Florida's "Evolution Academic Freedom Act"

--students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular
position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution--

I know what a lot of 1st graders think of vegetables, but they need to suffer negative consequences if they express those views on a test covering nutrition.

Sounds good to me... it's not like ID (or creationism) is scientific.

Jana McCreary is clearly trying to doublethink her way to legally justify breaking the law in obvious fashion. She is struggling to answer the question "How can my religion legally be preached in science classes, while genuine science refuting my religion be outlawed?" And her answer seems to reflect the thought process of lawyers generally.

(Including Mr Timothy "I declaim, you genuflect" Sandefur, who arrogantly forces us to discuss in unrelated threads, as part of his lawyerly understanding of what a "discussion forum" is all about.)

I'd say no, the Disco doesn't like this. It basically says 'believe what crap you like, and we'll teach science'. And Disco isn't known for its scientific success.

I would say Yes, Dsco likes it, because the scientific requirement is not applied to the teacher's views. This is an opening for fundie teachers to express their creationist views in public schools.

The creationists all insist that creationism, which they now won't call by its name, is scientific.

Wow! Fantastic! Finally we can teach the Truth(TM) in Florida's schools without fear! The evil discrimination against Flying Spaghetti Monsterism by christian Fundamentalist freaks will finally end! Hooray!

Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster. Only certified creationists may apply.

Some news accounts:

Palm Beach

St Petersburg Times

Miami Herald

But Pete, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has exactly as many peer-reviewed research papers as Intelligent Design, zero! Why are you so anti-pasta? ;-D

"Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster. Only certified creationists may apply."

(Oh, oh, OH!!!!
I know this one. I know it. Pick me. Pick me. PICK ME!!!!!)

The scientific establishment unfairly discriminates against scientific evidence for the FSM.
There are many FSM friendly scientists who dare not publish their findings for fear of ridicule and discrimination.

Stop the Darwino-Fascist repression. Follow the evidence where it leads.
(Ramen)

[ from Dover trial transcript, answers by Behe ] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? A. No, I argued for it in my book. Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct? A. That is correct, yes. Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research? A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

However, students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution.

Oh, great. Doesn't this mean that if a kid comes into school and says "My pastor told me that the theory of evolution says that life formed when the universe exploded and that a fish turned into a monkey that gave birth to a human", the teacher could not legally tell them they were wrong?

Pete Dunkelberg: See the opening post. Disco has lots, they say. Somehow they forgot them when on trial, although they were reminded of Behe & Snoke.

[ from Dover trial transcript, answers by Behe ] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct? A. No, I argued for it in my book. Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct? A. That is correct, yes. Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research? A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Source

Would it be fair to say that there are probably a lot of lawyers looking forward to the passage of this bill and the legal challenge that will inevitably follow?

42 (6) Public school students in the state’s K-12 school 43 system shall be evaluated based upon their understanding of 44 course materials through normal testing procedures.

Jana McCreary's argument was the ICS's (Institute for Creation Research!) original strategy, dilute the teaching of evolution by introducing everything else under the sun so that there's really no time to teach real science. They couldn't have cared less if the science program took a nose dive as long as evolution was ultimately eliminated from the curriculum.

McCreary is just continuing in this same line of argument, though clearly she's focusing on (un)intelligent design as the legitimate competing theory. These creationist couldn't care less if science were scrapped altogether as long as evolution is eliminated.

I noticed in the list of peer reviewed publications a notable author was missing, Casey Luskin, and his (sole) graduate peer-reviewed geological paper. I believe he got his name on the paper because he drove the car the professor was riding in to the site where they took measurements.

It appears this Florida bill is aiming to do exactly that.

Please cut out that off topic stuff. That is what ATBC is for.

Patches wrote:

"Oh, great. Doesn’t this mean that if a kid comes into school and says “My pastor told me that the theory of evolution says that life formed when the universe exploded and that a fish turned into a monkey that gave birth to a human”, the teacher could not legally tell them they were wrong?"

Theoretically, it should be possible to test a student on the hypotheses and findings of science without personal belief coming into the picture. For example, a test could ask about the origin of humans according to evolutionary theory and not ask for the opinion of the student on the subject. If the student answered something about monkeys giving birth to humans the answer would be wrong, not because it was what the student believed, but because it was not what the theory of evolution claimed. It might be difficult to make the distinction, but it should not be impossible.

Ideally students should be evaluated based on their knowledge, not on their personal beliefs. After all, a math teacher doesn't have to ask if the student believes that 2 + 2 = 4. Personal belief is irrelevant with respect to the knowledge of the answer according to mainstream mathematics. Of course, some personal beliefs can hinder comprehension and understanding, but evaluation should still be based on knowledge.

Hopefully this bill will be interpreted and implemented with this understanding. But if so, then why is the bill required, since all education must already conform to this standard? Obvioulsy, anything else makes a complete mockery out of both science and education.

Patches: However, students shall not be penalized for subscribing to a particular position or view regarding biological or chemical evolution. Oh, great. Doesn't this mean that if a kid comes into school and says "My pastor told me that the theory of evolution says that life formed when the universe exploded and that a fish turned into a monkey that gave birth to a human", the teacher could not legally tell them they were wrong?

42 (6) Public school students in the state’s K-12 school 43 system shall be evaluated based upon their understanding of 44 course materials through normal testing procedures.

Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster. Only certified creationists may apply.

Does "shall be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials" mean that if the teacher presented ID the students could also be tested on how well they understood it?

Why does the linked article for the Disco "peer reviewed" work date to July 1, 2008? How long have I been asleep?

Anyone else notice that the DI link in the original post is dated July 1, 2008?

Would it be derailing or off-topic to ask someone more savvy than I about that list of references the DI provides, to supposedly peer-reviewed papers presenting research that supports intelligent design? They say that there are many such papers. I note the frequent statement of actual scientists - and of Behe himself - that there is no such literature. One of these statements must be untrue.

What is this material, then? Is it reporting research? And did other scientists have the opportunity to replicate and repeat the observations, to test the explanations advanced for them, and to report their findings confirming or refuting both the observations and the explanations?

Germaine to line 11, Answers in Genesis had a post today or yesterday on polonium halos, and has been tauting its "peer reviewed" research. According to that legislation, therefore, the simple fact that someone can download an article from a journal that claims "peer-review" can justify teaching whatever they want. Arguably, AiG and the DI make a mockery of peer-review, but the precedent is set. Of course, this raises the interesting question that if the FSM folks put out a journal (heck, why not the peer-reviewed cryptozoology stuff), then their stuff can be taught too. For all its academic jargon, the bill makes a mockery of the scientific process. For those fighting the bill, it is very clear that the authors have not thought through and publicized the full range consequences of the proposal.

Damn those words “current facts”, “data”, “scientific” and “peer-reviewed”!

Nah; DI won’t go for it.

Look for something more surreptitious from DI. More grass roots stuff below the radar and in churches. That’s what their propaganda machine is already geared up for. A possible tactic would be to indoctrinate followers, especially children and young adults, to such an extent that, as students, they will be trained to warp scientific concepts to fit dogma in their own minds and still get past the “evil, secular exams”. We already see this going on with some of the trolls who show up on Panda’s Thumb to test their shtick in enemy territory.

They might also try to overload or game the education system even more so that no one has time to adequately check conceptual understanding in science. After all, if some of the DI “fellows” got to PhDs without their misconceptions and mischaracterizations being discovered, then it must be possible to game the system of education at nearly every level and obtain the appearance of a science education without really being properly vetted.

Another tactic might be to favor applied sciences as long as those disciplines avoid the deeper issues faced by researchers in the hard sciences. Then publish in applied journals that are peer-reviewed, but pass the material off to rubes as peer-reviewed science supporting ID/Creationism. That should really confuse the rubes.

If there is a way to game it, DI will find it.

raven:

Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster. Only certified creationists may apply.

That is not a problem. I suppose you haven't seen the latest issue of Answers in Durum Wheat yet. Peer reviewed of course. The lead in article discusses whether canned spaghetti is holy or an abomination.

The creationists all insist that creationism, which they now won’t call by its name, is scientific.

It just means that, once again, the DI is shopping around for another school district willing to risk being bankrupted by a case which will test whether ID nonsense falls under the umbrella of "scientific information". This time, since they know the full weakness of their position, they have left themselves some wiggle room by including "germane current facts" in the definition, as if scientific merit could be established based on what shows up this week in the Miami Herald.

Once again, it will boil down to the judge: if he/she is smart and informed, he/she will see right through this new attempt. But that's of course a crapshoot.

Just refer any creationist rube that wants to believe that the "Peer reviewed" list of scientific articles support ID to the Dover testimony of both Behe and Minnich. Both of these guys have articles on the list published before the Dover trial, but both admitted under oath that no scientific papers supporting intelligent design had been published that they knew of. They would know their own work, wouldn't they? If the papers on this list do not support intelligent design, why list them on such a list? Why do Behe and Minnich allow their articles to be misrepresented on this list in light of their testimony?

The sad fact is that they seem to only tell the semblance of the truth under oath. That tells you what kind of people support the Discovery Institute.

Notice that the legislation repeats the "Expelled" theme that there are teachers cowering in fear of bad consequences because the law does not protect them from holding and teaching "alternative views" about evolution.

But the key section is #6 (lines 42-46 in the passage above). I wonder what the accreditation organizations would think of a science curriculum that would mandate that students get full credit for essentially any "position or view" regarding evolution. It certainly has the practical effect of nullifying that portion of the science standards (while at the same time claiming that it does not). Perhaps someone should run this by those accreditation groups to see how they would treat it.

Whereas formerly Florida avoided mention of evolution, but arguably mandated it under a general requirement that student be taught sound science, this proposal clearly opens the door for any wacko position or theory on the subject. IMO, this is a big step backwards, and Disco would be thrilled if this gets enacted.

Please cut out that off topic stuff. That is what ATBC is for.

David Stanton: Patches wrote: "Oh, great. Doesn’t this mean that if a kid comes into school and says “My pastor told me that the theory of evolution says that life formed when the universe exploded and that a fish turned into a monkey that gave birth to a human”, the teacher could not legally tell them they were wrong?" Theoretically, it should be possible to test a student on the hypotheses and findings of science without personal belief coming into the picture. For example, a test could ask about the origin of humans according to evolutionary theory and not ask for the opinion of the student on the subject. If the student answered something about monkeys giving birth to humans the answer would be wrong, not because it was what the student believed, but because it was not what the theory of evolution claimed. It might be difficult to make the distinction, but it should not be impossible. Ideally students should be evaluated based on their knowledge, not on their personal beliefs. After all, a math teacher doesn't have to ask if the student believes that 2 + 2 = 4. Personal belief is irrelevant with respect to the knowledge of the answer according to mainstream mathematics. Of course, some personal beliefs can hinder comprehension and understanding, but evaluation should still be based on knowledge. Hopefully this bill will be interpreted and implemented with this understanding. But if so, then why is the bill required, since all education must already conform to this standard? Obvioulsy, anything else makes a complete mockery out of both science and education.

They won't like this at all. Clever (ie what i would have done) Let it go through, but change the wording to exclude ID from being taught because it's not "scientific".

Though i do wonder what evidence, given the recent court case concerning ID not being science, they had to show proving that people have been unfairly discriminated against for doing science objectively.

Why do i get the feeling that the evidence was made up of lots of small, green, rectangular pieces of paper.

Where are the universities in this discussion? Now is the time for universities to say 'If this passes, we will require all incoming biology students from Florida to take a remedial course', not after it passes.

Peter Henderson:

The creationists all insist that creationism, which they now won’t call by its name, is scientific.

Pete: This appeared on the Answers in Genesis website the other day: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model AiG claim this article is not only scientific but peer-reviewed as well and that it confirms a young Earth, not one billions of years old. I just wonder how many high school students (secondary/grammar schools in this country), or even university under-grads, would know what is wrong with it or what they (AiG) are actually claiming. Certainly, I wouldn't have a clue where to start other than knowing that RATE was set up by YE creationists in order to discredit radiometric dating. The citizens of Florida are up against a very well-oiled and professional movement I'm afraid.

Richard Simons: Where are the universities in this discussion? Now is the time for universities to say 'If this passes, we will require all incoming biology students from Florida to take a remedial course', not after it passes.

Simpleman, learning "opposing theories", as put forth in your "new language" analogy, is as useful as kids being forced to learn Klingon. Both Klingon and "opposing theories of evolution" have about equal utility in the real world and are a waste of time in an already cramped and time constrained curriculum.

simpleman wrote:

"But it could not hurt to explain other theories also. Actually this would be very educational since it would help kids understand how science works."

It could not hurt to briefly explain other failed hypotheses, but why give them equal time? Why be required to mention every one of them no matter how foolish?

Of course there are no other "theories", so one should never pretend that there are. That is not the right way to teach students what a theory is.

David, Larry Falafelman sez that he does TOO have a competing theory and presented it over at the Florida Citizens for Science site under the "Bad News" link. Sadly, I am too moronic to figure out how to put the link here but everybody can check it out if they know how to get there. He's a cutting edge scientific genius, you know. Any of you real scientists want to take a gander?

I'm not totally happy with the bill but it's a great start for Fla and the nation in exposing the flaws of the evolution
hypothesis.

Of course the Expelled movie will be of great assistance in the drive to put science back on a credible track to understanding, a more value neutral approach to objective truth, a more inquisitive approach to research and a holistic understanding of how science ifts into the whole of life.

The fear mongering, irrational hatred, and gestapo tactics of the eov crowd has met its Waterloo.

Florida has shown the way to a new enlightenment!!!!!

Keith Eaton: I'm not totally happy with the bill but it's a great start for Fla and the nation in exposing the flaws of the evolution hypothesis. Of course the Expelled movie will be of great assistance in the drive to put science back on a credible track to understanding, a more value neutral approach to objective truth, a more inquisitive approach to research and a holistic understanding of how science ifts into the whole of life. The fear mongering, irrational hatred, and gestapo tactics of the eov crowd has met its Waterloo. Florida has shown the way to a new enlightenment!!!!!

Bill Dembski said: ... Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo.

The creationists all insist that creationism, which they now won’t call by its name, is scientific.

David, Keith is a parody. Pay him no mind.

simpleman, what "other theories" should be taught? What other scientific theories are there regarding the diversity of life other than the modern theory of evolution?

simpleman:

Richard Simons: Where are the universities in this discussion? Now is the time for universities to say 'If this passes, we will require all incoming biology students from Florida to take a remedial course', not after it passes.

Actually they will be better educated. For instance when a person learns a new language they understand much more about their native language. They learn that the idioms are different in another language and that there are different sentence structures. And I do believe there are SATs etc they will adequately test Florida students. This seems to be a very weak argument.

Like mentioning the aether idea? As far as I know we do not have a large emotional population of Aetherians who are sure that real science is all in their favor and scientists who don't agree are just trying to be mean to them.

13 (3) The Legislature finds that current law does not 14 expressly protect the right of teachers to objectively present 15 scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific 16 views regarding chemical and biological evolution.

52 (8) This section does not promote any religious doctrine, 53 promote discrimination for or against a particular set of 54 religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against 55 religion or nonreligion.

Someone asked the sponsor of this bill whether any teachers had been persecuted for teaching creationism in Florida. They couldn't think of a single one.

1. Creationism is, in fact, taught often in Florida schools. They may just flat out teach AIG level YEC or they may toss it in within the scientific TOE as an "alternative." The usual introduction in this case is, "You can believe you are just a souped up monkey if you want to." This is called Teaching the Controversy.

2. It is illegal to teach cult Xian dogma in kid's science classes. They could have been sued or prosecuted. Many court cases over decades.

3. There is no enforcement mechanism or will to enforce the state standards anyway. Fundie school districts tend to score low in the state assessment tests. They are undoubtedly proud of that fact. Wallowing in ignorance is a popular activity in places.

This is all pure politics by the fundie theocratic wing. They just like to make life as difficult as possible for other people as part of their mission to spread fundie Xian hate.

Actually they will be better educated. For instance when a person learns a new language they understand much more about their native language. They learn that the idioms are different in another language and that there are different sentence structures.

Simpleman said:
"Exactly. Sure kids should be taught what evolutionary theory is. It IS the prevailing theory. But it could not hurt to explain other theories also. Actually this would be very educational since it would help kids understand how science works.

And in physics class I do not see how a brief discussion of the aether theory would hurt. Or in medical class a brief discussions of humours. Showing how theories developed helps us understand how theories are formed and tested."

Sure, when another CONCEPT rises to the level of THEORY, then perhaps exposing children in a publicly-funded institution might be a good idea.

Got Theory?

I just sent this e-mail to my Florida senator. I hope it causes some questions, at least.

I'll make this short and to the point. This bill is detrimental to Florida. It is a loophole Bill intended to allow religion into classrooms. The claim that work needs to be peer-reviewed without specifying a peer has lead to many creationist groups sponsoring their own peer review magazine in order to allow creationism/intelligent-design a back door into Florida classrooms. ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1 ) is Volume 1, just released after the senate committee pre-approved this Bill, and the Discovery Institute, an organization who takes pride in fighting scientific views in biology, has presented this list ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 ) of "peer-reviewed" work, even though some are books, and some of the authors testified under oath at the Dover, PA (2005) trial that they have had, to date, no peer reviewed work. As a concerned citizen and constituent, I trust that you will at least look into the issue further to validate the claims being made here.

Sometimes I wish I could feel what it's like being in the middle of the bell curve, sliding down to the left. Damn intellectual responsibilities.

raven:

Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster. Only certified creationists may apply.

That is not a problem. I suppose you haven't seen the latest issue of Answers in Durum Wheat yet. Peer reviewed of course. The lead in article discusses whether canned spaghetti is holy or an abomination.

Although I feel bad that the Florida Legislature seems to have nothing better to do than to put up a sham bill promoting the "academic freedom" to teach nonexistent scientific theories, it isn't the end of the world. It will be challenged in court, wacked down and will never see the light of day.

True it is a massive waste of time and money. Too bad Sen. Ronda Storms can't be sued for the inevitable expenses.

dpr

Mike: I just sent this e-mail to my Florida senator. I hope it causes some questions, at least. I'll make this short and to the point. This bill is detrimental to Florida. It is a loophole Bill intended to allow religion into classrooms. The claim that work needs to be peer-reviewed without specifying a peer has lead to many creationist groups sponsoring their own peer review magazine in order to allow creationism/intelligent-design a back door into Florida classrooms. ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1 ) is Volume 1, just released after the senate committee pre-approved this Bill, and the Discovery Institute, an organization who takes pride in fighting scientific views in biology, has presented this list ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 ) of "peer-reviewed" work, even though some are books, and some of the authors testified under oath at the Dover, PA (2005) trial that they have had, to date, no peer reviewed work. As a concerned citizen and constituent, I trust that you will at least look into the issue further to validate the claims being made here. Sometimes I wish I could feel what it's like being in the middle of the bell curve, sliding down to the left. Damn intellectual responsibilities.

The next time you hear (or read) comments from a Discovery Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer, or one of its DI IDiot Borg drones referring to the Gonzalez and Sternberg - and other similar - affairs, please remind yourself - and where possible, them too - of the following acts of infamy committed by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Michael Behe and William Dembski:

1) Last spring Johns Hopkins University biochemist David Levin had some legitimate criticisms of Michael Behe's work, which he eventually e-mailed to him. In response, he was subjected to a "roasting" at Uncommon Descent by Behe, Dembski and their fellow intellectually-impaired sycophants (It should still be posted there under a link partially entitled "Fly-On-The-Wall".).

2) Oklahoma University graduate student Abbie Smith - assisted by Australian biochemist Ian Musgrave - challenged Mike Behe to explain how Intelligent Design accounted for HIV/AIDS microevolution. It took him more than two months to respond - though in the intervening period, DI spinmeister Casey Luskin had a crack at it - and he did so finally, last fall, by questioning Smith's academic credentials and accusing her of being a "mean girl" at his Amazon.com blog.

3) In December, Bill Dembski asked Amazon.com to pull my harsh, but accurate one star review of his book "The Design of Life" (At the time this was the only one star review; the others were five star reviews written by DI spinmeisters like Casey Luskin and other DI IDiot Borg drones.). I issued him an e-mail ultimatum to have it restored within 12 hours or else, noting that I was bcc'ing copies of the e-mail to four journalists, including two I know at The Washington Post and The New York Times. Dembski had no choice but to submit.

Are these the acts of a "democratic" organization or one with strong Fascist sensitivities, which others, such as biologists Wes Elsberry and Paul Gross and philosopher Barbara Forrest have noted elsewhere?

AiG claim this article is not only scientific but peer-reviewed as well and that it confirms a young Earth, not one billions of years old. I just wonder how many high school students (secondary/grammar schools in this country), or even university under-grads, would know what is wrong with it or what they (AiG) are actually claiming. Certainly, I wouldn’t have a clue where to start other than knowing that RATE was set up by YE creationists in order to discredit radiometric dating. The citizens of Florida are up against a very well-oiled and professional movement I’m afraid.

— Peter Henderson

I love how the DI first kicks a hole through the definition of peer-review and then proceeds to drag the whole motley crew through the hole.

I don't understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom. The NPR piece a few years ago clearly shows that academic freedom is a real problem. Yet, we have such fierce opposition to a bill that would protect teachers from discussing the fact that certain scientists are attempting to discern design, and protect teachers from discussing holes in the T.o.E.

Shame.

Science moves forward on controversy, and becomes very boring if we just keep moving along with our confirmation bias.

Piquing a child's interest by explaining problems in science should be encouraged, not suppressed.

Shame on the PT-mafia.

2) Oklahoma University graduate student Abbie Smith - assisted by Australian biochemist Ian Musgrave - challenged Mike Behe to explain how Intelligent Design accounted for HIV/AIDS microevolution. It took him more than two months to respond - though in the intervening period, DI spinmeister Casey Luskin had a crack at it - and he did so finally, last fall, by questioning Smith’s academic credentials and accusing her of being a "mean girl" at his Amazon.com blog.

Are these the acts of a “democratic” organization or one with strong Fascist sensitivities, which others, such as biologists Wes Elsberry and Paul Gross and philosopher Barbara Forrest have noted elsewhere?

— John Kwok

William Wallace: Yet, we have such fierce opposition to a bill that would protect teachers from discussing the fact that certain scientists are attempting to discern design, and protect teachers from discussing holes in the T.o.E.

Because William, not being entirely stupid, we (liberal and conservative scientists -- what the hell does politics have to do with this?) see straight through the crap. It would be great if YEC and ID were taught in school. Sadly, that would involve teaching students about bad science, the use of rhetoric and politics to force bad ideas to be taught as science, and long amounts of time documenting the lying, distortion and misrepresentation that is YEC and ID. That's called "truth." Truth based on what people do and say, and not your personal ideological filter. For example an honest teacher, teaching creation science, should really present the following to their students, to help them understand the "scientific method" of your good friends whom you admire so much...

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

Or how about these little gems that should feature prominently in the teaching of ID at the K-12 level....

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him."

and my personal favorite...

"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

Then they will know what it is all about. And as all the lies are juxtaposed next that flagrantly Christian position, the child's interest and curiosity might be piqued enough to get them understand the hypocrisy of these self-appointed soldiers for Jesus.

No, the point of this Florida legislation to prevent any teacher from being fired for purveying religious indoctrination under the guise of "science."

Shame indeed.

I don’t understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom.

— William Wallace

John Kwok: of the following acts of infamy committed by Discovery Institute Senior Fellows Michael Behe and William Dembski:

I don’t understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom.

Freedom of religion is not license to distort, mislabel, mislead, and in general, incite followers to interfere with the educations of others who want nothing to do with sectarian dogma.

In December, Bill Dembski asked Amazon.com to pull my harsh, but accurate one star review of his book “The Design of Life”

Sorry, no peer reviewed literature for the Monster.

William Wallace: I don't understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom. The NPR piece a few years ago clearly shows that academic freedom is a real problem. Yet, we have such fierce opposition to a bill that would protect teachers from discussing the fact that certain scientists are attempting to discern design, and protect teachers from discussing holes in the T.o.E.

Shame.

Science moves forward on controversy, and becomes very boring if we just keep moving along with our confirmation bias. Piquing a child's interest by explaining problems in science should be encouraged, not suppressed.

Shame on the PT-mafia.

William Wallace: I don't understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom. The NPR piece a few years ago clearly shows that academic freedom is a real problem. Yet, we have such fierce opposition to a bill that would protect teachers from discussing the fact that certain scientists are attempting to discern design, and protect teachers from discussing holes in the T.o.E. Shame. WW you are a dishonest twit. This has absolutely nothing to do with Academic Freedom. You know it and I know it. This has to do with ONE group, one religious faction attempting to force their religious concepts onto children via the publicly-funded school system by through dishonest measures. It’s ironic that we are spending billions of dollars fighting religious fundies in the middle east, but yet everyone submits to them here. Science moves forward on controversy, and becomes very boring if we just keep moving along with our confirmation bias. Piquing a child's interest by explaining problems in science should be encouraged, not suppressed. Shame on the PT-mafia.

William Wallace said: I don’t understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom.

Giving school children the ability to put down "GODDIDIT" as an answer in science and or biology, and free them from the fear of being rightly flunked for giving such an answer is not "academic freedom."

William Wallace: I don't understand why liberals, of all people, are against academic freedom.

The NPR piece a few years ago clearly shows that academic freedom is a real problem.

Yet, we have such fierce opposition to a bill that would protect teachers from discussing the fact that certain scientists are attempting to discern design, and protect teachers from discussing holes in the T.o.E.

Shame.

Science moves forward on controversy, and becomes very boring if we just keep moving along with our confirmation bias.

Piquing a child's interest by explaining problems in science should be encouraged, not suppressed.

Shame on the PT-mafia.

Let's bring this down to a 6th grade level - (which is about where I am :-) , and probably most of the legislature, when it comes to understanding biology) - finish this sentence ...

Dear Senator (Representative),

If this bill passes, our students will be able to ...

If this bill passes, our teachers will be able to ...

William Wallace: This is a non-problem because it has a simple solution (The Dr. Michael Dini method): rewrite the test question. How does the theory of evolution explain X...

William Wallace:

2) Oklahoma University graduate student Abbie Smith - assisted by Australian biochemist Ian Musgrave - challenged Mike Behe to explain how Intelligent Design accounted for HIV/AIDS microevolution. It took him more than two months to respond - though in the intervening period, DI spinmeister Casey Luskin had a crack at it - and he did so finally, last fall, by questioning Smith’s academic credentials and accusing her of being a "mean girl" at his Amazon.com blog.

The foul mouthed Abbie Smith refuses to acknowledge that her quote mining of Behe's book came from a chapter titled "The Two-Binding Sites rule." Case closed.

Dear raven and Torbjorn,

I was referring to three of the most egregious acts from last year committed by Disco Tutte mendacious intellectual pornographers. I'm glad you reminded me of the others, since they merely prove my point that the Discovery Institute really is a Christian Fascist organization (A point which Peter Irons had disputed with me in an Amazon.com comments section thread after an Amazon.com customer review of Dembski and Wells' mendacious intellectual pornography.).

Appreciatively yours,

John

William Wallace:

Giving school children the ability to put down "GODDIDIT" as an answer in science and or biology, and free them from the fear of being rightly flunked for giving such an answer is not "academic freedom."

This is a non-problem because it has a simple solution (The Dr. Michael Dini method): rewrite the test question. How does the theory of evolution explain X...

Sample Evolution Test Question: "Why was the weasel-like mesonychid, Yangtanglestes, able to live sympatrically in the same ecosystems with its descendants, the wolf-like, hyena-like, and jackal-like mesonychids Sinonyx, Jiangxia, and Dissacus?

Sample Wrong Answer: "Jesus willed it so."

It’s ironic that we are spending billions of dollars fighting religious fundies in the middle east, but yet everyone submits to them here.

Piquing a child’s interest by explaining problems in science should be encouraged, not suppressed.

Dear Butthead Evos,

You're posts which once again threaten devastating actions both political and personal against anyone who dares to question your view of the universe, life, philosophy, legal understanding, or societal norms are immediate clarification of why the DI, allied groups worldwide, individual scientists, medical doctors, etc. must escalate the efforts to rescue science and innocent students from the totalitarianism, elitism, and naked materialism of the evo pseudoscientist cult.

Only the most extreme techno-terrorists of evoland could be dumb enough to write such transparently ignorant posts as appear here ( Clue: The DI is a Think Tank and so legally organized under law and not as a religious organization.)

Take a hard look at the pig and sewer people who head your efforts and you will understand why I have a standing offer to buy drinks all around at my local bar when they are no longer with us.

(Can anyone confirm the rumor that pee wee myers was eaten by a pack of wolves yesterday while out drunk and ice fishing with his pet sheep Alice?)

prof weird:

William Wallace:

2) Oklahoma University graduate student Abbie Smith - assisted by Australian biochemist Ian Musgrave - challenged Mike Behe to explain how Intelligent Design accounted for HIV/AIDS microevolution. It took him more than two months to respond - though in the intervening period, DI spinmeister Casey Luskin had a crack at it - and he did so finally, last fall, by questioning Smith’s academic credentials and accusing her of being a "mean girl" at his Amazon.com blog.

The foul mouthed Abbie Smith refuses to acknowledge that her quote mining of Behe's book came from a chapter titled "The Two-Binding Sites rule." Case closed.

Behe CLAIMED that it was nearly IMPOSSIBLE for two-binding sites to evolve. The 'foul mouthed' Abbie Smith SHOWED that he was full of crap with ACTUAL, REAL WORLD DATA. His Zeppelin ego couldn't take the hit, and so he exploded in a blast of hot, fetid air. Much like the evo-deniers all over this site ...

Could you give us an example of the kind of problem you have in mind?

Michael Behe responded Behe: "...And I said such things could happen [useful defects such as sickle cell binding sites], and I said the limit for Darwinian evolution was two connected protein-protein binding sites. That is, if you need three proteins to do something, and each pair of proteins has to be connected by a site; you need two protein binding sites—I said that would be, based on the data that I talk about in the book _The Edge of Evolution_ that's the most you could expect out of Darwinian processes. Now this lady—this graduate student, said well, hey, look, there's been a new binding site which has occurred in one protein in HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. And she was right, and I had not seen that. So I said, okay, well, there's another single binding site that has come about. But again, you would expect that to happen because the odds against a single binding site popping up are not that prohibitive. But if you need two binding sites together to do something than that's what I said in my book was prohibitive. Since most molecular machines in the cell consist of aggregates of a dozen proteins or so, each of which have to bind very specifically to each other, that means that most of the protein machinery in the cell is well beyond Darwinian evolution. Well, she mis-read the book.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Thanks for the tip, but there is actually an a la carte option for the menu: write up the Multiple Designer Theory. If it pass, the FSM can be side dish to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Would someone hand Keith a napkin to wipe the foam off his mouth.

Hey, hey, hey. Don’t forget the granddaddy of ‘em all the Celestial Teapot. Let us not fight amongst ourselves. Let us merge all the three religions, FSM, IPU and TCT forming the Holy Trinity!

I actually prefer Klingon Cosmology myself, but I'm a Pastafarian too (I'm also, like Paul Gross, a conservative Republican. I know, I know, the Amazon.com IDiots think I'm an atheistic liberal too.).

LOL! If we didn't have Keith Eaton we'd have to invent him for the sheer comedy gold! I'd call him a brilliant Poe if I didn't know the scary truth that he is, indeed, truly this batshit crazy and paranoid. He drinketh deep of the Koolaid.

William Wallace: The foul mouthed Abbie Smith refuses to acknowledge that her quote mining of Behe's book came from a chapter titled "The Two-Binding Sites rule." Case closed.

Grown people telling kids that the platypus evolved a set of 3-d kinementic equation solvers coupled to a milliamp current detection sensor in its bill to hunt for and locate its little prey under the mud. All this perfectly coordinated multicompnent system achieved over enons by randonmly resequencing million character strings of code bearing molecules they themselves linked to an intercellular expression system. Shame on you propagandists for such rank misrepresentation of the natural world.

This kind of propaganda and misrepresentation of science must be resisted by those of us sufficiently gifted and concerned to support real scientists, heroic film makers, pioneering actors, brilliant writers, inventors of new and ingenious theories , celebrated think-tanks, and political heroes seeking to rescue our society and vulnerable students from the neo-nazi hordes of evolutionist science pretenders.

Soon millions will be joining the crusade against the "liars for Darwin".

Thanks goodness my parents had such high goals for my career, otherwise I might have settled for being a biologist or worse a paleontologist...ugh!!

My two engineering degrees and extensive business career rescued me from such a fate for which I am very thankful. I can't imagine being stuck in a remote igloo in Minnesota staring at the butt of a Zebra fish for 30 years.

Hi Keith and William,

I didn't realize it was already Comedy Night. Thanks so much for your most perceptive posts. It's funny, you both sound just like my "favorite" Canadian writer, Denyse O'Leary, whose intelligence - I have noted previously here at Panda's Thumb - is substantially less than that of a few dogs owned by some friends of mine.

I trust you'll continue enjoying your memberships in either (or both) the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective or the Answers in Genesis Dalek Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone or AiG Dalek Clone),

John

Sorry, but PT is here to discuss materials posted on PT for discussion. Sandefur, NOT PT’s constituency, is violating the purpose of PT. Please, someone, we need a policy: No more ID-style “discussion prohibited” posts. We can get those at UCD, or at the DI’s site.

William Wallace:

Michael Behe responded Behe: "...And I said such things could happen [useful defects such as sickle cell binding sites], and I said the limit for Darwinian evolution was two connected protein-protein binding sites. That is, if you need three proteins to do something, and each pair of proteins has to be connected by a site; you need two protein binding sites—I said that would be, based on the data that I talk about in the book _The Edge of Evolution_ that's the most you could expect out of Darwinian processes. Now this lady—this graduate student, said well, hey, look, there's been a new binding site which has occurred in one protein in HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. And she was right, and I had not seen that. So I said, okay, well, there's another single binding site that has come about. But again, you would expect that to happen because the odds against a single binding site popping up are not that prohibitive. But if you need two binding sites together to do something than that's what I said in my book was prohibitive. Since most molecular machines in the cell consist of aggregates of a dozen proteins or so, each of which have to bind very specifically to each other, that means that most of the protein machinery in the cell is well beyond Darwinian evolution. Well, she mis-read the book.

Dale Husband: It stands to reason that if one protein binding site could arise due to evolution, so could two, or three, or even more over time.

Paul Burnett: At what indiscernable point does "microevolution" become "macroevolution"? Why can't those creationists who have begun to see the first glimmer of truth (admitting that "microevolution" exists) admit that it is all just "evolution"?

Reginald wrote: Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. So that's the one possible peer-reviewed research paper they have on that list that may not be an out-and-out lie (though it probably is) if someone with access wants to look it up.

"This kind of propaganda and misrepresentation of science must be resisted by those of us sufficiently gifted and concerned to support real scientists, heroic film makers, pioneering actors, brilliant writers, inventors of new and ingenious theories , celebrated think-tanks, and political heroes seeking to rescue our society and vulnerable students from the neo-nazi hordes of evolutionist science pretenders."--Keith

You would think that with all of this ID "talent" they could produce at least one funded research product and a peer reviewed paper.

William Wallace:

Michael Behe responded Behe: "...And I said such things could happen [useful defects such as sickle cell binding sites], and I said the limit for Darwinian evolution was two connected protein-protein binding sites. That is, if you need three proteins to do something, and each pair of proteins has to be connected by a site; you need two protein binding sites—I said that would be, based on the data that I talk about in the book _The Edge of Evolution_ that's the most you could expect out of Darwinian processes. Now this lady—this graduate student, said well, hey, look, there's been a new binding site which has occurred in one protein in HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. And she was right, and I had not seen that. So I said, okay, well, there's another single binding site that has come about.

Actually, the VIP protein evolved SEVERAL DIFFERENT BINDING SITES, twit. As SHE DEMONSTRATED.

But again, you would expect that to happen because the odds against a single binding site popping up are not that prohibitive. But if you need two binding sites together to do something than that's what I said in my book was prohibitive.

Examination of REALITY revealed that it was not prohibitive; thus the frantic hand-waving on his part. What, EXACTLY, is there to prevent proteins from GAINING new sites ? His gibberings would only be valid if one were stupid enough to think that everything had to fall together all at once PURELY by chance EXACTLY the way we see it today. Since no one seriously believes that, he's tilting at a windmill that exists only in his imagination.

Since most molecular machines in the cell consist of aggregates of a dozen proteins or so, each of which have to bind very specifically to each other, that means that most of the protein machinery in the cell is well beyond Darwinian evolution. Well, she mis-read the book.

Keith Eaton wrote: My two engineering degrees and extensive business career rescued me from such a fate for which I am very thankful. I can't imagine being stuck in a remote igloo in Minnesota staring at the butt of a Zebra fish for 30 years.

Eramus,

You're asking too much from the Discovery Institute's mendacious intellectual pornographers and its loyal flock of DI IDiot Borg drones like those posting here at Panda's Thumb. They are so intellectually impaired that they seem to function best only when they are attacking critics like yours truly, graduate student Abbie Smith and biochemist David Levin. Just look how self-important they've been - and ignorant that they've demonstrated too - in accusing Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers of "crashing" last week's "private" screening of "EXPELLED", when there is ample evidence to the contrary, including from chief "EXPELLED" mendacious intellectual porngrapher Mark Mathis, that neither Dawkins nor Myers had "crashed" this event.

John

ERV doing a premature touchdown dance for Darwin: Hey, Jeff-- I got Behe to admit the whole premise of his new book 'Edge of Evolution' was wrong (he stated over and over and OVER that no new protein-protein interactions have evolved, EVER, and I showed him one that evolved in HIV within the past few decades). In his case, he is most certainly not ignorant, as he admitted defeat. The only logical explanation for why he is continuing along his current path is that he is a liar.

William:

Please, you said...

"Science moves forward on controversy, and becomes very boring if we just keep moving along with our confirmation bias."

Could you please explain how the following statement

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

that all "scientists" have to sign to join the AiG staff does NOT constitute a "confirmation bias"? I'm dying to know.

Kieth:

Two degrees. oooooooooooowwwwwww. Wow. You must be always right, even about things you know nothing about. Do you regularly forward your opinions back to those schools. They must be very proud of you.

Hey Keith,

Where did you earn your degrees? Maybe from a pair of online diploma mills? That sounds about right, in light of your increasing inane rantings and ravings.

This enquiring mind wants to know.

John

As usual, comments begin wandering all over the place. I would like to go back to something that is very important with this bill; that is, it is dangerous on multiple levels. We, in NM. have been through the wars with bills and policies. I am speaking based on a great deal of on-the-ground, down and dirty experience, here. People in Ohio, Kansas, etc. have similar experience, too. In no instance that I recall has there ever been a "harmless" statute or policy or anything even vaguely associated with such. The ID creationists simply claim victory and tell school boards and teachers that they won. Go forth and teach all about the weaknesses of evolution. Or, if you prefer the good old days, go forth and teach ID creationism. Previously, one of the most widely misused items in this category was (is still) the Santorum amendment. It was not an amendment to the NCLB, but the name stuck because of the ID creationists kept calling it that after it was disgorged from the bill. It had no force of law. It was, in fact, nothing except a committee report comment. Yet, when we were fighting on the ground, the ID creationists kept using this as a part of their wedge into trying to get school boards and teachers to go along with their schemes. They lied or, in some cases, they probably were simply ignorant and trusted the liars.

We have locally seen a school board policy evolve from straight ID creationism to harmless, no impact words on paper. The ID creationists still claimed victory and told any educational person who would listen that the policy promoted the teaching of *all the data against evolution*. Fortunately, the policy is no longer on the books, and cannot be so misused.

Now, there is a real bill in Florida that may actually pass. The so called compromises or amendments to the bills have done nothing to mitigate the way the bill will be used. NO amount of changing of this bill will change the negative impact this will have on the state of Florida, the students of Florida, and education in other states. If anyone believes that this bill is just a problem in Florida, just wait until some version is passed. If that happens, it will be leveraged in any state. This is not just Florida's problem. It is a national problem.

There are two really bad things wrong with this bill. First, if it is passed in or close to its present form, then most all the things people have talked about will likely come to pass. That is, teachers will have to give passing grades to failing students if the student declares religion as the reason for an answer; in many classes, evolution will never even be taught because of purposeful disruption; Florida AYP will suffer; parents with standing will sue; etc., etc., etc. The second thing wrong is that regardless of the final wording, this will be touted as a victory by the ID creationists and will be used as a wedge (yes, in the DI sense of the word) into your state.

This is a terrible bill that will hurt a lot more people than just those in Florida. If you care at all about what may happen where you live, to say nothing of Floridians and good science, you should volunteer to help. Whatever you can do.

The Florida legislature seems intent on setting Dover Traps all over the state. As with the Ohio State Board of Education's Father Michael Cochran, it makes no difference to the legislature because they won't pay the piper. Some poor suffering local school district that's sucked in by the language of the bill will get to do that.

So let's get back on track and discuss why the link for the DI "peer reviewed" works dates to July 1, 2008.

On July 1, 2008, several DI fellows sitting in the break room realized that by writing down things like "Great paper, Bill!" and "You should remove the reference to 1 John on page 3", they could collate them, hand them to the author over lunch, and call it "peer review." Like magic, the papers transubstantiate into "science." {Note: one small faction holds that the papers actually consubstantiate.)

Lines 9-12 are an open door for creationists to claim they have "peer-reviewed" papers, which the DI presents an extensive list of nonsensical papers, but it slides neatly into the bill. The DI created this list specifically for this purpose.

Lines 13-16: An open door policy regarding the teaching of creationism. Why is evolution singled out? Because creationists have the support of the religious community and they can intimidate the legislators or sponsor those legislators who subscribe to these ideas.

Lines 17-20: Are ANY documented examples provided of the "... many instances [of] feared discipline or other adverse consequences [such as?] as a result ..."

Lines 21-23: Thus a student can provide any answer other than an acceptable scientific response and still receive credit for "trying?"

Lines 24-26: This supports the escape clause of lines 21-23 whereby a student can provide any answer whatsoever and not get a failing grade. How then are grades to be determined if any answer suffices?

Lines 27-34: Again an open-door policy to teaching creationism in the classroom.

Lines 35:41: Yet again reiterating the notion that anything can be taught in the classroom and it can be called science, it is acceptable, and there is no wrong answer.

Lines 42-46: Is the legislature actually trying to say that a student must provide the evolutionary answer to pass but can believe anything they want outside the classroom? Actually there's nothing wrong with that. The point of the education system is to introduce students to the subject and to test their mastery. But if they are free to piss on the test they can't whine if they're marked down for incorrect answers per the curriculum (which likely there will be a continuing effort to change).

Lines 47-49: Again only evolution is singled out, yet the impact spans far more than just the biological sciences. Geology (6000 year old earth?), Physics (Newtonian physics over Relativity), Meteorology (pray for rain rather than predict the weather), etc.

Lines 50-51: Implicit in this bill is changing of the science curriculum as anything can be taught in the name of science, no matter what.

Lines 52-55: Why the need for this disclaimer? This statement gives legitimacy to the claims that creationism is science and can be freely taught in the Florida schools. That's the whole purpose of the bill.

Another comment. Why all of a sudden has the DI come out with their (pre-dated) list of "peer-reviewed" creationist/ID papers & books if not to lend support to the advocates of this bill? See, they are published (bill lines 10-11). Someone's working with the DI behind the scenes.

William Wallace: The only deceit comes from ERV, in which she claimed:

ERV doing a premature touchdown dance for Darwin: Hey, Jeff-- I got Behe to admit the whole premise of his new book 'Edge of Evolution' was wrong (he stated over and over and OVER that no new protein-protein interactions have evolved, EVER, and I showed him one that evolved in HIV within the past few decades). In his case, he is most certainly not ignorant, as he admitted defeat. The only logical explanation for why he is continuing along his current path is that he is a liar.

Clearly, the previous Behe quote shows that ERV did not get Behe to admit disavow his own book.

"Microevolution and macroevolution are words used to describe two different things at two different scales, like “pebble” and “boulder.” At what scale does a pebble become a boulder? In the case of evolution, some people apparently need two different words to describe that which can be observed within a human timescale, and that which cannot be observed within a human timescale, so that they can pretend the two things are different in order to deny one without seeming to be obstinate enough to deny what’s before their eyes. I guess it’s like believing that pebbles are natural but boulders are not."

Actually if you read about it Macroevolution is change above the species level. Not everything continues in a straight line continuum like your pebble example. For instance H2O changes its properties dramatically as its temperature rises. And many chemical reactions can not take place without a catalyst. Most of the physical world does not work in the straight line manner as your pebble example. And many feel that the biological world also is not so simplistic.

thinkabout it: Actually if you read about it Macroevolution is change above the species level. Not everything continues in a straight line continuum like your pebble example. For instance H2O changes its properties dramatically as its temperature rises. And many chemical reactions can not take place without a catalyst. Most of the physical world does not work in the straight line manner as your pebble example. And many feel that the biological world also is not so simplistic.

thinkabout it wrote:

"Actually if you read about it Macroevolution is change above the species level. Not everything continues in a straight line continuum like your pebble example. For instance H2O changes its properties dramatically as its temperature rises. And many chemical reactions can not take place without a catalyst. Most of the physical world does not work in the straight line manner as your pebble example. And many feel that the biological world also is not so simplistic."

It is true that there are emergent properties at every level of the organizational hierarchy. So what? That doesn't mean that the same processes that occur at lower levels cease to function at higher levels. That doesn't mean that new process don't become important. That doesn't mean that macroevolution does not occur. That doesn't mean that we don't understand some of the processes involved or that there is no evidence for macroevolution.

Sure, water changes it's properties at different temperatures. That doesn't mean that we can't understand it. Sure the biological world is not simplistic, that doesn't mean that we don't know anything.

Given as how there are examples of speciation both past, such as the radiations and re-radiations of mesonychids out of China during the Paleocene and Eocene, or the Miocene cockles of the Pontian Sea, and present, such as the speciation of the apple maggot, or the finches of Santa Cruz island of the Galapagos, to hear arguments about how speciation/macroevolution can not, does not occur is like listening to someone rant on and on about how rain does not exist.

That, I really, really doubt that Our Savior, Jesus, would appreciate being made into an inappropriate answer in Biology, and I doubt that He would appreciate children being rewarded for making such inappropriate answers that stymie their own education. After all, doesn't this count as a form of "blasphemy"?

thinkabout it: "Microevolution and macroevolution are words used to describe two different things at two different scales, like “pebble” and “boulder.” At what scale does a pebble become a boulder? In the case of evolution, some people apparently need two different words to describe that which can be observed within a human timescale, and that which cannot be observed within a human timescale, so that they can pretend the two things are different in order to deny one without seeming to be obstinate enough to deny what’s before their eyes. I guess it’s like believing that pebbles are natural but boulders are not." Actually if you read about it Macroevolution is change above the species level. Not everything continues in a straight line continuum like your pebble example. For instance H2O changes its properties dramatically as its temperature rises. And many chemical reactions can not take place without a catalyst. Most of the physical world does not work in the straight line manner as your pebble example. And many feel that the biological world also is not so simplistic.

Stanton said: Given as how there are examples of speciation both past, such as the radiations and re-radiations of mesonychids out of China during the Paleocene and Eocene, or the Miocene cockles of the Pontian Sea, and present, such as the speciation of the apple maggot, or the finches of Santa Cruz island of the Galapagos, to hear arguments about how speciation/macroevolution can not, does not occur is like listening to someone rant on and on about how rain does not exist.

Kim Johnson: ...This is a terrible bill that will hurt a lot more people than just those in Florida. If you care at all about what may happen where you live, to say nothing of Floridians and good science, you should volunteer to help. Whatever you can do.

So, this will keep Florida safe from all the non-peer-reviewed, non-germane facts and data put forth by the minions of Intelligent Design. Florida's kids will only get the peer-reviewed, germane facts and data put forth by the minions of Intelligent Design. Memo to Florida: Creationists don't "Compromise." Ever.

I believe we should check out Abbie Smith..is this a real person or a shill for evos who wanted to attack Behe anonomously?

During the cold war it was vertually impossible for anyone decenting from the party line on all things, spiritual, economic, social, historical, or even scientific to get published in their peer reviewed journals, particularly Pravda.

It sort of required a revolution in freedom of speech, press, ideas, and openess to challenge in order to let freedom and opportunity ring.

Let the revolution begin..Go Ben.

I like Keith and William. Their posts are all I need to persuade the uninitiated that their side has taken leave of their senses.

I find it interesting that the only Abbie Smith at O.U. in the student directory is in the health and exercise science school. I am so surprised that they are doing leading edge HIV/Aids, ERV research.

Ian Musgrave another BS artist.

Science Avenger lives with his mouther and wears a green cape to bed.

Keith Eaton: Keith Eaton another BS artist. Keith Eaton lives with his mouther and wears a green cape to bed.

I know that many here have a strong reaction against religion. There's good reason for that, of course, and I sympathise with it. But however justified it might be, the expression here of passionate or contemptuous rejection of religion in general or of Christianity in particular is of use and advantage to creationists. To be blunt, it brings aid and comfort to the enemy.

Time and time and time again, the point has been made that there is no conflict, for most of the world's theists, and Christians in particular, between their religion and evolution. Most Christians accept the idea that the origin of all species of living things is descent with modification from common ancestors, over very great periods of time, driven by natural selection, and enabled by specific biological mechanisms that are very complex but nevertheless, in large part, are now well understood.

Now, the purpose of this blog, as I understand it, is to defend this idea from the ill-informed attacks of people whose God is so limited that He must work only through a succession of miracles. Part of that brief is to demonstrate that such a belief is false: that it is false to fact, certainly, but also that it is false to their professed religion, because it actually conflicts with belief in a limitless and omnipresent God. Further, that it constitutes a prideful rejection of God's gift of reason; and, by demanding miracles, it seeks to put God to the test, this last in direct defiance of the words of Jesus himself, quoting Deuteronomy.

It is clear to me that creationists - young earthers, IDers, DI flacks and the like - would desperately love to convince Christians that evolution presupposes atheism. This is, of course, a lie, but presenting them with words that they can use to buttress that lie seems to me to be bad tactics. When there's no need, why would anyone do what their opponent most wants them to do?

Flint and harold, I agree as well. But IIRC Sandefur got a lot of irrelevant discussions on some threads. A compromise could be to make a dedicated AtBC thread and link for every post where Sandefur wouldn't feel the pressure to scrutinize or perhaps answer what he could feel is a waste of his time.

Keith Eaton: I find it interesting that the only Abbie Smith at O.U. in the student directory is in the health and exercise science school. I am so surprised that they are doing leading edge HIV/Aids, ERV research. Ian Musgrave another BS artist. Science Avenger lives with his mouther and wears a green cape to bed.

Keith Eaton: During the cold war it was vertually impossible for anyone decenting from the party line on all things, spiritual, economic, social, historical, or even scientific to get published in their peer reviewed journals, particularly Pravda. It sort of required a revolution in freedom of speech, press, ideas, and openess to challenge in order to let freedom and opportunity ring. Let the revolution begin..Go Ben.

It is clear to me that creationists - young earthers, IDers, DI flacks and the like - would desperately love to convince Christians that evolution presupposes atheism. This is, of course, a lie, but presenting them with words that they can use to buttress that lie seems to me to be bad tactics. When there’s no need, why would anyone do what their opponent most wants them to do?

— Dave Luckett

Hi Keith, still trying to make Christian ID creationists look foolish I notice.

Like his mentor, one Denyse O'Leary, Keith is still suffering from an acute case of verbal diarrhea. He's obviously enjoying his membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective as an intellectually-impaired DI IDiot Borg drone.

John Kwok: Like his mentor, one Denyse O'Leary, Keith is still suffering from an acute case of verbal diarrhea. He's obviously enjoying his membership in the Discovery Institute IDiot Borg Collective as an intellectually-impaired DI IDiot Borg drone.

Forgive Stacy, she meant molests collies. She molests the world, as in annoy.

Stanton and Kwok are not not quite as incoherent as usual. Ever since they got those honary degrees using only a pair of scissors, an envelop, a stamp, and the back two pages of Wired's January issue they passed into the three-syllable category of literacy.

When the bottlenosed dolphin was evolving their analog computer hardware to solve the 3-d kinematic equations, optimal in terms of calculation of variations theory, to catch fish by following their sonar reflections via a lead pursuit trajectory, did they also compensate for the varying speed of sound in water as a function of temperature or did that come later, say just in time to avoid starving to death.

The next thing you know science will be telling our kids this computing capability was a result of random mutation of polymerized chains of molecules.

But that would be pure BS.

So, this alleged Fortune 500 executive calls John Kwok and I incoherent, and yet, he can't even spell "honorary" correctly.

Stanton,

If Keith claims to be an Ivy League graduate, then that's going to be the funniest inane comment I've read since reading Mathis' inane attempts at explaining why he "expelled" PZ from "EXPELLED" (How many lies is that now, six or seven?) and, of course, Bruce Chapman's Goebbelsque titterings on behalf of Mathis, courtesy of the DI agitprop Kremlinesque propaganda machine.

God help those working for Mr. Eaton; their company is about to join Bear Stearns in yet another episode of corporate extinction.

Best,

John

I never claimed to be an Ivy League graduate.

No one works for me as I am comfortably retired, attend college for enjoyment in pursuit of a Liberal Studies MS emphasizing the History of Science.

Since nothing post darwinism remotely resembles true science in the holistic search for truth ity is refreshing to study the great thinkers of the past.

Today we have pee wee myers, doggins, and the nobody sychophants that brown-nose around those two as though they were female dogs in heat.

The same molecules that make inorganic compounds are primary in organic life just in different combinations and structures, yet one is alive and capable of intellectual thought , the other is totally inanimate.

One solves mathmatical problems, renders design, and suffers evolutionary fools in small quantitities.

Isn't a treat to get such regular insight into such a deranged mind?

seriously, Keith's posts hardly can be "representative" of anything other than the fact he is completely insane.

does anybody actually think him rational in any way, shape or form?

is he even amusing?

in his myriad of posts (what, hundreds now?), has he EVER said anything even remotely accurate?

has he ever said anything worthy of debate?

Hi Keith, still trying to make Christian ID creationists look foolish I notice.

no, Pim, he never was. He's just nuts.

don't tell me you still "hold out hope" for him?

if so, I begin to doubt your own sanity.

Ichthyic: Hi Keith, still trying to make Christian ID creationists look foolish I notice. no, Pim, he never was. He's just nuts. don't tell me you still "hold out hope" for him? if so, I begin to doubt your own sanity.

In the evo posts one can find every aspect of sophistry, nothing of rhetoric, and still less any response to the challenges presented.

To be insulted by a band of mental midgets who cannot offer the slightest hint of logical support for their theories most basic premise or offer an explanation of the teleonomic capabilities of life is at once to be appalled at ignorance unrestrained and exalted at one's preeminent position.

Science would benefit greatly if the evos all took the course of self medication prescribed by Decarte in his Methods.

In the evo posts one can find every aspect of sophistry,

— More of Keiths ignorant typographical diarrhoea

nothing of rhetoric,

and still less any response to the challenges presented.

To be insulted

by a band of mental midgets

who cannot offer the slightest hint of logical support for their theories

most basic premise

or offer an explanation of the teleonomic

Teleonomy - Biology. the principle that the body's structures and functions serve an overall purpose, as in assuring the survival of the organism.

— Dictionary.com

capabilities of life

— Keith

is at once to be appalled at ignorance unrestrained and exalted at one’s preeminent position.

Science would benefit greatly if the evos all took the course of self medication prescribed by Decarte in his Methods.

Biology is a legitimate science and evolution is a parasite which unfortunately gives it the disease of incredulity.

Evolution gives plausible explanations for modest change within narrow biological limts over time, that is scarely more than that built into the genome and assocaited expression capacities.

I has zero explanation for the first replicator (critical hypothesis) as evidenced here and even less to say about the semsoty, central nervous, and brain complex that performs the incredible software-like computations, data storage and retrieval activities observable at will.

Evolution, the dark ages revisited.

...and the word is "dissenting", not "decenting", fool. Before you continue to insult other people's intelligence, maybe you should think about investing in a dictionary. Or a remedial spelling course. They're free at your age, aren't they, gramps?

I'm not convinced that Keith Eaton isn't supposed to be parody. The problem is, he's neither clever nor funny.

I [sic] has zero explanation for the first replicator..

Fnxtr and his fellow quislings continue with their sophomoric little jabs while maintaining maximum distance from any intellectual defense of their failing, flailing little hypothesis.

I take the deafening silence to be an indication of your frustation over being continually intellectually frailed like a pecan tree on a daily basis.

Is there actually no discernable intellectual content behind your silly and juvenile circumlocutions?

At least you could observe respect for your intellectual superiors if you can't muster an argument.

@ Keith Eaton - I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you.

I’m not convinced that Keith Eaton isn’t supposed to be parody. The problem is, he’s neither clever nor funny.

Keith Eaton reminds me of an AiG YEC posting over at Amazon.com, Brent Mortimer, whom we've "affectionally" refer to as "Bent Brent". Could it be that Keith is really "Bent"? I wonder.

Stacy,

Sweet heart darlin don't confuse species with the genetic mutation of ignorance that seems to be ubiquitious in the evo cult.

See that alone distinguishes us rather distinctively so neither of us has any concern...still if you want to cook me a plate of brownies like a good little woman, I can send you my address.

Kissy Kissy

Keith,

You are several chromosomes short of a full human.

God created, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks,
slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his
standards and made you.

Wow, you sure know lot of big words, Mr. Eaton (too bad you can't spell half of them correctly).

I'm reminded of Hawkeye's first encounter with Winchester. "Could I drop by some time and borrow a cup of ego?"

All I've seen is bluster, buster.

Put up or shut up:

Where is the line between micro and macro, exactly?

Horses and zebras?

Artiodactyls and perissodactyls?

What, exactly, is the barrier that forbids such diversification?

Where are the studies and analysis that prove this imaginary barrier exists?

Behe's number juggling? That's just more Aristotlean mind-wanking.

Where are the lab results?

You know, the actual work?

(somewhere in the distance, a dog barked)

I thought not. Thanks for playing, windbag.

Jesus wept.

Here's one perspective of a Christian who accepts Evolution. And a Floridian.

I call it "accept" because "belief" implies that it's merely opinion.

These people are disobeying Jesus's commands by wantonly spreading their lies and deceptions. A great quote on this:

Matthew 7:22-23 "A great number will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, were we not prophets in your name, and did we not by your name send out evil spirits, and by your name do works of power? Then I will tell them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

At least I have pokemon to teach my son evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_evolution

Stacy: Keith Eaton - I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you.

Robin:

Stacy: Keith Eaton - I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you.

Ehh...there are variations within species that are just genetic dead ends, Stacy. Consider Keith an individual that drew the short straw genetically, like me - I was born with non-functioning kidneys. But good old scientific research and technological creativity allows me to lead a normal life. Pity those who are just not so fortunate...:P

Moderator:

Kieth Eaton has gotten out of hand. A tally of the content of his comments:

148856: insult, crow about Expelled.

148907: insult.

148924: claim that platypus ability to solve "kinematic equations" is impossible to evolve, insult.

149101: insult.

149102: insult, general accusation of intolerance.

149112: insult.

149151: insult, claim that dolphins solve 3-D kinematic equations, and so must be designed.

149178: claim of design, insult.

149209: insult.

149231: claim about evolving software, insult.

149248: insult.

149254: insult.

As you can sere, most of his posts are just insults. The only claim that he has made is that complex neural interactions and behavior cannot evolve. Apart from the fact that even the simplest of actions can be expressed as "complex mathematical problem", this sort of argument is just Vapid bullshit, since it applies a human engineering perspective to biological systems. For example, how does a tree, in growing, know how to solve the complex engineering questions to support itself? How does a vertebrate bone know how to solve the complex equations required to deposit bone in such a way as to resist force? In fact we do know how these things work. In the case of neural circuitry, we generally do not know the circuitry, resulting in an interesting question of how such systems grow, function, and evolve. In point of fact, though, there have been experiments involving the "evolution" of circuits which demonstrate that complex systems can evolve under selective condition, with no design. Keith is full of shit, and shows no indication that he is willing to discuss any of this.

So, moderator, what possible function does this person have on this list? He makes no contribution to the topic (derailing it, in fact), shows no willingness to engage in discussion, and in fact spends most of his time hurling childish insults. This is standard practice for his other threads. I vote to ban him. This has gone far enough.

Robin: like me - I was born with non-functioning kidneys. But good old scientific research and technological creativity allows me to lead a normal life.

Stacy: Robin, do you use a dialysis machine, or did you get a kidney transplant?

mplavcan, you have a good point. But another idea is:

Hey folks, don't feed the trolls.

When someone is doing silly and / or OT stuff to get attention, don't be sucked in. What an idea!

After getting everybody to not feed trolls, I'm going to work on World Peace!

Evolution gives plausible explanations for modest change within narrow biological limts over time, that is scarely more than that built into the genome and assocaited expression capacities.

— Keith Eaten

Please ignore it again to demonstrate to all of the nice lurkers that you have no interest in engaging in any kind of rational debate.

Is it just me, or have Keith Eaton's inane ramblings reached their pinnacle?

Did you flush your meds again Keith?

Pete Dunkelberg: After getting everybody to not feed trolls, I'm going to work on World Peace!

I’m not convinced that Keith Eaton isn’t supposed to be parody. The problem is, he’s neither clever nor funny.

There is no use responding to him; he doesn’t recognize arguments and what he himself is doing.

like i said:

simply nuts.

The reason for banning is that the lack of gray matter here becomes ever more apparent to informal posters as you cannot provide a description of the first replicator in any detail whether evidentary, forensically, or even a hypothetical example. Of course the reason is that every historical attempt by REAL scientists has been laughed out of the literature for 75 years and it is increasingly clear that such an organism never existed.

As for microevolution and macroevolution you might try reading Theodosius Dobzhansky a Christian and theistic evolutionist coined the terms and his definition and differentiation is likely more to your taste.

Your question about accumulating small changes over time implies a constant smooth upward sweep of interconnected mutational and selective steps whereas the rather marcovian process is just as likely to reverse directly past results or indirectly by offsetting changes as regards reproductive or survival advantages. The landscape of the environment and pressures is a quite non-linear, dynamic and vibratory space with an infinitude of opportunities for stalled extinction prior to any significant accumulation of changes. Time is the avowed enemy of the supposed process as the chance for a dead end, extinction, reversal, or stasis is infinitely more likely than some yellow brick road process.

As for demonstrating the evolution of consciousness, computational schemes, problem solving, sensory integration and neurological data storage and retrieval there is not a scintilla of experiemental data to support an evolutionary explanation for these capbilities and all the BS obfuscation you can muster has no impact on that reality.

Please Ban me and demonstrate your complete intellectual ineptitude and the Brownshirt tactics the Expelled movie demonstrates in stereo.

Please Ban me

you heard it from the lips of the persecuted himself.

why not grant him his wish?

I seem to remember some things I learned in middle school Keith called: The Theory of Behaviorism - Classical Conditioning (Pavlov) - Operant Conditioning (Skinner) -

Whoops! I hit submit before I was done ... forgive me -

and Natural Selection by Consequences. I believe these might address your claim that ...

As for demonstrating the evolution of consciousness, computational schemes, problem solving, sensory integration and neurological data storage and retrieval there is not a scintilla of experiemental data to support an evolutionary explanation for these capbilities and all the BS obfuscation you can muster has no impact on that reality.

... and that was 20 + years ago. I imagine more has been done in that time frame.

149306: Well, our patient is making progress: insult, arrogant pedanticism, and a relatively cartoonish description of natural selection. In particular, paragraph 3 is an odd confusion between stochastic process and section acting on natural variation, which itself may or may not have arisen from stochastic events. It appears to be similar to Dembski's odd portrayal of adaptive landscapes -- a straw man characterization rigged to try to demonstrate the statistical impossibility of evolution. Such portrayals, apart from being simply out of touch with actually evolutionary theory, have been extensively rebutted on this forum and in other places. They are dismissed in the professional literature because they are considered trivially incorrect.

As for neural circuitry, the neural basis of behavior, and the evolution of such systems, there is a large literature out there. Perhaps Kieth would be willing to provide us with a review, rather than a simple assertion that everything is just BS. Please Keith, let's hear about it.

There is a growing literature about the origins of replicators, and the science is relatively new. Great progress has been made, but there are many, many unanswered questions. Keith's description is wildly at odds with the literature, unless one is limited to reading the ID stuff and publications by AiG and the ICR.

But let's turn this back on track. Florida's legislation would allow crap like that spouted by Keith to be taught to K-12 students. To anyone familiar with the literature, and who has a good understanding of evolution, Keith's arguments are ignorant, confused, and of course couched in the hyperbole of insult. And yet, this is what passes for "alternate scientific views" that could be pushed with the claim that publications by the DI, Aig, and the ICR are peer-reviewed. Is this what the legislature wants? Well, yes. Obviously, since the goal is sow confusion and doubt about science. But this should be pointed out to the legislature.

Also relevant is Williams failure to address my question (148883) above about the ideological mandate of AiG to it's scientists, and how this could possibly construed as good science. Personally, I think that if you want to make an impact on the politics of the ID and creationist debate, you need to publish as clearly as possible such statements, preferably juxtaposed to the propaganda about "good science" and the issue of peer-review.

Mplav, high minded, high vacumn belljar,

Note the meaningless diversionary tactics and vague references to a large explanatory body of professional literature.

No one questions the fact that millions of dollars are spent on such researches, but the issue is, in the case of the first relicator, where's the beef? With all this important work over 75 years surely you can just direct my attention to the seminal research and peer reviewed papers, perhaps I missed it in the Nobel journal. You know the paper that elucidates the molecular structure of the first replicator capable of implementing RM and NS, the proposed common ancestor to the peacock and the snapdragon and everything else extinct and extant. Since your entire tortured little world view depends on it rather vitally, it must be just at hand.

And then, if its not too much trouble follow that up with a couple of citations that walk us through the origin and evolution of cognitive thought, the solution to GPS problems for plovers, monarchs, albatross and the solution to the kinematics of sonar and echolocation as practiced in the real world every day by organisms familiar to all.

And then perhaps just locate a few references explaining the process of turning carrots and potatoes, bacon and eggs, and peach cobbler into cognitive thought, reflection, creative genius, plans, and designs via metabolism, ATP, the nervous system and the neural network. Exactly where does that information based algorithmic translation occur and how did it come to be?

Or will you just blather about all the evidence, make some assertions, postulate the future results, refer to the great unknown body of literature...in other words the usual BS.

Maybe you can wait on some QM quiff to pop and then reply when convenient...that would be an improvement on the typical response from this camp.

P.S. Don't forget about the little platypus and its milliamp electric field sensory capacity coupled with the kinematic equation solver. Was that paper in Beer Reviewed Evo Wevo Journal 2126,pg 18?

#149335: insult, irrelevancies, more insults

Parsing through the insults, your response is "if there is a literature out there, you have to bring to to me, otherwise it is unworthy." Fine scholarship there. For the lurkers out there who might wonder, the literature really exists, and is trivially easy to find. For example, here are the first three of several hundred that popped up on my first Google Scholar search -- the barest minimum effort that took a total of 1 minute.

Claudia Huber, Günter Wächtershäuser Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life Science 31 July 1998:Vol. 281. no. 5377, pp. 670 - 672

S. D. Senanayake, and H. Idriss Photocatalysis and the origin of life: Synthesis of nucleoside bases from formamide on TiO2(001) single surfaces PNAS | January 31, 2006 | vol. 103 | no. 5 | 1194-1198

Claudia Huber,1 Wolfgang Eisenreich,1 Stefan Hecht,1 Günter Wächtershäuser2 A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle Science 15 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5635, pp. 938 - 940

An interesting excercise, regarding the Florida bill, is to simply do a search on ID on a topic, and on evolutionary biology on the same topic. The results are dramatic, and underscore the vapid nature of the bill.

But Keith, the folks above are right. Go ahead and spew some more vitriol and nonsense, straight out of the Gospel of Hate. No more troll feeding from me. I have every confidence the your future posts here will continue to be nothing more than childish insults.

No more troll feeding from me.

— mplavcan

No one denies the enormous waste of talent, money and time on abiogenesis research or the empty nature of the results. Not a single reference given has the slightest claim on the challenge of abiogenesis or the first replicator.

You forgot the Urey Miller and Fox pathetic results.

Now run and hide before you are further exposed.

No one denies the enormous waste of talent, money and time on abiogenesis research or the empty nature of the results.

no one?

No one denies the enormous waste of talent, money and time on abiogenesis research or the empty nature of the results. Not a single reference given has the slightest claim on the challenge of abiogenesis or the first replicator. You forgot the Urey Miller and Fox pathetic results. Now run and hide before you are further exposed.

http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/NobelPr.pdf

For a rejoiner to the current hordes who are members of Myers Blasphemy Club try reading how the greatest minds in science historically approached science and religious faith.

The small minded sychophants of Minnesota Bats and doggins, et al Genie and Barb are a temporary abberation in science circles, to say nothibng of their back bench groupies herein.

Lot's of people on this blog believe in God.

Lot's of people on this blog believe in the US Constitution as well.

Lot's of people on this blog believe that public school students should be taught sound and valid science in science class.

Keith Eaton: http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/NobelPr.pdf… For a rejoiner to the current hordes who are members of Myers Blasphemy Club try reading how the greatest minds in science historically approached science and religious faith. The small minded sychophants of Minnesota Bats and doggins, et al Genie and Barb are a temporary abberation in science circles, to say nothibng of their back bench groupies herein.

Stacy: Lot’s of people on this blog believe in God. Lot’s of people on this blog believe in the US Constitution as well. Lot’s of people on this blog believe that public school students should be taught sound and valid science in science class.

Keith Eaton wrote: http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/NobelPr.pdf For a rejoiner to the current hordes who are members of Myers Blasphemy Club try reading how the greatest minds in science historically approached science and religious faith. The small minded sychophants of Minnesota Bats and doggins, et al Genie and Barb are a temporary abberation in science circles, to say nothibng of their back bench groupies herein.

OK I read down further just to see if I missed something and found that they listed a lot more than fifty people but a lot are not scientists and the list is so disorganized that it is hard to figure out where they come up with the number sited in the title. The credibility of this list has to be suspect when Hume and Voltaire show up on it. They are two of my favorite philosophers by the way.

J. Biggs: OK I read down further just to see if I missed something and found that they listed a lot more than fifty people but a lot are not scientists and the list is so disorganized that it is hard to figure out where they come up with the number sited in the title. The credibility of this list has to be suspect when Hume and Voltaire show up on it. They are two of my favorite philosophers by the way.

For a rejoiner to the current hordes who are members of Myers Blasphemy Club try reading how the greatest minds in science historically approached science and religious faith.

— Keith Eaten

Nigel, you often teach me a lot and I appreciate it. Thank you :-)

Stanton wrote: Voltaire, the French philosopher who made himself a defender of the much-persecuted Huguenots, and whose only prayer that he claimed was answered was to ask God to allow his enemies to make total fools of themselves?

from Wikipedia Hume was charged with heresy, but he was defended by his young clerical friends who argued that as an atheist he laid outside the jurisdiction of the Church.

So masterly was Hume in disguising his own views that debate continues to this day over whether Hume was actually a deist or an atheist. Regardless, in his own time Hume's alleged atheism caused him to be passed over for many positions.

Hume told his friend Mure of Caldwell of an incident which occasioned his "conversion" to Christianity. Passing across the recently drained Nor’ Loch to the New Town of Edinburgh to supervise the masons building his new house, soon to become No. 1 St. David Street, he slipped and fell into the mire. Hume, being then of great bulk, could not regain his feet. Some passing Newhaven fishwives saw his plight but recognised him as the well-known atheist, and so refused to rescue him unless he became a Christian and recited The Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. This he did, and was rewarded by being set again on his feet by these brawny women. Hume asserted thereafter that Edinburgh fishwives were the "most acute theologians he had ever met".[18]

In terms of religious texts, Voltaire was largely of the opinion that the Bible was 1) an outdated legal and/or moral reference, 2) by and large a metaphor, but one that still taught some good lessons, and 3) a work of Man, not a divine gift.

More Voltaire:

If God made us in His image we have certainly returned the compliment.

God created sex. Priests created marriage.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

When men believe in absurdities, they inexorably commit atrocities.

Once your faith persuades you to believe what your intelligence declares absurd, beware, lest you likewise sacrifice your reason in the conduct of your life.

And I missed one of the best:

How should one deal with a man who is convinced that he is acting according to God's will, and who therefore believes that he is doing you a favour by stabbing you in the back?

But Bill you forgot another really good one.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."

Stacy S.: Nigel, you often teach me a lot and I appreciate it. Thank you :-)

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

-Now that the 1st of April is over, maybe we'll get back to
a science background! As evolutionists got their 'theory' the "Creation of the Universe"-(proven by their science)-so
hundreds of professors were all satisfied--"It all started
with a "BIG BANG"! -----Evolutionists may be dismayed that
their favorite "Big Bang" just got a torpedo in it's mid-
section, and has been "SUNK" as a "Scientific Theory!"....
According to an Associated Press article by Seth Borenstein
Aug 24, 2007-"Astronomers Discover Immense Hole in the
Universe"-He explains, "It is 1 BILLION LIGHT-YEARS across
of NOTHING,..an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles
of EMPTINESS!!" (Those who understand the effects of an
'Explosion in a Vacuum'-whereas, it is like a balloon with
equal-pressure radii-at all points on the inside surface of
the balloon.) Which now, we need to point out-"If you have
a bucket, with no bottom in it-it will NEVER HOLD WATER!"
Likewise,with an immense HOLE on one side of the Universe-
that size, you can NOT HOPE to satisfy the scientific LAWS
of equal-pressure GASES, using your pressures equally to
ALL sides in the Vacuum of Space! The "BIG BANG" Theory
cannot hold neither "WATER", nor 'GAS'-(The "TIRE" just
had a "Big BLOW-OUT!") Good-bye to the Big Bang Theory..!
(If it had "Only" been a 'Billion Miles', it might have
"had a chance"-!!)------(I've also heard of many College
Professors-that had written books-'which upon agreement
with others' have asserted--that this explains "how it ALL
Started-") I've given the source--(Would you like to check
it out?!)--"Experts are supposed to know--!"

Jerry McLaughlin wrote: -Now that the 1st of April is over, maybe we'll get back to a science background!

As evolutionists got their 'theory' the "Creation of the Universe"-(proven by their science)-so hundreds of professors were all satisfied--"It all started with a "BIG BANG"!

-----Evolutionists may be dismayed that their favorite "Big Bang" just got a torpedo in it's mid- section, and has been "SUNK" as a "Scientific Theory!"....

According to an Associated Press article by Seth Borenstein Aug 24, 2007-"Astronomers Discover Immense Hole in the Universe"-He explains, "It is 1 BILLION LIGHT-YEARS across of NOTHING,..an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of EMPTINESS!!"

(Those who understand the effects of an 'Explosion in a Vacuum'-whereas, it is like a balloon with equal-pressure radii-at all points on the inside surface of the balloon.)

Which now, we need to point out-"If you have a bucket, with no bottom in it-it will NEVER HOLD WATER!" Likewise,with an immense HOLE on one side of the Universe- that size, you can NOT HOPE to satisfy the scientific LAWS of equal-pressure GASES, using your pressures equally to ALL sides in the Vacuum of Space!

The "BIG BANG" Theory cannot hold neither "WATER", nor 'GAS'-(The "TIRE" just had a "Big BLOW-OUT!") Good-bye to the Big Bang Theory..! (If it had "Only" been a 'Billion Miles', it might have "had a chance"-!!)------(I've also heard of many College Professors-that had written books-'which upon agreement with others' have asserted--that this explains "how it ALL Started-") I've given the source--(Would you like to check it out?!)--"Experts are supposed to know--!"

J. Biggs, what Jerry McLaughlin is so incompetently referring to is not really a "hole", but a void. Apparently there is an immense region almost completely devoid of galaxies, gas, or any other kind of matter, corresponding to an unusual cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

While it is a puzzle, assuming the analysis is confirmed of course, it isn't necessarily a "death blow" to the Big Bang theory. There are many voids in the universe; the only mystery is why this one appears to be so much larger than the rest.

Biggest Void in space is 1 billion light years across (New Scientist)

WMAP Cold Spot/Eridanus Supervoid (Wikipedia)

Altair IV, you are correct - I recall seeing the article in New Scientist a few weeks ago (I get the print edition, and only occasionally visit the NS website).

Otherwise, I fully agree with what J. Biggs has said (#149747).

To--J Briggs-- Ref: Universe Hole-- Our paper source was the
Albuquerque Journal on page A6, Aug 24, 2007, Borenstein
had interviewed Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence
Rudnick of the Minnesota team, using the National Radio
Astronomy Observatory--but there was no mention in their
details of observation--(of a 'Black Hole') Prof. Rudnick
is submitting a paper to the Astrophysical Journal.
I also did NOT include biological evolution in my comments.
I did get a balloon from the same place, that imaginative
scientist writers got materials for the 'Big Bang' from a
store-house of "Nothing", before the 'Big Bang' occurred.
Actually, 'Hi-altitude' instrument balloons which reach
over 100,000 ft in our history's early days--characterize
a symbolic point, where the small volume of gas injected
into the balloon, originally--finally expanded-during the
ascent, under the great losses of atmospheric pressures
on the outside surfaces of the balloon. Sometimes, the
differential of pressures would exceed the stress-rating
of the balloon's materials--and the failure could cause
a 'blow-out'-- That illustration demonstrates a 'partial
vacuum' event-- A space-rocket demonstrates a principle
of thrust from internal combustion in space. However, we
also had knowledge to the existance of 'super-novas'--so
big explosions in space as noted-can be dangerous events
---Do not get me wrong, I've always loved science, and
always will--and have concluded that scientists, unlike
politicians--have always been underpaid in their duties-
But I've also found, that not everything is always the
absolute Truth! DTD turned out to be dangerous to birds,
fish, and humans too--besides flies & mosquitos! Radar
beams, such as were used on 'Early Warning' Radar sites
in the 'far-north' were also dangerous, when observers
pointed-out "that when a bird flew in front of the beam,
it would fall to the ground as a flaming-cinder!" There
seemed to be a lack of warnings for military, who had to
work near "working radar sets"! Something that can cook
a steak in a micro-wave oven--makes you leary of things
that they claim-"can treat Cancer", such as 'Atomic Cobalt'...(might be also harmful to red-blood cells, and
regular tissue-cells.) In fact, many Japanese civilians
died of multiple cancers, from Atomic-Bomb radiation...
X-ray machines were taken out of shoe-stores, because,
kids liked--looking at their toes inside their shoes...
And now, women were told, to be x-rayed every year to see if they had 'breast-cancer'--! (Later, they were told it
would be wise--to NOT do it so often, and a record would
be kept--of the number of x-rays they had already taken)
Could it be, that the posibility that these many x-rays,
might be linked--(to giving them, the cancer that they
had always dreaded!!) Can it be proven--NOT when all,
who know of the danger--have their mouths sealed "SHUT"!
Finally-"Gases are not present in a vacuum". please tell
that to an astronaut in his space-suit, while he's doing
a 'Space-walk'--! It's a relative-type thing on where you
are... Involving the Big-Bang, these were the ones, who
spoke about the gaseous debris, left over from the intense
heat--after the blast...but history will finally prevail,
if it is right!

As evolutionists got their ‘theory’ the “Creation of the Universe”

Evolutionists may be dismayed that their favorite “Big Bang” just got a torpedo in it’s mid- section, and has been “SUNK” as a “Scientific Theory!”

According to an Associated Press article by Seth Borenstein Aug 24, 2007-“Astronomers Discover Immense Hole in the Universe”-He explains, “It is 1 BILLION LIGHT-YEARS across of NOTHING,..an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of EMPTINESS!!”

Rudnick thinks that the discovery of the void ties in neatly with the WMAP cold spot and the existence of dark energy. "What the community says remains to be seen," he told New Scientist. "People will take shots at it now."

Jerry McLaughlin: But I’ve also found, that not everything is always the absolute Truth!

Evolutionists may be dismayed that their favorite “Big Bang” just got a torpedo in it’s mid- section, and has been “SUNK” as a “Scientific Theory!”….

— Jerry McLaughlin #149737

I also did NOT include biological evolution in my comments

— Jerry McLaughlin #149775

...A space-rocket demonstrates a principle of thrust from internal combustion in space. However, we also had knowledge to the existance of ‘super-novas’–so big explosions in space as noted-can be dangerous events ...

— Jerry McLaughlin

Really, everyone, why do we have to even acknowledge this elementary school dropout?

He misspells "DDT" as "DTD"

Stanton: Really, everyone, why do we have to even acknowledge this elementary school dropout? He misspells "DDT" as "DTD"

Stanton: He misspells "DDT" as "DTD"

Radar beams, such as were used on ‘Early Warning’ Radar sites in the ‘far-north’

— Jerry McLaughlin suffering from typographical diarrhoea

were also dangerous, when observers pointed-out “that when a bird flew in front of the beam, it would fall to the ground as a flaming-cinder!”

There seemed to be a lack of warnings for military, who had to work near “working radar sets”!

Something that can cook a steak in a micro-wave oven–makes you leary of things that they claim-“can treat Cancer”, such as ‘Atomic Cobalt’…(might be also harmful to red-blood cells, and regular tissue-cells.) In fact, many Japanese civilians died of multiple cancers, from Atomic-Bomb radiation…

X-ray machines were taken out of shoe-stores, because, kids liked–looking at their toes inside their shoes… And now, women were told, to be x-rayed every year to see if they had ‘breast-cancer’–! (Later, they were told it would be wise–to NOT do it so often, and a record would be kept–of the number of x-rays they had already taken)

Could it be, that the posibility that these many x-rays, might be linked–(to giving them, the cancer that they had always dreaded!!)

Can it be proven–NOT when all, who know of the danger–have their mouths sealed “SHUT”!

Finally-“Gases are not present in a vacuum”.

please tell that to an astronaut in his space-suit, while he’s doing a ‘Space-walk’–!

It’s a relative-type thing on where you are… Involving the Big-Bang, these were the ones, who spoke about the gaseous debris, left over from the intense heat–after the blast…but history will finally prevail, if it is right!

Altair IV: J. Biggs, what Jerry McLaughlin is so incompetently referring to is not really a "hole", but a void. Apparently there is an immense region almost completely devoid of galaxies, gas, or any other kind of matter, corresponding to an unusual cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Jerry McLaughlin: To--J Briggs-- Ref: Universe Hole-- Our paper source was the Albuquerque Journal on page A6, Aug 24, 2007,... ...but there was no mention in their details of observation--(of a 'Black Hole') ...

I also did NOT include biological evolution in my comments.

I did get a balloon from the same place, that imaginative scientist writers got materials for the 'Big Bang' from a store-house of "Nothing", before the 'Big Bang' occurred.

Actually, 'Hi-altitude' instrument balloons which reach over 100,000 ft in our history's early days... ...and the failure could cause a 'blow-out'-- That illustration demonstrates a 'partial vacuum' event--

---Do not get me wrong, I've always loved science, and always will... ...But I've also found, that not everything is always the absolute Truth! DTD turned out to be dangerous to birds, fish, and humans too--besides flies & mosquitos!

Radar beams, such as were used on 'Early Warning' Radar sites in the 'far-north' were also dangerous, when observers pointed-out "that when a bird flew in front of the beam, it would fall to the ground as a flaming-cinder!" There seemed to be a lack of warnings for military, who had to work near "working radar sets"!

Something that can cook a steak in a micro-wave oven--makes you leary of things that they claim-"can treat Cancer",... ...Could it be, that the posibility that these many x-rays, might be linked--(to giving them, the cancer that they had always dreaded!!)

Can it be proven--NOT when all, who know of the danger--have their mouths sealed "SHUT"!

Finally-"Gases are not present in a vacuum". please tell that to an astronaut in his space-suit, while he's doing a 'Space-walk'--!... ...but history will finally prevail, if it is right!

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote tomorrow on this "Academic Freedom" bill.

Please send these senators an e mail asking them to :
vote "NO" on SB2692

I have gathered the e mail addresses of all of the senators (minus 1 that doesn't have an e mail address listed)and put them here in such a way that you should be able to just "cut and paste" all of the addresses in to your "send to" address bar of your e mail program.

villalobos.alex.web@flsenate.gov; joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov; baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov; deutch.ted.web@flsenate.gov; portilla.alex.web@flsenate.gov; fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov; gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov; geller.steven.web@flsenate.gov; ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov; saunders.burt.web@flsenate.gov;

Here is the web page in case you have difficulty with the way I listed the e mail addresses:

http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?Tab=committees&Submenu=1&File=index.html&Directory=committees/senate/ju/

Please help us stop this bill in its tracks.

Stacy :-)

Oops! I mean "Copy" and paste!

Because the CMB is leftover radiation from the big bang, some cosmologists have said that the cold spot is a problem for the theories of the early universe. But Rudnick says that the void could have been created billions of years after the big bang. "We have taken the problem away from the very early universe and put the problem in the time of structure formation," he says.

Stacy S.: villalobos.alex.web@flsenate.gov; joyner.arthenia.web@flsenate.gov; baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov; deutch.ted.web@flsenate.gov; portilla.alex.web@flsenate.gov; fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov; gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov; geller.steven.web@flsenate.gov; ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov; saunders.burt.web@flsenate.gov; Here is the web page in case you have difficulty with the way I listed the e mail addresses: http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/View_Page.pl?Tab=committees&Submenu=1&File=index.html&Directory=committees/senate/ju/ Stacy :-(