We hear it loud and clear.

Ou answer is "tough noogies".

I am wondering if I should apologize for upsetting so many people here or just go away and forget the whole thing.

— Jan

My purpose here isn’t to begin an argument or insult your beliefs.

One thing that I would like to say is that science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive and recognizing and acknowledging that there is a Creator God should not be a problem for a scientist.

When you consider music, beauty, self-sacrificing love, and the things that are unexplainable in scientific terms,

it just amazes me that anyone gets so angry over the idea of intelligent design which seems so obvious.

We miss so much when we miss this. I wish I could communicate better with you, but I realize that is impossible.

You don’t hear or understand what I am trying to say.

Jan,

You seem to be either backpedaling here, or (deliberately?) misinterpreting the phrase "intelligent design."

The organized ID movement is not simply seeking to reconcile science and religion, a la Stephen J. Gould or Ken Miller. The organized ID movement seeks spread the idea (which, based on your previous posts, you agree with) that acceptance of evolution is akin to atheism, and to co-opt public school science classes in order to spread doubt about what is in fact a cornerstone of modern biology, thus (deliberately or as a result of buying their own BS) undermining (and I do *not* exaggerate this point) technological society as a whole.

You also use the phrase, "acknowledging that there is a Creator God" rather than "accepting that there is a Creator God." The existence of a Creator God is not a fact. If it were, faith would be superfluous. The only thing I ask of people of faith is to recognize the distinction between objective and subjective, that is, between verifiable fact and chosen belief. You do not seem able to do this, as witnessed by the aforementioned phrase. I venture to guess that you were raised to believe, and/or your religion teaches that, doubt is a sin. I submit that this position is intellectually dishonest and can only mean that the faith of which it is part cannot tolerate any collision with contradictory evidence. Can such a faith be worth many regrets? (complements of Arthur C. Clarke)

Given that psychologist agree that one of the hallmarks of adulthood is the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, it gives one pause to wonder about allowing people who seem unable to do this to vote.

“When you consider music, beauty, self-sacrificing love, and the things that are unexplainable in scientific terms, it just amazes me that anyone gets so angry over the idea of intelligent design which seems so obvious.”

Just move to an area without electricity, running water, cars, the internet, and modern medicine. And develop an interest in subsistence [agriculture] and hunting and gathering.

Jan: I am wondering if I should apologize for upsetting so many people here or just go away and forget the whole thing. My purpose here isn't to begin an argument or insult your beliefs. One thing that I would like to say is that science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive and recognizing and acknowledging that there is a Creator God should not be a problem for a scientist. When you consider music, beauty, self-sacrificing love, and the things that are unexplainable in scientific terms, it just amazes me that anyone gets so angry over the idea of intelligent design which seems so obvious. We miss so much when we miss this. I wish I could communicate better with you, but I realize that is impossible. You don't hear or understand what I am trying to say.

Nigel D:

Evolutionist whine when Christians don’t just give up after defeats in minor skirmishes such as the one in Dover.

— Pole Greaser

No. Supporters of science get fed up when ignorant dimwits like you fail to recognize that what they claim contravenes reality. Despite repeated rebuttals and defeats, you still try to pervert science education in public schools. Why do you wish to abuse so many children?

The Lord Jesus Christ is our captain and he will lead us to victory!

Not when your idea of victory involves the denial of reality. Jesus wasn't a scientist. He was a carpenter.

Evolutionists control the media, the schools, and the courts

Hah! That is so funny. Have you forgotten that George W. Bush himself supports ID? Or are you just lying?

Certainly, if supporters of rational inquiry controlled the media, there'd be a hell of a lot less crap on TV.

but their power will wane because it is our hand that rocks the cradle and will eventually rule the world!

Well, if that is true you will rule a world of ignorance and prejudice. Well done.

One biological fact we can all agree on is that sodomy makes no new children.

And this is relevant how, exactly?

While we are creating new life in our families the lineages of sodomite evolutionists end with themselves!

What, are you saying that rational thought is hereditary? Or are you just randomly ranting now?

Ultimately, our numbers will become so overwhelming that your institutional power will eventually give way and you will be forced to accept Jesus as Lord or else!

Erm ... this actually sounds psychopathic. You should get help. Seriously.

The President is an elected official. The people elected him, not the Harvard faculty or the New York Times editorial staff.

Pole Greaser:

Wow.

Let's just take one of your beliefs here -- you maintain that apparently the science of evolution is somehow connected with homosexuality. Ummmmmmm, being a married scientist with two kids, in a department where all of the faculty are married and most have kids, and most live in normal neighborhoods, having come from a department where most of the faculty were married and had kids, and in a profession where most of my colleagues are married and have kids, it occurred to me that you need to think long and hard about trying not to base your perception of reality soley on your imagination.

As an interesting aside, the father of one of my graduate students works as a professional child psychologist dealing with child sexual abuse. Among the most popular jobs for child molesters is church youth group leader, and of course minister. This is well documented stuff. These are jobs that expose them to a lot of victims. The reason that you hear a lot about catholic priests in particular is because they have an organization. Protestant ministers, however, are apparently just as lascivious as any of them.

And one last thing on this topic -- are you aware of the double entendre of your name?

Eric, Having said that, perhaps you are ready to go one step further and say: Neither should deny the other. Science can be taught in a classroom where children are allowed to maintain faith in a Creator God. Only when science is taught as a belief system do I see a conflict.

And to Bill, no, Christianity does not teach that to doubt is to sin. Perhaps you and I both have faith, just in different things. Every science text that I read, when I reach the section on evolution, I find it is marked with phrases such as, "might be", may be", or "possibly".

You have faith in random selection. I have faith in the God of the Bible.

Let's give it a rest for the holidays. I do hope that each of you have a good Christmas and New Year.

Jan: Eric, Having said that, perhaps you are ready to go one step further and say: Neither should deny the other. Science can be taught in a classroom where children are allowed to maintain faith in a Creator God. Only when science is taught as a belief system do I see a conflict.

And to Bill, no, Christianity does not teach that to doubt is to sin. Perhaps you and I both have faith, just in different things. Every science text that I read, when I reach the section on evolution, I find it is marked with phrases such as, "might be", may be", or "possibly".

You have faith in random selection. I have faith in the God of the Bible.

Let's give it a rest for the holidays. I do hope that each of you have a good Christmas and New Year.

Science can be taught in a classroom where children are allowed to maintain faith in a Creator God.

You teach children that men came from monkeys,

— Pole Greaser

life came from a rock,

and everything came from nothing.

Nobody has seen any of those things.

When an orangutan couple has a baby human, or if the same orangutan spontaneously emerges from a rock,

then you will have evidence. Until then, you have none.

I have a question for Jan, in two parts:

1. Do you believe that the scientific account of evolution is true (just the facts, regardless of any philosophical conotations)?

2. If you don't, how would the world look if evolution WAS true? In what way would it be different from the world we have now?

When you stand before him, he will be much more than a carpenter!

— Pole Greaser

The President is an elected official. The people elected him, not the Harvard faculty or the New York Times editorial staff. Evolutionists are incapable of winning an election anywhere in America outside of the Bay area or perhaps Massachusetts; so, instead, they control the terms of discussion through their stealth dominance of academia, the press, and the courts.

— Pole Greaser

In addition, the President is something of an evolutionist himself, for only the religion of evolutionism could lead to something so absurd as the debacle in Iraq. Bush is trying to maintain secular order across the globe while the real enemies are right here.

would a Christian President allow Christopher Hitchens to become a citizen and Sam Harris to roam free?

Isn’t this the paradigm of evolutionistic sexual activity?

— Pole Greaser

Look how our ladies spend have their married lives pregnant while your lesbos are lucky to squeeze out one baby at around forty via in-vitro fertilization.

Re-read your Darwin and tell me who this favors long-term!

Pole Greaser, I occasionally encounter a commenter on this or another blog that makes me think, "well, hang on just a second; this person is genuinely confused about what to believe and seems to be entirely sincere with their questions".

Then I encounter one of your posts, and I think - this person has no interest in learning anything; this person has no interest in engaging in any kind of rational or honest exchange of views.

Pole Greaser, you appear to be filled with nothing but hate. You spew venom in a seemingly random and incoherent manner, and then lash out vituperatively at anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to yours, or who criticises the pathetic attempts you make at argumentation. Do you really think you're going to make Jesus proud?

Nigel D: Pole Greaser, you appear to be filled with nothing but hate. You spew venom in a seemingly random and incoherent manner, and then lash out vituperatively at anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to yours, or who criticises the pathetic attempts you make at argumentation. Do you really think you're going to make Jesus proud?

My guess is that he's the same troll as The Ghost of Paley over at AtBC.

Stanton . . . a hypothesis is going around implying that he’s actually just a troll who’s parodying a rabid, frothing at the mouth creationist for his own little jollies.

Gosh, what a sad, lonely individual Pole Greaser must be!

Pole Greaser extruded: ... the religion of evolutionism...

And you have just eclipsed all of the other creationists in posting the stupidest thing I have ever read.

i gotta admit, saying that the war in Iraq is due to evolutionary biologist does rank right up there with the dumbest things I've ever heard somebody say.

are we sure this guy isn't just pulling chains?

Ichthyic: And you have just eclipsed all of the other creationists in posting the stupidest thing I have ever read. i gotta admit, saying that the war in Iraq is due to evolutionary biologist does rank right up there with the dumbest things I've ever heard somebody say. are we sure this guy isn't just pulling chains?

I am wondering if I should apologize for upsetting so many people here or just go away and forget the whole thing.

— Jan

Pole Greaser. I hope that you are just ‘poking the possum’ to see what comes back. Sadly I think that this may not be the case, and that you truly are an obstinate, narrow-minded, self-absorbed and deluded individual.

Before superimposing your bigoted personal beliefs onto your Creator you might like to consider her/his other creations, for example, the over 450 vertebrate species that engage in homosexual behaviour.

Quote: The Lord Jesus Christ is our captain and he will lead us to victory!

A revolutionary thinker and a political activist, Jesus was a very influential figure for his time, but he wasn’t a scientist of any description.

Quote: When an orangutan couple has a baby human, or if the same orangutan spontaneously emerges from a rock

Now you are being deliberately obtuse! A rudimentary biology course will help.

Quote: Look how our ladies spend have their married lives pregnant while your lesbos are lucky to squeeze out one baby at around forty via in-vitro fertilization.

I take it you meant “‘half’ their married lives pregnant.” What does this mean? Mice are constantly pregnant and breed in their thousands! To quote a well-known band, “quality not quantity, don’t tell me they’re the same”. My point is that large numbers of progeny don’t contribute to the global good if they are raised with ignorance, selfishness and a hatred of others.

I agree with Nigel D, you are seriously in need of help.

The analysis of evolution vs creation has a global laboratory for its operation, and it seems that all evidence points to evolution:

Since an omnipotent Creator can fashion his creations in an instance, does it not hold then that he could repair or refashion these creations equally quickly?

The very complexity that Creationists cite as reason for a Creator indicates the highly evolved, intricate relationships symbiotically maintaining the global balance referred to by Fritjof Capra as the Web of Life. The components of the web, including ourselves, have evolved to take advantage of our environment however this requires varying amounts of time; it’s not instantaneous.

Why then are the frogs, penguins, polar bears and butterflies dying from the increased temperatures of global warming? Why are we set to lose more than one million plant and animal species within the next 50 years? Would a Creator not instantly correct this imbalance; would he watch his creation self-destruct? Unless someone can prove a very spiteful entity it makes sense to pay heed to the evidence that we have collected through application of the scientific method.

BTW, I have read a book entitled ‘Telling Lies for God’ by Dr Ian Plimer, an Australian Professor of Geology, which addresses reason vs creationism and the teaching of science in Australia. It is a great read and is very entertaining.

Nice comment, Stanton.

If you need to download new movies and games, visit http://loadingvault.com It is the best rapidshare search engine in the internet.

Very interesting view http://www.i-warn.org

Hi I want to recommend you very useful rapidshare search http://4rapidsearch.com You can find there a lot of new movies, games and music. Enjoy it!

Im so thrilled, I am so looking forward to the big day, I hope he doesnt get too drunk