Highlands County on teaching evolution and creationism

So, haven't any of you realized the _real_ truth behind the organised opposition to the science standards? It's the lawyers! Getting these resolutions passed is their way of getting multiple Dover vs. Kitzmiller trials. Just think of the income potential.

sirhcton

Educating them is a great idea. The question is how. The only way I can think of is to send them information and tell them explicitly that what you're sending them is the very material that will be used to counter pro-Creationist stances. Send them a book with a card that says something like, "I will use this book to counter your arguments." Send them a paper that says the same thing. Make them believe that reading the material will be an effective way to counter pro-evolutionary arguments. At least to some of them, it will be an enticement. It's one thing to tell someone about information and then expect them to go and dig it up when they don't want to pay for a book with which they disagree or access to a journal or whatnot. It's another to put it right in front of them and challenge them with it directly.

Along the way, a few of these folks -- not all, but maybe just a few -- will learn something that will make them stop and say, "Hey, wait a minute, this seems pretty airtight. Maybe there is something to it."

As a student, I had a few professors who challenged me to the point of my really getting to dislike them, and because of that I made it a point to excel in their classes in order to prove them wrong, as it were. I'm sure many of the people here who have been through some amount of higher education have had similar experiences. If it worked on us, maybe it will work on a few members of Florida school boards as well.

If they're concerned about HONESTY, why not give them something about which to be HONEST?

Went digging for email contact for these board members, and found a link to Rev. Norris' church. There is a general church info contact email address that probably goes to him or a church secretary on this page:

http://www.lpfla.com/about/worship.htm

scroll down until you find "Trinity Lutheran Church."

" It’s one thing to tell someone about information and then expect them to go and dig it up when they don’t want to pay for a book with which they disagree or access to a journal or whatnot. It’s another to put it right in front of them and challenge them with it directly."

It won't work. The Dover boardmembers admitted they never read Pandas or the Dragonfly book. Behe admitted he hadn't read the stacks and stacks of publications they put in front of him.

Not reading is like a badge of honor to these people.

Siamang,

You're making the assumption, of course, that everyone is like the people involved in Dover. But the fact is that the books the Dover school board didn't read were those that agreed with their position, not ones put before them as a challenge to their position. Nor does it matter that the stack of books were put in front of Behe at the trial. That's a very different situation from sending people information before a trial, which the prosecution in Dover didn't do. That might be a useful demonstration in a courtroom situation, but if the goal is to educate people, then at least attempting to send them educational material would seem to be in order. I'm certain you'd agree that the goal of Kitzmiller's attorneys in Dover wasn't to educate Behe on the witness stand.

All in all, I think we're talking about apples and oranges.

And if the public wants science to be taught that it means that leprechauns doing a jig can turn lead into gold, yeah, that's what should be taught.

But I do agree that we shouldn't rely on the courts for an entirely different reason. We shouldn't rely on the courts because when the case is over, school districts will find ways to do what they want to do when nobody is looking, especially in small rural districts and particularly in North Florida where ignoring laws that conflict with deeply-ingrained beliefs is standard operating procedure.

Science is not subject to public debate, and neither should science education be if the goal is to educate students about science. However, if the goal of those who support good education is to insure that it is provided to those students, educating the people who make decisions about what that education will actually consist of will have a lot more traction in the long run.

I submit that actually putting educational material in front of people is a possible way of changing a few minds. If a few are educated, they are very likely to educate others and not to be seen as interlopers — and believe me, I know from experience that North Florida culture tends to be VERY insular. I have had the experience there of being told that the difference between a Yankee and a Damned Yankee is that a Yankee only sticks around for a short while; a Damned Yankee buys property.

Having actually studied this stuff for years, I find that evolutionary theory makes an airtight case in the subjects in its domain of explanatory capability. I also believe that while many people are ignorant, few people are stupid. Ignorance can be changed with education. Given some of the same information that I have had access to, and that many others here have had access to, perhaps that's what will happen. I have every reason to postulate, on the other hand, that if nobody does anything at all, then most likely nothing will change.

PvM requested, "Help us educate these school boards." I think that's an excellent idea. Highland County's next school board meeting is on 2/5. The state BOE meets to decide on standard on 2/18, as I recall. How else do people propose to educate these school boards?

C'mon... there are a lot of terrifically smart people in here, most of whom can't get to Florida in the next couple of weeks. Stick your necks out and toss around some practical ideas! It's not hard to send educational materials to these people. What else can we do?

Nor does it matter that the stack of books were put in front of Behe at the trial. That’s a very different situation from sending people information before a trial, which the prosecution in Dover didn’t do.

ABC/Larry: [ For example, the CATO Institute reported the following results of a formal Pew Research Center poll (July 6-19, 2006, 996 adults nationwide, MoE + or - 3.5)-- Q. Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools? A. Favor, 58%; Oppose; 35%; Not Sure, 7%. -- from http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/25/why-you-evolved-dammit-is-bad-ed-policy/

Pete,

I agree with you entirely about Behe's responsibilities as a (alleged) scientist. Still, it's a different situation than what I've suggested. I don't think we can safely make the jump from Behe failing as a legitimate investigator to the general ignorance about the basics of science, let alone evolutionary theory, on a number of school boards in rural Florida. Barring the possession of data saying that it can't work, my inclination is to at least try an experiment. These school boards have already passed, or are about to pass these resolutions, none of which are binding in any way upon the state. It's less likely that the attempt would make matters worse than the potential to make them better, and in the case that it accomplishes nothing at all, the "investigators" are out nothing more than the cost of a few used books, printer ink and paper. The worst that will happen is that the stuff will get chucked in the trash or used to kindle a fireplace.

For my part, I'd be quite happy to participate in any other methods people come up with by way of attempts to educate these school boards. Given the situation as it exists now, somebody needs to try something other than court cases and long-winded replies on science blogs, like the one I've just written!

As a west coaster fairly recently returning to the south (Tennessee) after a very long hiatus, I am in a position to understand what goes on in the minds of fundies from this part of the country. IMHO there is no convincing the people who are perpetrating this nonsense in North Florida. We all know how convincing evolution is - our arguments are air tight. But it doesn't matter!! To the fundie, all he/she knows is that the Bible is infallible, inerrant. Therefore anything that runs counter to it must be wrong no matter how convincing it may be. And evolution is the most wicked poison they can imagine, so that puts an exclamation point on it all.

I think the best tactics are to warn of an upcoming law suit which they will certainly lose. If nothing else, they understand money. If that doesn't work, then we will see them in court.

Educating them is a great idea. The question is how.

— Mike O'Risal

Therefore anything that runs counter to it must be wrong no matter how convincing it may be.

— Jay W.

I think the best tactics are to warn of an upcoming law suit which they will certainly lose.

To the fundie, all he/she knows is that the Bible is infallible, inerrant.

Mike O'Risal: For my part, I'd be quite happy to participate in any other methods people come up with by way of attempts to educate these school boards.

ABC/Larry: [ For example, the CATO Institute reported the following results of a formal Pew Research Center poll (July 6-19, 2006, 996 adults nationwide, MoE + or - 3.5)– Q. Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools? A. Favor, 58%; Oppose; 35%; Not Sure, 7%. – from http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/25/why-you-…

Frank J: A good bet is that 99% who answered that question were just as misled as I was. And of those who aren't, "Opposed" becomes the majority answer.

The poll is a useless waste of money.

Paul Burnett:

A court case with a few million dollars in court expenses to be paid by the school board would be very educational for them.

And then what? How does this wind up breaking multi-generational ignorance and improving education one bit? As raven has noted, the resolutions being passed are an attempt to influence the state BOE; there's nothing here over which to sue. A lawsuit would have to be the result of someone observing the teaching of Creationism in a classroom. Would anyone here like to volunteer to sit in on science classes in one of these districts? And then let's say you sue. You sue and sue and sue and bankrupt the school districts and the school boards. When there's no more money left to run the schools, who steps in? Does the state put money in to keep schools functioning, or do they allow them to stop working and instead open private schools that can get away with not teaching science at all and turn into indoctrination centers for religious fundamentalists? Isn't that essentially what many Creationists want to do in the first place? One of the threats being made already is that if the state passes the new standards the Creationists will pull their children out of public school. If the point of all of this is to bankrupt school districts that aren't in compliance with federal law, then filing lawsuits is a winning strategy, no doubt. However, if there's any element of concern that children receive a solid science education that gives those who want it the opportunity to pursue a career in science, sooner or later something has to be done to change minds in some way.

Jay W.: As a west coaster fairly recently returning to the south (Tennessee) after a very long hiatus, I am in a position to understand what goes on in the minds of fundies from this part of the country. IMHO there is no convincing the people who are perpetrating this nonsense in North Florida.

As a New Yorker who also lived on the West Coast, then in North Florida (Hillsborough and Leon Counties) for several years, I think it's a mistake to lump everyone together like this. There are certainly some people of whom this is true. They're the willfully ignorant or, more succinctly, stupid. They will always be with us. On the other hand, a lot of what one sees isn't stupidity but ignorance. People who have lived all their lives in places like Taylor and Madison counties — both poor, rural areas dominated by fundamentalist Baptism — often haven't had the opportunity to have a good education. That doesn't make those people disposable or less human or even stupid. I would very much like to see things change in those places, and that starts with education. If the minds of just a few people in positions of responsibility were to change and those people not morph suddenly into drug-crazed, orgy-throwing, gay-marrying Satan-worshipers, others in those communities might well see evolutionary biology as something other than a threat to their communities imposed from without. Which, by the way, is something that all the lawsuits in the world are never going to accomplish. It sounds to me like this is essentially an "argument from hopelessness." In that case, what's the point of even filing lawsuits, as others have suggested? Why not just forget about it and let schools in these jurisdictions teach religion in science classes?

Paul Burnett: A court case with a few million dollars in court expenses to be paid by the school board would be very educational for them.

Jay W.: As a west coaster fairly recently returning to the south (Tennessee) after a very long hiatus, I am in a position to understand what goes on in the minds of fundies from this part of the country. IMHO there is no convincing the people who are perpetrating this nonsense in North Florida.

It's not arbitrary, idiot. You were banned for good reason, just go away.

Some questions for ABC/Larry,

1. Are your comments deleted, or just moved?

2. I can see your comment 141,296 as neither deleted or moved. Can you see it too?

3. Do you have the same complaint against "Uncommon Descent," which deletes comments and bans posters far more often than PT?

It doesn’t matter what the majority answer is - it’s illegal.

— Stacy S.

PT needs to maintain some minimal standards of integrity!

— Permanently banned commenter Larry Fafarman

I think that one strategy might be to get an official statement from the University of Florida regarding entrance requirements. Perhaps we could get them to be very specific about what they require as a background in biology and evolution. We could also get such statements from other colleges, graduate programs and medical schools. We could then send copies to the state board of education and to individual county school boards. That way they would know exactly how disadvantaged their children would be in the modern marketplace. It might not make a big difference, but it might at least get some people to think twice before selling out their children's futures.

Another strategy might be to become very involved in school board elections, especially at the state level. We could make evolution an issue for every candidate. That way everyone will know how the candidates stand when they vote. It won't stop people from voting for anti-science types, but at least they will know that that is what they are doing. If pro-science school boards can be elected, then at least good standards would be in place. Any county passing standards contrary to the state standards could then come under closer scrutiny. Once again, it might not be effective in controlling what goes on in individual classrooms, but it would at least be a start.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to force anyone to learn anything. Education merely provides the opportunity for learning. Presumably, people will be motivated by the advantages provided by learning. The least we can do is to point out the disadvantages of not learning.

Where is the Florida Association of Science Teachers in all of this?

Can FCfS contact the faculty senates of their state-supported universities and propose that those faculty senates endorse a statement of support for the new standards?

How about the biotech industries in the state - don't they have an interest in being able to recruit science-literate graduates of Florida public schools?

Mike O'Risal:

It seems that this isn't an issue of "I'll be damned if I understand evolution" as much as it's a matter of "I'll be damned if I understand evolution."

I don't know that logic can sway those kinds of decisions. But kudos for sending "Inner Fish" to Slough!

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Where is the Florida Association of Science Teachers in all of this? Can FCfS contact the faculty senates of their state-supported universities and propose that those faculty senates endorse a statement of support for the new standards? How about the biotech industries in the state - don't they have an interest in being able to recruit science-literate graduates of Florida public schools?

There are two issues with creationism in schools.

1. Teaching creationism in science classes is unconsitutional as a violation of church and state. The law is clear on this.

2. Not teaching evolution as the state standards might require, is a crime or error of omission. This would be difficult to litigate in court because not doing something is harder to prove than doing something. It probably isn't even illegal, arguably a civil tort on the lines of "providing an inferior education" or some such.

I can't see that the state school board has any will or mechanism to enforce their guidelines. In practice, these school boards will just ignore the state guidelines like they do in Texas and Arkansas.

My first reaction was, "bunch of ignorant hillbillies, let them stay stupid and poor." But as several posters have pointed out, there are a lot of ways to put pressure on the Voluntary Ignorance factions. It even worked in one county where the Flying Spaghetti Monster routed the forces of darkness.

It might end up working well. The educated, wealthy parts of the USA look at these clowns as hooterville hicks from some backward age. Not an image most people want to project. There are also likely to be progressive factions in the counties that would like to join the 21st century.

Just contesting the school board elections on a improve education and teach science platform might wake these guys up. "All that is needed for evil to win is for good to do nothing."

Yes, I have the same complaint against UD, and I have criticized UD for it.

— ABC/Larry

There are two issues with creationism in schools. 1. Teaching creationism in science classes is unconsitutional as a violation of church and state. The law is clear on this. 2. Not teaching evolution as the state standards might require, is a crime or error of omission. This would be difficult to litigate in court because not doing something is harder to prove than doing something. It probably isn’t even illegal, arguably a civil tort on the lines of “providing an inferior education” or some such.

— raven

they seem to be confused that the standards call evolution a fact when it doesn’t

W. Kevin Vicklund:

PT needs to maintain some minimal standards of integrity!

— Permanently banned commenter Larry Fafarman

They do. Under those standards of integrity, called the "Comment Integrity Policy" you were permanently banned for knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly violating those standards over a course of two months, despite repeated warnings, and only after you commented under another commenter's name. This banishment was a group decision, and means that you are not allowed to post under any name at any time on any topic at Panda's Thumb. This banishment is non-arbitrary. Banishments are extremely rare on Panda's Thumb (only a handful have ever been banned) and are applied equally (I have seen as many pro-PT commenters get banned as anti-PT get banned - if anything, the anti-PTer's get a longer leash, as you yourself demonstrated).

Frank J:

There are two issues with creationism in schools. 1. Teaching creationism in science classes is unconsitutional as a violation of church and state. The law is clear on this. 2. Not teaching evolution as the state standards might require, is a crime or error of omission. This would be difficult to litigate in court because not doing something is harder to prove than doing something. It probably isn’t even illegal, arguably a civil tort on the lines of “providing an inferior education” or some such.

— raven

What might make #2 easier to litigate is that it's alawys advocated by the same people that promote #1. Remember Kansas, 1999? Plus the only reasons that they ever give for not teaching evoluion eventually collapse to their philosophical objections. If Ben Stein's babbling is any indication, the DI's pretense of "it's only about the science" will soon become as obsolete as demands to teach Genesis instead of evolution. Adding 1 and 2, it becomes clear that the common sentiment of all stripes of anti-evolutionist, now, if not in the Scopes era, is a spiteful "if you won't teach my pseudoscience, you shouldn't teach your science either."

Wow, despite all the information available, "theory" is still confused with "guess", "Darwinism" with "evolution". Theuse endlessly regurgitated canards by these scientific illiterates are bizarre...Anyone with eyes to see, and with access to the evidence can see through them..Evolution and faith aren't mutually exclusive, theory and fact aren't antonyms...

Let's not forget the rest of the States. I found a map of the whole U.S. that shows State's ratings concerning the teaching of Evolution (from 2002) and first appeared in the Scientific American. Data collected by L. Kerner from Calif State Univ at Long Beach.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/

I know this is off the FL issue, I apologize but I thought someone might find it interesting.

Anyone with eyes to see, and with access to the evidence can see through them..Evolution and faith aren’t mutually exclusive, theory and fact aren’t antonyms…

— PeteK

The funny thing about those complaints of "arbitrary" censorship is that if Wes were to follow the rules to the letter, all the posts by the banned one would be gone. That's what the word "banned" means, if I'm not mistaken.

Henry

What is strange about all this sturm und drang. The school boards and kids aren't required to "believe" in the theory of evolution. Schools can't make anyone believe anything.

They are required to know the subject, the material, the theory, etc..If someone taught a course on Greek mythology, no one is expected to believe in Medusa, Hydra, Zeus, or the Titans. In fact, this is commonly taught as part of our culture.

These people must be frightened and very unsure of their faith. Learning about scientific theories describing reality shouldn't be a traumatic experience.

Stacy S.:

Frank J: A good bet is that 99% who answered that question were just as misled as I was. And of those who aren't, "Opposed" becomes the majority answer.

It doesn't matter what the majority answer is - it's illegal. The poll is a useless waste of money. (Unless the goal is to give people an illusion to cling to)

Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism in taxpayer-funded schools?

Evolution is a fact we all know that, but the fucking evangelicals of this nation want the whole country to think like they do. They think that evolution was given to humans by the devil and they don't want to accept it as a scientific fact. This is completely ingrained and forced down their throats from birth. They just want us all to go and stay stupid like them well let them stay stupid. Science has prooven that all religion is is a bunch of lies and myths and fundies don't accept that. Look they think they can have their way and they want to teach the wrong thing to our nation's children. Look the fundies don't want to accept that humans made God and not the other way around and teaching creationism is a crime and not allowed in any state or nation.

JOHN WRIGHT said:

"Look the fundies don’t want to accept that humans made God and not the other way around and teaching creationism is a crime and not allowed in any state or nation."

To nitpick, there are probably at least a few nations where teaching creationism is not a crime. Even in the U.S., in private schools and at home teachers are pretty free to teach what they will to their students.
What's objectionable to most of the commentators on this blog (including me), are the ongoing attempts to use public schools for religious instruction in the guise of "teaching the controversy" with regards to evolution. This is a violation of some of the most basic principles of our law and society.

OK Pole Greaser. You claim evolution is a religion. For the benefit of us close-minded idiots on this list, please do tell us what other scientific theories constitute a "religion." Gravity? Quantum mechanics? Plate tectonics? For that matter, how about historical or economic models and theories? I know a lot of Evangelical Christians seem to get very upset when discussing American history, to the point where they want to force alternate versions into public schools. This is obviously very, very important, and reading your post, you seem to have some insight that the rest of us have missed. Enlighten us. And, because we are somewhat slow here, do be sure to explain exactly why these things constitute a "religion." Maybe when we have established some basic definitions, we can find some common ground for discussion.

A little Google searching turned up a few email addresses:

Andy Tuck
atuck@tnni.net
andytuck@embarq.com

Richard Norris
trinitylp@embarqmail.com

I suggest a little flood of email might get their attention as well.

akg41470: A little Google searching turned up a few email addresses: Andy Tuck atuck@tnni.net andytuck@embarq.com Richard Norris trinitylp@embarqmail.com I suggest a little flood of email might get their attention as well.

PvM: I assume that you mean constructive emails rather than just flooding their accounts?

akg41470: A little Google searching turned up a few email addresses: Andy Tuck atuck@tnni.net andytuck@embarq.com Richard Norris trinitylp@embarqmail.com I suggest a little flood of email might get their attention as well.

Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism...

— Pole Greaser

Even in the U.S., in private schools and at home teachers are pretty free to teach what they will to their students.

— wright

What’s objectionable to most of the commentators on this blog (including me), are the ongoing attempts to use public schools for religious instruction in the guise of “teaching the controversy” with regards to evolution. This is a violation of some of the most basic principles of our law and society.

— wright

Pole Greaser wrote:

"Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism in taxpayer-funded schools? ... Do you wonder why some people (Christians) might be loathe to enforce such a law?"

You're lying and you know you are lying. Science is not a religion and "evolutionism" (whatever that is) is not taught in schools, nor should it be if by that you mean a religious belief not based on evidence.

Now, just for the sake of argument mind you, let's for one moment accept your premise shall we? Let's say that you are correct. Let's say that modern evolutionary theory can in some convoluted way be construed as some sort of religion. Well, you don't really seem to have a problem with teaching religion in public schools now do you? In fact, you imply that your religion should be the one taught. But then you ask why Christians would want teach another religion. Well, why would Muslims want to pay for you to teach Christianity? Why would Hindus, Buddists, or any other brand of Christianity that has no problem with evolution (at least officially) want you to do away with evolution? What makes your religion right and theirs wrong? Should we teach them all, and if so, why not "evolutionism" as well? You do realize that there are lots of religion courses where "evolutionism" is not discussed at all don't you?

Seriously, if science is a religion, it is the most successful and most useful religion ever invented. It needs to be taught by professionals in public schools because it is so complex and so important for our society. It cannot be learned in a one hour sunday school class each week taught out of one book. If you claim that science is religion and we must choose what religion to teach, the obvious choice is science.

Of course, the Constitution of the United States prevents teaching religion in public school science classes, so you lose anyway. And that should also tell you how mistaken you are when you try to claim that science is religion. In this country, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't like it, move to a country where they really do teach religion in science classes and let me know how that works out for you.

The creationist coward hiding behind the handle Pole Greaser lied: "Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism...?"

Frank J -

Unfortunately, our current Pope Benedict does not look kindly upon the Theory Of Evolution, and supports Intelligent Design. He even replaced Fr. G. Coyne in his job as Vatican Astronomer for teaching Evolution.

This highlights the problem of intelligent, well educated people not always making the correct choice. Just as a previous pope supported Hitler and Franco in the quest of enforcement of "traditional values". Here in the U.S., we have a large educated population, but there are many people who would gladly hurt people to make everybody believe as they do.

It's frustrating to see how many people have felt emboldened by the rubbish the Christian Right has dished out over the last seven years. It's not going to end in Florida.

In theory, as we loose our large Middle Class, and money is congealed in the pockets of fewer people; religions will turn to their wealthy Sponsors for revenue, and in return be asked to help keep the down-trodden masses down. This means behavioral restraint, but also allows church-government alliance to enforce church teachings... like Creationism.

And No, I'm not always this optimistic.

Unfortunately, our current Pope Benedict does not look kindly upon the Theory Of Evolution, and supports Intelligent Design.

— Befuddled Theorist

I agree 100% with pole greaser that us evolutionists are practicing a religion and because of that we should all be tax exempt just like ol' greaser's church and furthermore ol'greaser should spearhead an effort thru fundamentalist christianity to guarantee that all of us evolutionists should no longer have to pay income taxes.That should increase his popularity even more than if he actually told us what the theory of intelligent design really is.

Pole Greaser Wrote: Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism...

David Stanton: Pole Greaser wrote: "Why is it illegal to teach any other religion except that of evolutionism in taxpayer-funded schools? ... Do you wonder why some people (Christians) might be loathe to enforce such a law?" You're lying and you know you are lying. Science is not a religion and "evolutionism" (whatever that is) is not taught in schools, nor should it be if by that you mean a religious belief not based on evidence. Now, just for the sake of argument mind you, let's for one moment accept your premise shall we? Let's say that you are correct. Let's say that modern evolutionary theory can in some convoluted way be construed as some sort of religion. Well, you don't really seem to have a problem with teaching religion in public schools now do you? In fact, you imply that your religion should be the one taught. But then you ask why Christians would want teach another religion. Well, why would Muslims want to pay for you to teach Christianity? Why would Hindus, Buddists, or any other brand of Christianity that has no problem with evolution (at least officially) want you to do away with evolution? What makes your religion right and theirs wrong?

Should we teach them all, and if so, why not "evolutionism" as well? You do realize that there are lots of religion courses where "evolutionism" is not discussed at all don't you?

Seriously, if science is a religion, it is the most successful and most useful religion ever invented. It needs to be taught by professionals in public schools because it is so complex and so important for our society. It cannot be learned in a one hour sunday school class each week taught out of one book. If you claim that science is religion and we must choose what religion to teach, the obvious choice is science. Of course, the Constitution of the United States prevents teaching religion in public school science classes, so you lose anyway. And that should also tell you how mistaken you are when you try to claim that science is religion. In this country, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority. If you don't like it, move to a country where they really do teach religion in science classes and let me know how that works out for you.

the pro from dover: I agree 100% with pole greaser that us evolutionists are practicing a religion and because of that we should all be tax exempt just like ol' greaser's church and furthermore ol'greaser should spearhead an effort thru fundamentalist christianity to guarantee that all of us evolutionists should no longer have to pay income taxes.That should increase his popularity even more than if he actually told us what the theory of intelligent design really is.

Pole Greaser wrote:

"The Christian religion is the only true religion; it is by faith the elect know this. His children, the elect, are ordained by him to have dominion over the whole earth. It is irrelevant what Hindus, Wiccans, or evolutionists think since they are unworthy of grace and fit only to be slaves. They have no right to object to what Christians do with their financial resources since those resources belong to God, and not to them."

And there you have it folks, an explicit admission of religious bigotry. And this guy wants his religion taught exclusively in public school science classes. Now let's see if we can salvage something from this nonsense:

Science is the only reliable method we have for understanding objective reality, it is by not accepting anything based solely on faith that scientists have come to know this. Scientists, the most qualified to do real science, have a responsibility to discover the truth in order to improve our lives and to help us preserve the whole earth. It is irrelevant to science what any religion claims, unless those claims have stood the test of empirical science. Religions have no right to object to what the government does with their financial resources, since those resources are not being used to promote one religion over another but are instead being used to do real science and improve the quality of life for everyone.

And just for the record, you still haven't answered any of my questions on any of the threads that you have spewed your bigotry all over.

Pole Greaser: The Christian religion is the only true religion; it is by faith the elect know this. His children, the elect, are ordained by him to have dominion over the whole earth. It is irrelevant what Hindus, Wiccans, or evolutionists think since they are unworthy of grace and fit only to be slaves. They have no right to object to what Christians do with their financial resources since those resources belong to God, and not to them. This is the evolutionists' myth of neutrality. Jesus said we are either for him or against him. All education is religious in nature, and it is the Christian religion that is ordained to have dominion.

Hasn't it been pretty solidly established that Pole Greaser is a parody?

His children, the elect, are ordained by him to have dominion over the whole earth. It is irrelevant what Hindus, Wiccans, or evolutionists think since they are unworthy of grace and fit only to be slaves.

MartinM: Hasn't it been pretty solidly established that Pole Greaser is a parody?

I agree. Ban him. If he is a troll, he is just spouting useless provocations. If he is not, he is a hard-core extremist even by hard-core extremist standards, and would probably be considered a danger to those around him if he expressed such views in normal public contexts. Regardless, he has contributed absolutely nothing to any thread, and has refused to answer any substantive question. The only reason to leave him on would be to serve as a sort of freak-show parody of both anti-science and Christianity.

It seems there are more Christians than evolutionists everywhere in America sans San Francisco...

Yes, and most of those Christians accept evolution as valid science, and know full well that it's not a "religion," any more than crime-scene investigation is a "religion."

It is irrelevant what Hindus, Wiccans, or evolutionists think since they are unworthy of grace and fit only to be slaves.

There we have it, folks: Cock Sucker -- oops, I mean Pole Greaser -- is nothing more than a stupid, uncaring religious bigot who doesn't even follow the teachings of his own Savior. This pathetic troll is utterly unworthy of our attention.

I vote to ban Pole Greaser. Some of his posts are far beyond what is permissible.

Frank J-

I'll have to do some more reading, so far I've only seen articles indicating Benedict XVI's aversion to Evolution. According to the magisterium, Evolution is an acceptable scientific study but it seems that the Church qualifies things and requires to know if you have an atheistic bent.

Ya, that'll prove / disprove the Theory.

Ratzinger/Benedict is pretty conservative.

The LINK to article about Fr. Coyne:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=401950&in_page_id=1811

Alternatively, Wikipedia spells out that Coyne's replacement had nothing to do with his suggestion that Cardinal C. Schonborn (friend of Pope Benedict) was pressured by the Discovery Institute to publish an article in the N.Y. Times that was critical of Evolution. Even though it is contended that Schonborn probably wouldn't have written such a thing without Benedict's nod.

Someone Claiming to be the Pole Dancer troll exuded: The Christian religion is the only true religion; it is by faith the elect know this.

It’s trivially simple to post under somebody else’s moniker on this forum. I’m more than slightly suspicious of this inflammatory disquisition.

CAVEAT #1: AS — CAVEAT#2: Evolve

Only mankind’s ego could misinterpret 2 Peter 3:8 affixing the number 1,000 to the ratio equivalent in the passage “...day to the (Judeo-Christian) Lord . . .” by leaving out the word ‘As’. This one word by all known logic methodology means the word ‘Day’ in Genesis 1:5 has no fixed equivalent to man’s calculation of time but rather uses 1,000 to emphasize day represents a much longer length of time than man could fathom. If the ratio was intended to be exact then the sentence would have omitted the word As or been translated using only the word Is — “. . . a day is 1,000 years. . , ” if you simply ask a human whose life-span is 76 years then 1,000 is a very large number. Only ego would bind that which is called Creator and not admit that the actual time of this difference or ratio could easily have been 65 billion years (the word billion not yet having appeared in language and not yet fathomed by logicians as infinity.)

In like manors, only the scientific ego could misinterpret the truth that all earth fossil-life is constituted and reconstituted from the same shale clay. Gasoline engines and plastic sandwich bags are realities from crude, yet, how often has anyone called them relatives or given the word evolve preeminence in scientific discussion, although admittedly they share a few common molecular structures? If we were in fact to claim this information as basis for truth then we must claim the original or 1st Oxygen-based one cell life-form, the euglena (both plant and animal,) as our forefather, having evolved therefrom.
It is our understanding, our ability to think through, our acquisition tools of discovery, our technology that has evolved. That is to say a thing may be derived from, yet not be evolved from. The discovery of shale-rock and quartz crystals should have eliminated use of the word evolve with regard to organized education.

My premise is and the assertions are that in the ego’s effort to be right we have generated a division that is false, never existed, and unnecessary with regard to any discussion on teaching (our young) the subject matters of geology, anthropology, paleontology, and/or the recycling nature of Earth-Nature from inception to end.

These assertions have additional proof:
1. Scientist agree the Earth began as a void

2. The continental drift supports the second day

3. The order of appearance of beasts agrees

4. Common sense confirms fact that before man is (environs, Genesis day 5) earth must be rid of dinosaurs, change climates, change terrain, be provided with several smaller beast-inhabitants.
Yes, this is an oversimplification of terminology, but what greater oversimplifications of scientific data than to conclude that because one thing shares similar molecular structures, a few (DNA) strains or that one appeared prior to the other places either in the position of forefather. Likewise what an oversimplification to assume that which is called Intelligent (Creator) has less common sense or can’t tell time or is limited in being the potter molding the shale-clay.

Our solution is not as daring as an admission the earth is elliptical. The Compromise Textbooks will stop leaving out the word “As” in correlating the scriptural creation time-lines, eliminate the word “Evolve” from science, replacing its bank of information as what it is — the factual detailing of known existence past, present, future, coupled with the detailed descriptions of intra-relationships or interdependencies derived by-way-of logical methods of investigation. This allows the ‘faith-based’ family to assert truth within an intelligent design but does not deny the evidence of how long or the interconnectivity presented. This also frees the scientific community to claim science bares neither responsibility nor need to answer what started the original void, leaving source definition to the trust/faith of each individual query and/or theory.

Timecube!

toni tyler: Our solution is not as daring as an admission the earth is elliptical.

toni tyler: These assertions have additional proof: 1. Scientist agree the Earth began as a void

2. The continental drift supports the second day

3. The order of appearance of beasts agrees

4. Common sense confirms fact that before man is (environs, Genesis day 5) earth must be rid of dinosaurs, change climates, change terrain, be provided with several smaller beast-inhabitants.

Yes, this is an oversimplification of terminology, but what greater oversimplifications of scientific data than to conclude that because one thing shares similar molecular structures, a few (DNA) strains or that one appeared prior to the other places either in the position of forefather. Likewise what an oversimplification to assume that which is called Intelligent (Creator) has less common sense or can’t tell time or is limited in being the potter molding the shale-clay.

Our solution is not as daring as an admission the earth is elliptical.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. NOW, IT IS A DISGRACEFUL AND DANGEROUS THING FOR AN INFIDEL TO HEAR A CHRISTIAN, PRESUMABLY GIVING THE MEANING OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, TALKING NONSENSE ON THESE TOPICS; AND WE SHOULD TAKE ALL MEANS TO PREVENT SUCH AN EMBARRASSING SITUATION, IN WHICH PEOPLE SHOW UP VAST IGNORANCE IN A CHRISTIAN AND LAUGH IT TO SCORN. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men."

This Augustine quote was in the above article, and while it seems to be somewhat condescending, it was written at a time when many other societies didn't have much scientific knowledge.

Religious fundies can't imagine anything beyond the Literal word in Genesis and want the scientific world to bow to their wishes. Augustine's statement tells them that the Verasity of the Catholic Church (or any denomination) depends upon the FACTUAL Scientific knowledge of it's members.

What society allows to be done with Scientific knowledge is another matter.

@Befuddled Theorist -

YES. The more I learn about St. Augustine, the more I am enchanted by him . It was his belief that anything that man learned from science is necessary for man's salvation.

It would seem, using Augustine's logic, that the "Fundies" are trying to keep salvation 'out of reach' by squelching scientific progress.

Stacy S.: @Befuddled Theorist - YES. The more I learn about St. Augustine, the more I am enchanted by him . It was his belief that anything that man learned from science is necessary for man's salvation. It would seem, using Augustine's logic, that the "Fundies" are trying to keep salvation 'out of reach' by squelching scientific progress.

Religious fundies can’t imagine anything beyond the Literal word in Genesis and want the scientific world to bow to their wishes.

— Befuddled Theorist

It would seem, using Augustine’s logic, that the “Fundies” are trying to keep salvation ‘out of reach’ by squelching scientific progress.

— Stacy S.

-Stacy S.

"It would seem, using Augustine’s logic, that the “Fundies” are trying to keep salvation ‘out of reach’ by squelching scientific progress."

Maybe, but I interpreted things to be that Augustine was worried about The Church's slip showing, and less worried about how much a fool was making of himself... or prevented from being saved.

-Frank J.

Personally, I was spared from a fanatic Fundie education so I am not now rebelling. Actually, I never thought that there were any Flat Earth people around, only recently discovered that there are OECists, and am baffled by the presence of YECists. I was raised a Catholic and actually Taught that we should Not read the bible... and the reason now seems vividly clear. "Which" literal word? Are there any?

Science doesn't disprove Anything if people don't believe that the bible is the literal truth.

I enjoy a story about Mae Ferguson (or something like that name) reported to be the first woman Governor of Texas. Anyhow she allegedly said: "If the King James version of the bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me".

Unfortunately, there are some people that don't see a problem with that statement.

Intelligent Design is actually an OLD idea, and was discarded LONG AGO. It's recent resurrection was in response to the Supreme Court ruling against Creationism being taught in Science Classes. This was vividly shown in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board where the book OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE was rewritten with ID replacing the word Creationism.

I'm not sure that I understand your comment to Stacy S. about not wanting confrontation with fundies. The current conditions are that fundies want to Eliminate the whole Theory of Evolution. And, of course, teach Creationism as scientific fact. Science has no desire to destroy Any religious teaching, merely to keep the theatre of Science uncontaminated of non-scientific stuff. This situation demands that scientists, and other rational people, confront things head-on... If not, there is a possibility that a few years down the road, the rest of the world will look at the U.S. in the same way that we now look at many of the countries in the Mid-East.

@ Frank - Do you know where I could find that statement by that Texas Gov.?
That's hilarious!

Bufuddled Theorist wrote: I enjoy a story about Mae Ferguson (or something like that name) reported to be the first woman Governor of Texas. Anyhow she allegedly said: “If the King James version of the bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me”.

Sorry, I meant Befuddled Theorist.

Befuddled Theorist: I'm not sure that I understand your comment to Stacy S. about not wanting confrontation with fundies. The current conditions are that fundies want to Eliminate the whole Theory of Evolution. And, of course, teach Creationism as scientific fact. Science has no desire to destroy Any religious teaching, merely to keep the theatre of Science uncontaminated of non-scientific stuff. This situation demands that scientists, and other rational people, confront things head-on... If not, there is a possibility that a few years down the road, the rest of the world will look at the U.S. in the same way that we now look at many of the countries in the Mid-East.

direct quote from Study Flunks State Science Standards: "Student achievement on national science exams has remained flat for 30 years and the number of countries outperforming American students grew from four in 1995 to seven in 2004, the report said."

sorry again my link didn't work.

The URL is http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=72494

Stacy S.

I can't remember where I read that Mae Ferguson statement. I tried to find it at a few "Quotation" sites on the internet but haven't found it.

Sorry, maybe you will have better luck.

He urged his listeners, biblical inerrantists like himself, "to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. ... just don't waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues." 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’m not sure that I understand your comment to Stacy S. about not wanting confrontation with fundies.

— Befuddled Theorist

Stacy S.,

Looking at BT's comments, I guess you were referring to the "good enough for Jesus" quote, and not to McLeroy's.

If so, the irony is that, if phrases like that had not become so closely identified with reactionary 20th century fundamentalism, it would not be unusual to hear any Christian "evolutionist" use it freely. Same goes for the "dissent from 'Darwinism'" statement, which, read a certain way expresses the sentiment of every evolutionary biologist.

What worries me more than fundamentalism (which itself worries me a lot) is that anti-evolution activists have taken the English language hostage. Note the baiting-and-switching of definitions ("creationism" and "theory" being 2 examples of many) at their convenience. And given the US aversion to science, attraction to pseudoscience, "bleeding heart" attitude to "oppressed underdogs" and addiction to conspiracy "theories," they don't have to try hard at all.

Like I said, we may be winning with the "supply," (& I'm not saying to stop the fight) but there's a lot more work to do with "demand."

@ Frank - Thank you for all of the info.!!

Befuddled Theorist: I enjoy a story about Mae Ferguson (or something like that name) reported to be the first woman Governor of Texas. Anyhow she allegedly said: "If the King James version of the bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me".

Miriam Ferguson, along with a few other people, have been attributed with this quote: “If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”[6] She was an educated woman and fairly well-read, so it is somewhat unlikely that she actually ever uttered those words. There are also variations of these words going back to 1881 that were often used to ridicule the backwardness of various unnamed Christians which strengthens the argument that the attribution to Ferguson was incorrect.[7]

Stacy,

Thanks to you for doing the hard work. I regret not having been involved at Dover (1-2 hr. drive away). Not that my contribution would have been needed.

angst,

"English was good enough for Jesus Christ" sounds like something Archie Bunker would say. Defenders of science have shot themselves in the foot more than once trying to stereotype anti-evolution activists. Not in the case of Dover's Bill Buckingham, of course. He's his own parody.

In case anyone forgets, Buckingham is the one who said (defending anti-evolution) "Nearly 2000 years ago, someone died on the cross for us. Shouldn’t we have the courage to stand up for him?" In a way, Judge Jones did stand up for him, but Buckingham still had the chutzpah to complain.

@ Frank - I'm not doing any hard work - I'm just an obsessed mother!! :-) I imagine I'll be obsessed until the Florida BoE votes on the proposed science standards on the 19th.

BTW, Florida Citizens for Science has an online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/flascience/ - that they will send to the BoE in a couple of days - after you sign it, it takes you to a "make a donation page", but don't worry - you can just exit.

angst-

You may be correct that Mae Ferguson never said these statements, and that's why I was circumspect and wrote she "allegedly" said the "King James" statement. I did actually see the statement Someplace, just as I stated it.... I mean Really, how can you forget a statement like that! But, who knows the validity. Just because it's listed as a quote online, it doesn't mean it's true.

Having said that... Mae Ferguson is reportedly to have been a very colorful character. As far as Education, we can't that use that to prove Anything. Since I got my computer online a little over two years ago, Nothing surprises me anymore.

The phrase, in my post, was an example of how little demand for Critical Thinking people put on themselves. Once people accept something as True, they will bend over backwards to make the world fit into their mold of how Things Should Be. Unfortunately, Science takes a back seat to many people's demand that their own particular religion's teachings are True. As I said before, my church made no literal interpretation demand so it was very easy to accept the Theory of Evolution as a valid Scientific fact.

Scientists are taught to think differently. We accept a the Theory of Evolution like we accept many Scientific arguments. But if / when an alternate Theory comes along, or an opposing Theory, we feel free to learn, discuss, argue, and over time possibly be able to discard one or the other. In Physics, I think there are rules that pertain to one situation, but not another.

We learn, and adapt. But once religion is allowed to start imposing their dogma upon science education, the world will change, and it might not just be a matter of stepping on the toes of an alternate theory anymore. We all probably know some of the problems that Galelao had when presenting his theories to people more comfortable in the political arena.

If M. Ferguson did really state something like the "King James" statement, it merely shows her inability for critical scientific thinking. Maybe people in politics are trained more in the Social Sciences and the Scientific Methold would seem kinda foreign, just as it might be hard for a Scientist to enter the world of politics.

Unfortunately, it is these politicians that are determining weather or not Intelligent Design / Creationism is going to be taught in Science Classes. I don't think EDUCATION is going to help them, they don't need the Scientific Methold in their jobs, and if they have a religious agenda or are pestered by religious fundamentalists... the future of The Theory of Evolution in the U.S. is in trouble.

And that's where we are now.

I'm glad there is a forum like Pandas Thumb to get information concerning Evolution education. Also NCSE.

A GOOD THING happened in Florida tonight!!

http://www.flascience.org/wp/ !! :-)

Does anyone know what the feelings are of Gov. Crist on Evolution?
I just heard that he might be McCain's 'running mate'.