Florida Evolution Bill amended again, passes House committee

But what else do you expect school boards to spend all their excess money on, if not paying out lawsuit settlements?

If you would kindly consider a few points that I take the liberty of putting forward:

1) The argument is sometimes made, that failure to embrace evolution (and by that, the arguer almost invariably means, Common Descent - Darwinism), is a factor in poor science performance.
History does not pass a verdict either way. Science reached high points without this theory.

2)The claim is made that the abovementioned theory of evolution is scientific fact, all done, sold, hammer down. History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases.

3) There is one sense in which the purpose of science is to investigate. (In another sense, investigating mathematically proven laws such as F = MA, is probably pointless.) Any area of science shutting itself off from investigation, by definition, is not following standard procedure, and disqualifies itself from being a member of the fold.

Philip, if you have some scientific evidence that will overthrow "Darwinism", then by all means present it. If not, I suggest you get busy and do some science.

Hint- Blathering on a blog is not doing science. You will not win your "war" here. GET BUSY.

If you would kindly consider a few points that I take the liberty of putting forward:

Philip,

You write like a freshman philosophy student at some small, second-rate state college while holding an empty pipe in his mouth.

You are silly, very dull poseur pontificating on things you misunderstand - and yet about which you are transparently dishonest - to your intellectual (and moral) betters.

Sincerely,

-- Another person who will scroll by any posts with your name from this time on.

Rick R.: I have been researching this topic for at least 5 mins, and currently run the world's leading and only Origins Science site classified mainstream science, bible-based. (The majority of respected scientists, from before Galileo through to beyond Planck, were creationist in some measure.) If you can find the time to research it for at least that long, you might discover that pulling assumptions out of the blue - the imprimatur of the two contributors beneath you - can be counterproductive.

M.Elzinga I see is still burning to tell us all about entropy. The previous occasion, he had nothing to write at all; and when I took some trouble to explain it, he then forgot that I had done so. Now that he has my humble, poor explanation to consult, he may be inspired to break forth into a MONA LISA of explanatory creativity. We are still waiting on your explanation of entropy, O Michaelangelo.

But of course, you could consult with Tupelo. His sculpture of DAVID in words, elevates one as does Sebastian Bach's brilliantly structured music. .... Sorry, I have to go, my pipe spilled and set fire to the cat.

All of this is as if there were no peer review that has already carried out the "critical analysis" that these people want high school students to engage in. Are we going to have critical analysis of Proust, Dostoyevsky, or James Joyce as well using semiotic, post-feminist, and structuralist readings in comparative readings? Or to do close analyses of Schonberg, Webern, and Berg's free atonal works when students only know what scales, keys, meter, tempo, and dynamics are as band performers? Of course we aren't going to. They don't know enough.
How are you going to create any meaningful critique of something before you've even given its full explanation? You need to learn the system and its support before you can adequately critique it.
There is no doubt that we investigate with science. It is a powerful tool. Then use it and see what it does. Don't try to pretend that some invented critiques of the method based on a priori religious assumptions that are also scientifically irrelevant, philosophically bankrupt, logically or factually errant, and religiously motivated (specified complexity will do for all of those four categories) are worhtwhile for students.

Philip Bruce Heywood: 1) The argument is sometimes made, that failure to embrace evolution (and by that, the arguer almost invariably means, Common Descent - Darwinism), is a factor in poor science performance. History does not pass a verdict either way. Science reached high points without this theory.

If you call "Lamarckism" high science you truly are clueless....

2)The claim is made that the abovementioned theory of evolution is scientific fact, all done, sold, hammer down. History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases. No scientist in his/her right mind would claim that evolution, or any other scientific theory, is "hammer down" (sic)- Phillip you need to learn how science is done (you know, posing hypotheses, testing predictions, collecting data, etc. - all that simple stuff we teach to freshman so they understand how science actually works as compared to the poor caricature typically presented by sophist rubes like yourself).

3) There is one sense in which the purpose of science is to investigate. (In another sense, investigating mathematically proven laws such as F = MA, is probably pointless.) Any area of science shutting itself off from investigation, by definition, is not following standard procedure, and disqualifies itself from being a member of the fold.

What universe are you living in Phillip? In my own tiny field of comparative immunology there are more studies (hundreds if not thousands) published each year than one can possibly keep up on(thats hundreds if not thousands more than have been published by ID if you're keeping count). Tell me, do you plead the Behe here ("I wouldn't believe them even if I had read them..."), or are you just going too keep spouting lies?

Philip,
I read your last long-winded post on the 'fossil snake with two legs' thread. Honestly, 3 paragraphs to say "if evolution is true, how can a horse become a cow?" (Stupid creationist claim #4376)

A moron with a thesaurus is still a moron.

PBH, you must be glad that evolutionary biology is a very active research area, and sad that the public is subject to so much propaganda against just learning basic natural history.

Ah, PeterE., that was exactly what I was going to say, when my pipe set fire to the cat. Masterful.

9 1003.42 Required instruction.– (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board,shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

PBH M.Elzinga I see is still burning to tell us all about entropy. The previous occasion, he had nothing to write at all; and when I took some trouble to explain it, he then forgot that I had done so. Now that he has my humble, poor explanation to consult, he may be inspired to break forth into a MONA LISA of explanatory creativity. We are still waiting on your explanation of entropy, O Michaelangelo.

Richard Simons:

9 1003.42 Required instruction.– (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board,shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historic accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

(Line numbering removed for ease of reading) So students in Florida high schools are going to learn the techniques and results of genetics (including bacterial, viral, eukaryotic, transcription and pseudogenes), stratigraphy, radiodating, taxonomy, cladistics, retroviruses, paleontology, biogeography and the significance of plate tectonics, plant and animal anatomy, dendrochronology, population genetics, behaviour and population dynamics, along with assorted other areas such as the chemistry, physics and statistics required to provide background knowledge. Those are smart kids that you have there.

Just get them to include the lesson plan. Let everyone see what they want to teach and how they are going to teach it and then we can evaluate just what they are trying to do.

Simple, so why don't the dishonest creationists involved in these efforts ever do something as straight forward and simple as that. They could demonstrate that what they were doing has relevance in the science class, but they never bother.

Maybe eventually kids will only study sexual activity and evolution so they can all talk about nested hierarchy in the hospital while dying from some form of VD.

Or maybe the evos can all be isolated to an island equipped with a lab and and find some cures for the varieties of STDs their ethics and philosophies have promulgated.

So far they have blessed us with viagra and overnight abortion pills.

I long for the day when we return to the occurrence of say an A. L. Tennyson on the board of the Royal Academy, etc. and pee wee myers is living in a dog pound.

April 18th ...the Great Awakening.

Richard Simons: along with assorted other areas such as the chemistry, physics and statistics required to provide background knowledge. Those are smart kids that you have there.

Philip,

Congratulations, you seem to be improving. Your writing is getting better and you are actually near to being on-topic. I also must agree when you write that you have been studying this topic for 5 minutes.

Now Philip, if you had been studying evolution for 30 years rather than for five minutes, you might understand that the evidence for evolution is just as convincing as the evidence for F = ma. You would also know that no science is "bible-based". You would also understand why those who have been studying evolution for 30 years get a little annoyed when you pretend that you are the only one who understands anything.

It is certainly true that there is more to learn. This is true for any theory. However, there is more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for any theory in the history of science. It has earned the right to be taught in public schools at every level. It does not deserve to be singled out for special treatment by misguided religious fanatics who are trying use public funds to convert children to their own narrow religious position in defiance of all of the evidence. Science has not cut itself off from investigation by any means. The theory of evolution continues to be one of the most studied fields in all of science and advancements are being made daily. If you read the scientific literature you would know this.

You yourself admit that evolution has occurred, so what exactly is your problem? I have asked you several times to explain what you think is wrong with modern evolutionary theory, you have not done so. I have asked you to present some rational alternative hypothesis, you have not done so. I have asked you to provide some evidence for your hypothesis, you have not done so. I must respectfully conclude that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. If your level of knowledge of hox genes is any indication, you really don't have the slightest clue what you are tallking about. You will accomplish nothing here other than making a fool of yourself.

Real scientists will not be persuaded by arrogance or pontification. Real scientists will only be persuaded by the evidence. You have offered only innuendo and hyperbole. Why don't you push your bible-based science in your tax-free church and leave the real science to real scientists? If you were at all interested in any rational discussion, you would have answered at least one of my questions.

HAHAHA!, Oh keith, you really got me laughing there.

Syphillis was discovered well before Darwin. Don't make the absurd comment that Darwin caused syphillis.

So, can you remind me what the treatment for syphillis was before the discovery of antibiotics? Oh, with a simple google check i can see that they treated syphillis with toxic mercury.

I'm sorry but i would much rather move to an island where we have antibiotics than stay in your toxic mercury wastedump. Then again you can always pray that the syphillis disappears. Don't get me wrong. I'm a praying man but God also gave me a brain to think. Oh, and we're taking Francis Collins and his human DNA sequence to the island with us.

keith: April 18th ...the Great Awakening.

Richard Simons: If you were to stir up just a little of that grey matter God gave you, read the entries on this page, add 2 and 2, you would have found my (simplified, pictorial)exposition on Entropy, over on PZ's most recent page, dealing with Having a Something-or-other Paul Someone-or-other's Day. You seemed to treat Professor Shine's observations on snake fossils with contempt, over on PvM's page on Creation Myth's; and I have no reason to believe you will treat Lord Kelvin's thermodynamics any differently. But I hope I am mistaken.

Peter Dunkleberg; I am intrigued to know in what places on good old mother Earth there is propaganda against learning basic natural history, and what form this propaganda takes? I'm not saying it doesn't exist. If you are implying by that that Common-Descent Darwinistic Evolution is necessary to learning about nature - why, how did people such as Linnaeus and Fabre ever cope? I haven't grasped the significance of your statement.

What I am observing, via PANDA'S THUMB, is isolation from other disciplines of science. I have had people say - and they meant it - that science isn't governed by immutable laws. I have yet to find anyone with a clear idea of, yes, entropy, the requirements of physical chemistry, and so on. They just seem to think that if nature does it, nature does it. Common Descent Darwinism by definition can't happen, according to the laws of physics. And the geologic record backs the physics. New developments in physics are showing how evolution was achieved. Unless people find out about the remainder of science, things are going to look rather odd, bye-and-bye.

PBH said: History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases.

Philip wrote:

"If you are implying by that that Common-Descent Darwinistic Evolution is necessary to learning about nature - why, how did people such as Linnaeus and Fabre ever cope?"

Once again, you miss the point completely. Linnaeus coped rather poorly it turns out. He may have been able to name quite a few species, but he could not account for how they changed over time. He could also not establish a rational basis for classification. That requires knowing that there is a tree of life and determining the branching order in the tree of life. Modern genetics and cladistics have come a long way in making taxonomy a natural system based on evolutionary relationships.

Apparently you want science to keep investigating until everyone agrees that your bible-based views are correct. That is not going to happen. If you want to convince anyone of anything you must provide the evidence. Quite frankly, no one can figure out exactly what your problem is.

Apparently you think that "lower" life forms (i.e. disease microbes) can evolve without any help but that "higher" life forms require a quantum computer or else they will go extinct. Please, enlighten us as to where the dividing line between "lower" and "higher" life forms is found. Enlighten us as to why the same mechanisms of random mutation and natrual selection that operate on microbes are not sufficient for "higher" life forms. Please explain why "lower" life forms lack a quantum computer and why "higher" life forms have access to one, if they are all part of the same tree of life. Pleasae explain why the theory of evolution is so unimportant to learning about nature if the tree of life is the source of the quantum computer that makes all life possible. And please, please, please explain how the tree of life can carry out photosynthesis. One could go on at length, but why would one?

As usual, the packaging (that is, the terminology) giving immediate lip service to "good science" in a bill that makes no scientific sense, leaves us reading the tea leaves trying to figure out the various motiviations.

I think some people sincerely believe that evolution cannot withstand critical analysis, because their god told them so. But most likely, these people being politicians and highly sensitive to political considerations, understand very clearly the underlying purpose, which is to find a way to circumvent the US Constitution by permitting 9th grade teachers to preach in science class under the guise of "analysis". Who knows, with a little luck some test case can be confected and presented before some creationist judge. But in the meantime, being deliberately vague and hazy about exactly what CAN be presented in science class should obfuscate the boundaries of "legal" enough to discourage expensive and time-consuming protests for some while to come.

Shifting the locus of responsibility around is an interesting tactic. It's up to the BOE - uh, no, it's up to the local school boards - uh, no it's up to the teachers themselves - uh, no, golly, we don't have any definitive legal precendent. Whoever "we" are, it's clearly not OUR fault, read the law!

I think, someday soon, "critical analysis" will be legislated for ALL sciences, so as not to single out evolution except (of course) in daily practice. Worst comes to worst, this will debilitate ALL science instruction, a price creationists will gladly pay to get Jeezus into the classrooms.

Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein's early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton's physics between 1904 and 1917.

So I would say a few hundred people working on alternative hypotheses in science is quite relevant, particularly when you review their education, work , and credentials.

Or you can rely on public drunks like doggins and igloo boy in Minnesota, chief of the zebra fish experts.

Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

David Stanton said:
"Philip wrote:

...

Apparently you want science to keep investigating until everyone agrees that your bible-based views are correct. That is not going to happen. If you want to convince anyone of anything you must provide the evidence. Quite frankly, no one can figure out exactly what your problem is."

I'd hazard a guess what his real problem is ... "Original Sin".

It seems to me that if evolution is true then the Garden of Eden story is false.
If the Eden story if false then no Tree of Knowledge, no temptation by the snake, no original sin and no divine punishment as a result. Which in turn means no original sin to be later redeemed and that Christ died in vain as a result.

Which means no eternal life for Philip and his ilk.

That seems to be their problem ... as others have said, not liking the consequence of evolution, so they dispute the fact of evolution.

keith: Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

"Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917."

No, they didn't. Classical mechanics is still used to measure the motions and forces acting upon rigid bodies, particles, etc. between Planck-scale and cosmological scale.

It appears that your understanding of physics is about as deep as your understanding of evolution.

This is just a be nice to our mythology bill. It is completely unnecessary.

Someone asked the sponsor if there were any cases of persecution for questioning evolution in Florida. They couldn't name a single case.

It makes the whole state standards procedure a mockery. Why bother with the dog and pony show when the legislature is going to pass bills declaring what science and reality are?

There is no enforcement of the state standards, no will and no mechanism anyway. The local school boards and schools, can, do, and will just ignore it if they want to and teach anything in science classes. What happens in Florida, Arkansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas that has been reported in the news.

Tyler DiPietro: "Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917." No, they didn't. Classical mechanics is still used to measure the motions and forces acting upon rigid bodies, particles, etc. between Planck-scale and cosmological scale.

Eric,

Exactly. I was only pointing out the common misconception that Classical* mechanics somehow became irrelevant after relativity and QM. Our understanding of physics at cosmological (relativity) and atomic (QM) scale complemented our previous understanding of physical systems in between, it didn't "completely overturn" them.

It's important to point that out, and not allow IDers to propogate ahistorical nonsense and mischaracterization to bolster their anti-scientific worldview.

(* I don't like the use of the term "Newtonian" for the field, it downplays the important contributions from, e.g., Laplace and Hamilton.)

Tyler DiPietro: (* I don't like the use of the term "Newtonian" for the field, it downplays the important contributions from, e.g., Laplace and Hamilton.)

I remember an Astronomy professor I had saying that Special Relativity was the the capstone of Newtonian Mechanics. (He is a cosmologist.) One must have a very thorough understanding of Classical mechanics from Newton, Laplace, Hamilton and others before venturing into General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

As Eric and Tyler have said, Newton wasn't replaced, just expanded on.

George

By the laws of Physical chemistry? Have you done any sort of differential analysis on the behavior of DNA in solution? Do you understand that according to your misunderstanding of entropy any kind of crystal formation would be impossible? You seem to have no idea that the statistics that underlie calculating the entropy of various states requires that all the states be possible? The fascinating thing that experiments show is that when certain configurations occur they change the local environment and favor new kinds of reactions (i.e. crystal formation, bond rearrangements, base pair stacking).

M.Elzinga I see is still burning to tell us all about entropy. The previous occasion, he had nothing to write at all; and when I took some trouble to explain it, he then forgot that I had done so. Now that he has my humble, poor explanation to consult, he may be inspired to break forth into a MONA LISA of explanatory creativity. We are still waiting on your explanation of entropy, O Michaelangelo.

I have yet to find anyone with a clear idea of, yes, entropy, the requirements of physical chemistry, and so on.

keith: April 18th ...the Great Awakening.

BTW, Keith, I deleted the rest of your post to conserve space, as well as it was a dreary, unimaginative mess of personal attacks that required no real comment on my part (beyond this).

dpr

keith: Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

Tyler DiPietro: "Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917." No, they didn't. Classical mechanics is still used to measure the motions and forces acting upon rigid bodies, particles, etc. between Planck-scale and cosmological scale. It appears that your understanding of physics is about as deep as your understanding of evolution.

Tyler DiPietro: Eric, Exactly. I was only pointing out the common misconception that Classical* mechanics somehow became irrelevant after relativity and QM. Our understanding of physics at cosmological (relativity) and atomic (QM) scale complemented our previous understanding of physical systems in between, it didn't "completely overturn" them. It's important to point that out, and not allow IDers to propogate ahistorical nonsense and mischaracterization to bolster their anti-scientific worldview. (* I don't like the use of the term "Newtonian" for the field, it downplays the important contributions from, e.g., Laplace and Hamilton.)

keith said: Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein’s early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton’s physics between 1904 and 1917.

So I would say a few hundred people working on alternative hypotheses in science is quite relevant, particularly when you review their education, work , and credentials.

Or you can rely on public drunks like doggins and igloo boy in Minnesota, chief of the zebra fish experts.

Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

April 18th …the Great Awakening.

— keith

Tick Tock April 18th The Great Awakening.

Waterloo! Waterloo! I can almost hear Agnetha singing now!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

If you were to stir up just a little of that grey matter God gave you, read the entries on this page, add 2 and 2, you would have found my (simplified, pictorial)exposition on Entropy, over on PZ’s most recent page, dealing with Having a Something-or-other Paul Someone-or-other’s Day.

I could go on at length about physical chemistry, reactions, dissolving urea in water, the entropy barrier, how modern technology points to ways of overcoming the entopy barrier in the case of complex organic molecules, blah blah. Let’s go just one step at a time.

I would venture a guess that PBH has absolutely no idea of what an “entropy barrier” is. …PBH is attempting to use Panda’s Thumb to leverage traffic for his own site.

ENTROPY: measure of the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. AS ABOVE.

Copying and pasting a definition of entropy doesn’t demonstrate that PBH has any understanding of the concept. It is just an attempt to appear knowledgeable when, in fact, PBH is clueless about any science whatsoever.

keith: Counting all the peripheral math and physics people who supported Einstein's early efforts it seems about 4 people completely overturned Newton's physics between 1904 and 1917.

Stupid question time . . .

Is there any legal precedent for striking down laws like this based on the fact that they single out evolution?

For some reason Edwards/Aguillard comes to mind, but IANAL so I don't know the specifics.

Just wondering . . . because if legislators were aware that expen$ive, due-to-lose litigation will probably occur, maybe they'd worry more about fixing their state's economy.

The reader can think and do research for himself, so I won't take up space pointing out the trash 'science', and the deception that one or two of my camp-followers persist with. I have dealt with an aspect of entropy elsewhere, but you won't find that entry quoted on this page - it has been deliberately omitted not far above here, in a futile attempt to deceive. But I doubt that anyone gets taken in.

Equating an hypothesis based on description - such as Common Descent Darwinism - with a law of physics or an addition outcome in maths, is roughly equivalent to asserting that, because we have found a definite trend in the patterns of the stamps in our stamp collection, and because we know that the wind plus some shaking etc. did it, therefore we have proved the origin of stamps.
Lord Kelvin warned the Sciences about this. In fact, he used the stamp collecting analogy. People out there can think.

I can understand, if people are up against AIG indoctrination, why there is all this agitation. I'd get agitated, myself. I place a great value on geology. Aig - type indoctrination won't be countered by what amounts to (hopefully, innocent) misstatement of facts and scientific principles. You see something approaching fraud, going on right here. So how does that win the hearts and minds of the populace? To win, you must get the facts straight and the method straight. Then there won't be the antagonistic reaction.

We aren't going to be able to use 'science' to push religion out of the world, Soviet Russia style. If I may take the liberty of quoting from just one of the thousands upon thousands of men of faith and character, responsible for bringing human understanding to where it is today: Jean Fabre, author of the SOUVENIRS ENTOMOLOGIQUES, the ten volumes that have become enduring classics of literature and science alike: I do not BELIEVE in God, I SEE him, everywhere. There are lots of Fabres, out there.

Philip Bruce Heywood: We aren't going to be able to use 'science' to push religion out of the world, Soviet Russia style.

"Equating an hypothesis based on description - such as Common Descent Darwinism - with a law of physics or an addition outcome in maths, is roughly equivalent to asserting that, because we have found a definite trend in the patterns of the stamps in our stamp collection, and because we know that the wind plus some shaking etc. did it, therefore we have proved the origin of stamps."

Wow.

Just...wow. The whole forum is stupider from having read such inane tripe.

Here's a clue for ya, Philip: The wind in your example completely fails in predicting any patterns in the trajectory of stamp development. Evolutionary theory predicts, among many, many other things, genomic patterns (e.g., ERV's) and fossil record patterns (e.g., the recently discovered fish-amphibian transition). Your comparison is silly on innumerable levels.

Philip Bruce Heywood: stuff

The reader can think and do research for himself, so I won’t take up space pointing out the trash ‘science’, and the deception that one or two of my camp-followers persist with.

PBH said Richard Simons: If you were to stir up just a little of that grey matter God gave you, read the entries on this page, add 2 and 2, you would have found my (simplified, pictorial)exposition on Entropy, over on PZ’s most recent page, dealing with Having a Something-or-other Paul Someone-or-other’s Day.

You seemed to treat Professor Shine’s observations on snake fossils with contempt, over on PvM’s page on Creation Myth’s; and I have no reason to believe you will treat Lord Kelvin’s thermodynamics any differently. But I hope I am mistaken.

We aren’t going to be able to use ‘science’ to push religion out of the world, Soviet Russia style.

In another sense, investigating mathematically proven laws such as F = MA, is probably pointless.

currently run the world’s leading and only Origins Science site classified mainstream science, bible-based.

You are silly, very dull poseur pontificating on things you misunderstand

One must have a very thorough understanding of Classical mechanics from Newton, Laplace, Hamilton and others before venturing into General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Philip,

You have trashed up mulitple threads with your off-topic nonsense. You have not made one valid statement (and very few comprehensible statements) in the last week. You steadfastly refuse to answer questions and refer people to other threads where you also refused to answer the same questions. I have asked you literally dozens of questions, you have not answered a single one. Mike has been asking you to define the term "entropy barrier" for four days now, you have not done so. You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about and you have not convinced anyone of anything except your own cluelessness.

One last time, just to be fair. Please define the term "entropy barrier". Why do you feel that this is a problem for modern evolutionary theory? Please explain how the tree of life can carry out photosynthesis and act as a quantum computer. Who programmed the computer and why? What is the goal of the program?

Until you answer these questions, I for one will not read anything else you care to write on this or any other thread. I suggest that others do the same.

Philip Bruce Heywood sez: The claim is made that the abovementioned theory of evolution is scientific fact, all done, sold, hammer down. History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion. Science history is packed with such cases.

Philip Bruce Heywood then brays: We aren't going to be able to use 'science' to push religion out of the world, Soviet Russia style. If I may take the liberty of quoting from just one of the thousands upon thousands of men of faith and character, responsible for bringing human understanding to where it is today: Jean Fabre, author of the SOUVENIRS ENTOMOLOGIQUES, the ten volumes that have become enduring classics of literature and science alike: I do not BELIEVE in God, I SEE him, everywhere. There are lots of Fabres, out there.

Philip Bruce Heywood: Equating an hypothesis based on description - such as Common Descent Darwinism - with a law of physics or an addition outcome in maths, is roughly equivalent to asserting that, because we have found a definite trend in the patterns of the stamps in our stamp collection, and because we know that the wind plus some shaking etc. did it, therefore we have proved the origin of stamps. Lord Kelvin warned the Sciences about this. In fact, he used the stamp collecting analogy. People out there can think. I can understand, if people are up against AIG indoctrination, why there is all this agitation. I'd get agitated, myself. I place a great value on geology. Aig - type indoctrination won't be countered by what amounts to (hopefully, innocent) misstatement of facts and scientific principles. You see something approaching fraud, going on right here. So how does that win the hearts and minds of the populace? To win, you must get the facts straight and the method straight. Then there won't be the antagonistic reaction.

PBH said: History all but proves that whenever people start on the done, sold, hammer down, there are grounds for suspicion.

Equating an hypothesis based on description - such as Common Descent Darwinism...

Effect of Proposed Changes: Teacher’s Rights and Prescribed Curriculum: The bill provides that every public school teacher in grades K through 12 has the “affirmative right and freedom” to “objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.” If a teacher determines that certain information is sufficiently “scientific” and “relevant,” the teacher has a “right” to teach that material irrespective of whether such information is contrary to the curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education through the SSS or by the school district through its instructional materials. The principal, the district school superintendent, the district school board, or the State Board of Education may disagree that the information is “scientific,” “relevant,” or “objectively present[ed];” however, that fact does not affect that teacher’s “right” to present the material. If the principal or other school district staff attempts to restrict a teacher’s ability to teach such information, or govern the manner of presentation, it appears the bill grants the teacher a cause of action to enforce the “right” granted in the bill. The bill, in effect, with regard only to biological or chemical evolution restricts the ability of the State Board of Education or the district school board to define and regulate curriculum content.

...overturned Newton...

So I would say a few hundred people working on alternative hypotheses in science is quite relevant,

particularly when you review their education, work , and credentials.

The bill, in effect, with regard only to biological or chemical evolution restricts the ability of the State Board of Education or the district school board to define and regulate curriculum content.

Philip Bruce Heywood: [snip] 1) The argument is sometimes made, that failure to embrace evolution (and by that, the arguer almost invariably means, Common Descent - Darwinism), is a factor in poor science performance. History does not pass a verdict either way. Science reached high points without this theory. [snip]

Darwinism refers to the mechanisms of evolutionary change, in particular, to process involved in what is called natural selection.