Ebonmuse on 'Teaching the Controversy'

The problem with “teaching all sides” is that it can give fringe ideas a credibility they have not earned. Excessive concern for “balance” leads to presenting the speculations of cranks and crackpots as if they were on equal footing with the positions defended by vast majorities of qualified experts.

Exactly the idea at the core of these parody t-shirts:

Teach the Controversy Shirts

There is no doubt that those sympathetic to ID/creationism have a double standard when it comes to singling out evolution (and other far-right causes like global warming) for the phony "critical analysis," but most people of all religious and political persuasions have a double standard when it comes to mainstream science vs. the "expelled" underdogs. Almost no nonscientists seem bothered by the fact that "alternative" health care is often exempt from rigorous testing. Yet real science can never do enough to overcome suspicion.

Note also that the latest anti-evolution scam does not really advocate teaching "both sides," but rather just the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. IOW, no weaknesses of the testable claims of YEC and OEC (which can easily be stated without legally risky design/creation language). Even though those weaknesses require none of the usual cherry picking of evidence, redefining terms and concepts, and quote mining that is necessary to make evolution look weak.

A politically savvy advocate of the latest anti-evolution scam would cover up the double standard by advocating "evolution only" (plus the phony "strengths and weaknesses") and "abstinence only." What "weaknesses" can there be about abstinence? Biology, which as Dobzhansky observed, only makes sense in the light of evolution, shows it to be 100% effective.

I'm sure this can't be talking about the highly reliable and the well-established Pastafarian movement.

Okrent's Law: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true."

I’m sure this can’t be talking about the highly reliable and the well-established Pastafarian movement.

— Steven Laskoske

"To Ebonmuse’s list of movements employing the same tactic one can add HIV denial (cf. Phillip E. Johnson and Jonathan Wells)."

Is this a misquote or a quote-mine. I do not think Wells said HIV does not exist.

Ebonmuse is being disingenuous. Evolution is wrong. Sex education is wrong. HIV-AIDS is wrong. All of these are statements of principle and doctrine, and not in any way to be considered subject to investigation and determination on the merits.

So what we have here is simply a question of tactics. How can we get Jesus back into every classroom where he belongs? If the law permits, then use the law. If custom permits, use custom. If an appeal to "fairness" works, then use fairness. If "being taught right from wrong" works, use it. Otherwise, use "making up their own minds". Whatever works.

And given the particular Truth to be encouraged (and once that battle is won, to be enforced), different tactics are appropriate as required. Lying For Jesus isn't simple, you know. You have to know which lies will appeal to which audiences, and position them appropriately. Fortunately, there's no need for them to be consistent, only to be effective.

What “weaknesses” can there be about abstinence?

timedout said: "To Ebonmuse’s list of movements employing the same tactic one can add HIV denial (cf. Phillip E. Johnson and Jonathan Wells)." Is this a misquote or a quote-mine. I do not think Wells said HIV does not exist.

timedout said: "To Ebonmuse’s list of movements employing the same tactic one can add HIV denial (cf. Phillip E. Johnson and Jonathan Wells)." Is this a misquote or a quote-mine. I do not think Wells said HIV does not exist.

The ID/Creationists’ mindset has certainly been illustrated by some of the trolls that show up on Panda’s Thumb as they attempt to derail threads by changing the subject or throwing a barrage of misconceptions and misinformation into the conversation.

For example, this Revolution Against Evolution site (there are a number of these than can be found on the Web) betrays many of the ID/Creationist deep-seated attitudes about “evolutionists” which we can actually observe being spewed from the fundamentalist pulpits.

Their clearest characteristic is that they themselves never ever take the time to dig deeply into the science and understand the concepts properly. And their mentors attempt to train them explicitly how to debate and taunt “evolutionists” and “unbelievers”

Any challenge on the part of the science advocate to get an ID/Creationist to grapple with the misconceptions and misinformation in ID/Creationism is explicitly labeled as an unprovoked mocking attack. Then they use this characterization to further demonize the “evolutionist” (or “Darwinist” or whatever code word does the job in the mind of the ID/Creationist neophyte).

We see another pattern here; the ID/Creationist tactic of using debates to “reveal the evil natures of unbelievers”. The idea seems to be to taunt and poke until the scientist starts asking pointed questions and insisting that the ID/Creationist learn some science, but then to turn around and characterize that as defensiveness and anger on the part of the scientist at being exposed by a gentle and innocent lamb of god.

It is this chain of tactics that the ID/Creationists appear to be attempting to introduce into the public school biology classroom. If specific legislation or wording can be added to the science standards, the armies of neophyte ID/Creationist students can be loaded up with taunting questions that will anger and expose the evil natures of those biology teachers and make heroic martyrs of the ID/Creationist students.

It’s an extension of the fantasy of the persecuted, beleaguered and pure-hearted “warrior for god” doing battle against the overwhelming forces of evil. And, of course, the “enemies” are everywhere.

RBH said:

timedout said: "To Ebonmuse’s list of movements employing the same tactic one can add HIV denial (cf. Phillip E. Johnson and Jonathan Wells)." Is this a misquote or a quote-mine. I do not think Wells said HIV does not exist.

Read the link.

I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

He did not say that. It is not fair to misaquote.

If you're being serious and not just pretending to be stupid to cause trouble: it's not a quote. It's a petition which Wells put his name to, which says that the link between HIV and AIDS is doubted.

I note the similarity in language. 'Many biochemical scientists disagree...' sounds like ID, doesn't it?

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. It is not fair to misaquote.

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. It is not fair to misaquote.

I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

RBH is competely correct, except that he underestimates the toll. A report in yesterday's New York Times puts the number of premature deaths in South Africa at 365,000 as a result of Mbeki's policy to withhold antiretroviral drugs. Wells, as an HIV denier, is not responsible (as Duesberg is), but he is surely complicit.

For the record: By HIV denier, I mean someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS, not someone who denies the existence of HIV itself. No carping, please; HIV denial is a deadly serious matter.

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

Stanton said: If Jonathan Wells put his name on a petition that denies a connection between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and AIDS, it is fair to assume that he denies that HIV causes AIDS. Or, perhaps you can explain in detail why it is an unfair quote mine to assume this, even though he put his name on that petition of his own free will?

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: You are displaying so many of the behaviors discussed here that I am going to make a supposition here. Since you are asking others for things here, I am going to ask you for something: Please answer these questions: 1. Do you accept the conclusion accepted by most scientists in the field that HIV exists? 2. Do you accept the conclusion accepted by most scientists in the field that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS? 3. Do you accept the conclusion accepted by most scientists in the field that organisms have evolved through time? 4. Do you accept the conclusion accepted by most scientists in the field that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old? 5. Do you accept the conclusion accepted by most scientists in the field that Natural Selection is a primary cause of the evolution observed in nature?

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

timedout said: Where did he say 'deny'?? I believe he said the whole issue needs more research

Stanton said: The problem was, and still is, is that all evidence and research points to HIV as the ultimate cause of AIDS, given as how HIV targets the cells of the immune system, severely impairing its function, thus weakening the infected's health to the point where any opportunistic infection by any pathogen, no matter how otherwise puny and flimsy, leads to the infected person's death. To propose that more research must be needed to corroborate a relation between HIV and AIDS, even though there have been millions of reported and recorded instances of people being infected with HIV, then eventually dying of AIDS... Well...

timedout said: Where did he say 'deny'?? I believe he said the whole issue needs more research

So he is 100% incorrect in his opinion. Does that entitle others to misquote him?

timedout said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: ...

timedout said: I think that Dr. Wells denies that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He did not say that. Can you get me a quote of his where he says that? You are quote mining. I think we should be fair here.

Yes to all of the above. What you are confusing here is that I can insist that someone who does not have the same opinions that I do be quoted correctly. There are people who do not believe that global warming is caused by humans. That does not mean they 'deny' that global warming is happening. Wells words have been twisted here.

The reasons that this is reasonably interpreted as “denialism” are several:

Exactly: interpretation. If I say I think that the present prevailing belief that global warming is cause by humans needs more research to substantiate the claim should not be interpreted that I 'deny' the belief. It is unfair and pejudicial to make such 'interpretations/

timedout said: If I say I think that the present prevailing belief that global warming is cause by humans needs more research to substantiate the claim should not be interpreted that I 'deny' the belief.

Not having gotten around to reading "The God Delusion" yet, I actually thought this was the money quote:

"...like Richard Dawkins' famous statement that the god of the Old Testament is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction... a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" - and then let's show them the verses that he uses to back up that criticism! To borrow some terminology from ID advocates, shouldn't the "strengths and weaknesses" of the Bible be "critically analyzed"?"

Mr/ Ms Ebonmuse is incoherent since the topic about the Panda's Thumb isn't discussed at all. In the book Introduction to Logic by Irming M Copi, sixth edition, Macmillan Publishing Company New York, page 110 and I quote "The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed when an argument is proported to establish a particular onclusion is directed to proving a a different conclusion" Mr/ Mrs Ebonmuse: you might be trying to conclude something about sex education or greenhouse but not about the creation/ evolution controversey.

tomh said:

timedout said: If I say I think that the present prevailing belief that global warming is cause by humans needs more research to substantiate the claim should not be interpreted that I 'deny' the belief.

Where do you draw the line? If someone says evolution needs more research to substantiate the claim would you think it unfair to assume that they deny evolution? The case for HIV is comparable. To claim that more research is needed is equivalent to denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Except that this denial has more tragic consequences than denying evolution, as the Times story that is mentioned above makes clear.

o borrow some terminology from ID advocates, shouldn’t the “strengths and weaknesses” of the Bible be “critically analyzed”?”

Of course!

And you are incorrectly assuming that ID advocates accept the Bible literally. This again is an inaccuracy. Please at least be correct in your statements.

Almost no nonscientists seem bothered by the fact that “alternative” health care is often exempt from rigorous testing.

The health care system is burdened with fees paid to pseudo-medicine. However again no one is allowed to 'doubt' the prevailing theories. Just try to say that certain psychotherapies are ineffective and you will be bludgeoned with the same 'denier' label. There is no law or regulation now that forbids 'therapists' from using astrology in their practice and many do. And false memory syndrome, attachment therapy, etc.

How can we get Jesus back into every classroom where he belongs?

— Flint

Well, for one thing, it doesn’t work nearly as well at reducing rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection as comprehensive sex ed.

— Ebonmuse

However again no one is allowed to ‘doubt’ the prevailing theories. Just try to say that certain psychotherapies are ineffective and you will be bludgeoned with the same ‘denier’ label.

— timedout

In the US at least you are free to doubt anything your little heart desires. But don’t expect to get away with the double standard that mainstream science always needs to do more research (which it is glad to do anyway) while your alternative is exempt.

Actually now many alternative psychotherapies are paid for by taxpayer dollars with very, very little supporting research. If money can be made the research is not necessary. That's how it really works in the good ole USA.

Doubting is called 'denying' so that the money maker status-quo theories cannot be criticized.

Timedout, "Where does one draw the line" on denialism?
Denialism has been analyzed and is recognized by established characteristics. This and the answer to your medical argument, whatever the point is, can be learned from the Denialism blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

As you will see across the top line there, basic information is given in About Denialism, Denialists' Cards, and CrankHOWTO.

You fail to realize that anybody is free to doubt whatever theory they want to doubt in the Scientific Community. The only catch is that one must first gather evidence supporting one's position before he or she can convince others in the Scientific Community, let alone make money with it. And the problem is that the evidence does not support those, including Wells, who doubt a connection between HIV and AIDS.

Stanton said: You fail to realize that anybody is free to doubt whatever theory they want to doubt in the Scientific Community. The only catch is that one must first gather evidence supporting one's position before he or she can convince others in the Scientific Community, let alone make money with it. And the problem is that the evidence does not support those, including Wells, who doubt a connection between HIV and AIDS.

The science community is hyper-political and ‘follows the money'

timedout said: No doubting the complete accuracy of the prevailing theories is NOT 'denial'. I do not see how more research into an area can be a bad thing. Somehow equating Wells doubting of the cause of AIDS to the supposed increase of deaths in S. Africa is really a far stretch. This whole issue is simply a way to try to unjustly discredit someone who does not believe as YOU do. This as silly as blaming Darwin for the Holocaust.

fnxtr said:

The science community is hyper-political and ‘follows the money'

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, their timedout. Got any data, as in specific instances, to back it up? Following the money is more of a "bypass peer review and shill pseudo-science to the masses" manouevre. You know, the John Grays and William Dembskis of the world. If no controversy existed, it would be necessary to invent one. So they did.

However, they (particularly Duesberg, one of Wells’ mentors) went on to intentionally and directly influence decisions by policy makers on treatment, particularly in South Africa.

Link, source to back up your statement?

OK, it's pretty obvious that this guy is arguing for the purpose of arguing, nothing more. He does not respond to statements that definitively prove he doesn't know what he's talking about, nor does he apologize for making these incorrect statements. He makes provocative and obviously uneducated statements without backing them up, he asks for documentation without providing any in return. He clearly does not know what he's talking about with respect to science in general. In short, the classic troll.

Until he changes his behavior, I recommend ignoring him.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: In short, the classic troll. Until he changes his behavior, I recommend ignoring him.

Actually now many alternative psychotherapies are paid for by taxpayer dollars with very, very little supporting research. If money can be made the research is not necessary. That’s how it really works in the good ole USA.

— timedout

Until he changes his behavior, I recommend ignoring him.

— GvlGeologist, FCD

GvlGeologist, FCD said: In short, the classic troll.

Frank J said: Note that I said weaknesses of "abstinence," not weaknesses of "teaching abstinence-only." The latter may have it's flaws as you note, but the former is 100% effective.

I notice that my usual questions were neatly ignored, which is what happens

Which questions??

Which questions??

— timedout

It is 100% effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy, but prolonged use may have side effects… ;-)

— Bill Gascoyne

what's the biggest weakness of abstinence? it's TEMPORARY!

castration, OTOH, is a 100%-effective permanent fix ...

*notices horrified stares* what?

Is it possible to redirect a subthread which is started by a troll to a different place. You could always put a link under the original comment by the troll that every reaction to this comment will be placed under said link.
In this case it was especially annoying because it only dealt with a minor point: wether Jonathan Wells did or didnot deny HIV as cause for AIDS or wether he denied HIV at all.

No doubting the complete accuracy of the prevailing theories is NOT 'denial'. I do not see how more research into an area can be a bad thing.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

No doubting the complete accuracy of the prevailing theories is NOT 'denial'. I do not see how more research into an area can be a bad thing.

There comes a time when we have to say, "enough." We can say that a point has been shown to be true sufficiently that we should be spending our time and our money to do something with what we've learned. Once we know to a sufficient certainty that HIV causes AIDS, to perform more research is a waste of good researchers and grants.

timedout said: However, they (particularly Duesberg, one of Wells’ mentors) went on to intentionally and directly influence decisions by policy makers on treatment, particularly in South Africa. Link, source to back up your statement?

The Aids policies of former president Thabo Mbeki's government were directly responsible for the avoidable deaths of a third of a million people in South Africa, according to research from Harvard University. South Africa has one of the most severe HIV/Aids epidemics in the world. About 5.5 million people, or 18.8% of the adult population, have HIV, according to the UN. In 2005 there were 900 deaths a day. But from the late 90s Mbeki turned his back on the scientific consensus that Aids was caused by a viral infection which could be combated, though not cured, by sophisticated and expensive drugs. He came under the influence of maverick scientists known as Aids-denialists, most prominent among whom was Peter Duesberg from Berkeley, California.

Frank J said:

Which questions??

— timedout

Now the lurkers must also be wondering why, on top of everything else, you refuse to take a few seconds to scroll up a few comments to see this: On that note, since you appear to have problems with mainstream science, do you agree with mainstream science, and Michael Behe, that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history and that humans share common ancestors with dogs and dogwoods? If not, what is your alternative, and what research can you point to that supports it on its own merits, as opposed to “weaknesses” in the prevailing theory?

timedout said: I do not see how more research into an area can be a bad thing.

Excessive concern for "balance" leads to presenting the speculations of cranks and crackpots as if they were on equal footing with the positions defended by vast majorities of qualified experts.... And this is very useful to advocates of pseudoscience, who often do not need to win the rhetorical battle outright; they can triumph merely by muddying the waters and preventing a consensus from forming around the truth.

timedout is bobby. Time for a bannage.

Let the record show that timedout aka bobby aka jobby agrees with Behe and mainstream science on the age of life and common descent. Maybe now he can derail threads on YEC and OEC sites.

Frank J said: Let the record show that timedout aka bobby aka jobby agrees with Behe and mainstream science on the age of life and common descent. Maybe now he can derail threads on YEC and OEC sites.

advocates of pseudoscience... pseudoscientist ideologues...

"The term “pseudoscience” has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites."

"Of course, merely because a term can be misused does not mean that it does not have its proper uses. Nevertheless, the pseudoscience concept generates more heat than light. As Laudan (1996) has said: “If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us”.

So how come you've never bothered to explain why Creationism, or its daughter idea, Intelligent Design Theory, should not be considered pseudoscience, or why its supporters should not be considered pernicious crackpots?

That, FL, and are you aware that there is a difference between dysphemism and apt description, right? So that, an idea that opposes an established and supported scientific theory currently in use can be justifiably dismissed as "pseudoscience" if the supporters of that new idea refuse to adhere to established scientific research protocols and or submit to peer review.

Endless calls for “more research” are a central part of the denialist strategy,

So it’s probably worthwhile to offer the following terminology alert: …

— FL

In sharp contrast, there is not one ID/Creationist that has a deep enough understanding of science to be able to make any critical comments or analyses about theory, evidence, or methods in any areas of science.

Li Zhichao, a professor with China University of Technology agreed with Song, saying that many people use the term pseudo-science to name things they don't agree with. "Real science is all about new and unknown things, therefore, we should welcome different voices and advocate diversity." Li told the paper. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-12/05/content_751294.htm

It appears that my last comment rattled FL's cage. Good. Apparently he forgot that we all know something about the tactics used by pseudo-scientists. It rattled his cage then. But did it rattle it enough to cause him to go out and learn some science? Obviously not. He's still into word games.

Fortunately he isn't allowed in front of any science classrooms to teach science.

FL,

You are doing a great job exposing these anti-science kooks. Hang in there. You are tearing them apart. We lurkers appreciate your efforts! Thanks.

FL said:

"The term “pseudoscience” has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites."

"Of course, merely because a term can be misused does not mean that it does not have its proper uses. Nevertheless, the pseudoscience concept generates more heat than light. As Laudan (1996) has said: “If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us”.

FL quoted some guy who wrote:

“Real science is all about new and unknown things, ..."

Exactly. That is what real scientists do. They discover new things and try to study things that are unknown to science. They discover and study hox genes and changes in mitochondrial gene order. They study SINE insertions and STR polymorphisms. They sequence whole genomes and do comparative genomics. In short, they gather and analyze data in order to answer important questions about things that are not yet known to science.

Creationists, on the other hand, never discover anything new. They simply harp on old discredited ideas that have been shown to be wrong for the last hundred years. They babble on and on about Haeckel's embryos or quote mine the Origin of Species as if nothing has been learned in the last one hundred and fifty years. They don't do any real research and they don't publish in peer reviewed journals. All they do is come up with fake "teach the controversy" scams in order to force their religious notions on unsuspecting children at tax payers expense. They may think that they are studying unknown things, but being unknown to an untrained charlatan is not the same as being unknown to science. If they can't do any original research, at least they could do their homework.

Pseudoscience is certainly the appropriate term to apply to such shenanigans. Attempting to apply a thin veneer of scientific respectability to an obvioulsy unscientific enterprise is the very definition of pseudoscience. This is all that guys like Dembski and Behe have got. I agree that the term should not be used inappropriately. That would only detract from the appropriate use of the term to the pseudoscience of creationism and it's illegitimate spawns ID and "teach the controversy".

FL said: Very honestly, THIS kind of tomfoolery claim was the real reason for the evolutionist boycott of the 2005 Kansas Science Standards Hearings. Mike, can you possibly imagine what would have happened if you had said that exact statement inside the witness box at the 2005 Science Hearings? Can you visualize the atomic-bombing that John Calvert would have dropped on you during cross-ex? He'd have pulled out the transcripts from theoretical chemist Dr. Millam, biology professor Ralph Seelke, origin-of-life expert Charles Thaxton, (and 2 or 3 more just for fun), and literally roasted you like Christmas Ham On The Spit with each detail of their presentations. Right in front of the national media. Preventing such a nightmare scenario, was the reason for the evolutionsist boycott. Safety First, they said!!

Meanwhile, within the China Academy of Sciences, a senior researcher has sparked a public debate by speaking up against the "over-use" of the term "pseudoscience". So far, some 150 scholars have joined him. Needless to say, there are other CAS scientists who defend the status quo usage of the term "pseudoscience", especially as a means to demarcate against, say, the Chinese traditional folk medicine stuff that is "outside the Western scientific system." But the point here is simply that, whether it's Larry Laudan or Richard McNally or Stephen C. Meyer or Song Zhengai, diverse experts in science and philosophy of science are recognizing that something's wrong with the way the term "pseudoscience" is being used these days. It's being over-used, scientist Song says, and others agree with him.

Li Zhichao, a professor with China University of Technology agreed with Song, saying that many people use the term pseudo-science to name things they don't agree with. "Real science is all about new and unknown things, therefore, we should welcome different voices and advocate diversity." Li told the paper. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-12/05/content_751294.htm

In conclusion, I want to remind all readers that I am indeed staying on topic. Not digressing, not derailing. Ebonmuse's usage of the term "pseudoscience" is obvious, and so is Mike's. But we live in politically charged times in which, as Dr. McNally noted, some people use such terms only as inflammatory media soundbite buzzwords, offering plenty of smoke but not much light. And McNally is not alone among science experts in seeing a problem here. Therefore it's entirely rational to consider that problem in relation to Ebonmuse's and Mike's usage of such buzzwords. FL

Still, the weirdness of superstring theory does not qualify burning bushes as alternatives to physics and chemistry. - Gross on Berlinski.

DS said: FL quoted some guy who wrote: “Real science is all about new and unknown things, ..." Exactly. That is what real scientists do. They discover new things and try to study things that are unknown to science. They discover and study hox genes and changes in mitochondrial gene order. They study SINE insertions and STR polymorphisms. They sequence whole genomes and do comparative genomics. In short, they gather and analyze data in order to answer important questions about things that are not yet known to science. Creationists, on the other hand, never discover anything new. They simply harp on old discredited ideas that have been shown to be wrong for the last hundred years. They babble on and on about Haeckel's embryos or quote mine the Origin of Species as if nothing has been learned in the last one hundred and fifty years. They don't do any real research and they don't publish in peer reviewed journals. All they do is come up with fake "teach the controversy" scams in order to force their religious notions on unsuspecting children at tax payers expense. They may think that they are studying unknown things, but being unknown to an untrained charlatan is not the same as being unknown to science. If they can't do any original research, at least they could do their homework. Pseudoscience is certainly the appropriate term to apply to such shenanigans. Attempting to apply a thin veneer of scientific respectability to an obvioulsy unscientific enterprise is the very definition of pseudoscience. This is all that guys like Dembski and Behe have got. I agree that the term should not be used inappropriately. That would only detract from the appropriate use of the term to the pseudoscience of creationism and it's illegitimate spawns ID and "teach the controversy".

lilly said: Dave: settle down!

Stanton said:

lilly said: Dave: settle down!

His name is not David, and would you prefer that people with crosses to bear, and axes to grind, with no scientific literacy even, to rewrite American science education standards in order to allegedly please God?

lilly said: DS stands for Dave Stanton. I think that science should be objective. Not influenced by anyone's dogma.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on. Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution. Texas uses the phrase strengths and weaknesses, and while it doesn’t list evolution specifically, it’s clear that this admonition for critical analysis applies to all of the sciences. --- Discovery Institute, June 17, 2008

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

“…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

So how come the states that have applied "teach the strengths and weaknesses" of Evolution(ary Biology) to their science curricula still remain firmly near, if not directly at, the bottom in terms of education quality and performance?

Perhaps because it doesn't work?

It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues.

In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.

Stanton said:

lilly said: DS stands for Dave Stanton. I think that science should be objective. Not influenced by anyone's dogma.

If DS was David Stanton, Bobby, he would have signed it "David Stanton" in the first place, and secondly, science is already objective, but, you refuse to recognize this fact, anyhow: what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents want to do is to shackle Science, and everything else, to their dogma, under pain of death and hellfire.

FL’ MO was highlighted on that thread about pseudo-science referenced above.

He tried to dominate that thread and got ripped to shreds by many of the regulars here on PT. Any lurkers who haven’t seen that spectacle should go to that link and read the entire thread to see how this FL character operates.

Basically it is one of quote mining dictionaries, Wikipedia, and any other source that gets him a meaning consistent with sectarian dogma.

It’s simply a continuation of the exegesis, hermeneutics, etymology, quote mining of foreign languages shtick at the heart of his sectarian warfare with his enemies and other sectarians.

As has been pointed out many times, FL uses this tactic over and over, yet has never answered a question put to him by Stanton, Flint, Frank J, or any of the other regulars. He can’t even answer questions about his pseudo-science let alone any questions about science.

FL’s tactics are precisely what legitimate scientists and science educators are trying to keep out of the biology classroom. If anyone has any doubts about what the ID/Creationists intend to do with biology classes if they get their foot in the door, watch FL’s shtick and imagine how uninitiated public school students could handle it.

If FL thinks I am upset by his taunts, he is simply deluding himself. I am actually delighted that the tactics we have studied and can describe so accurately are actually being played out in front of everyone who lurks here.

Bottom line; with characters like FL in the room, no learning takes place for anyone except for those who study the derailing tactics of ID/Creationists.

lilly said: DS is Dave Stanton. Ask him. 'under pain of death'??? stop the drama! and live in reality!

Mike Elzinga said: If FL thinks I am upset by his taunts, he is simply deluding himself. I am actually delighted that the tactics we have studied and can describe so accurately are actually being played out in front of everyone who lurks here. Bottom line; with characters like FL in the room, no learning takes place for anyone except for those who study the derailing tactics of ID/Creationists.

In somewhat loosely related news ... 12 February 2009 has
been declared by the DI to be "Academic Freedom Day".
I think the PT should assist in this effort by contacting
every fringe science group on the Web and informing them
of this event so they can participate. Let's see --
HIV deniers, global warming deniers, vaccination resisters,
Einstein-bashers ... can anyone else suggest other
candidates?

I'm semi-serious. All that it requires is a short nondescript
message informing the target groups of the event and a
link to the source. I would like to see just how big that
"big tent" really is.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

iml8 said: In somewhat loosely related news ... 12 February 2009 has been declared by the DI to be "Academic Freedom Day". I think the PT should assist in this effort by contacting every fringe science group on the Web and informing them of this event so they can participate. Let's see -- HIV deniers, global warming deniers, vaccination resisters, Einstein-bashers ... can anyone else suggest other candidates? I'm semi-serious. All that it requires is a short nondescript message informing the target groups of the event and a link to the source. I would like to see just how big that "big tent" really is. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Of course silly lilly is bobby the boob. Live in reality indeed. Strange advise coming from someone who is on his forty seventh reincarnation.

What difference does it make who made the comments? Silly lilly (aka jacob/bobby/jobby/goff/balanced/observer etc.) cannot refute any of the claims, offers no contrary evidence and indeed doesn't even make any argument. Unless of course it can show that hox genes, changes in mitochondrial gene order, SINE insertions, STR polymorphisms and comparative genomics are not "objective". Really, the creationists are the only people using dogma in place of evidence. Live in reality indeed!

tresmal said: Here are some more: Geocentrists, astrologers, flat earthers, homeopaths, naturopaths, 57 other varieties of antimedical woo, peddlers of indigo woo and of course Deepak Chopra.

FL said:

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

"Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design."

"Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary."

"Nonetheless, intelligent design is a bona fide scientific theory, and there is nothing unconstitutional about teaching about intelligent design in the science classroom."

Lest we forget, here is some additional information on FL that Jack Krebs of the Kansas Citizens for Science provided in the thread referenced in my last two posts.

Many PT regulars found the mentality of FL, as it unfolded on Jack’s site, quite disturbing. It doesn’t appear that FL’s fanaticism has in any way been muted by any learning about science in the intervening years.

Is the DI now claiming not to push ID because they’ve realized that it’s not actually science? Somehow, methinks not, and that .... strengths and weaknesses is just an attempt to lie about the cdesign proponentsists ultimate goal - forcing everybody else’s kids to accept their interpretation of Scripture as science.

"Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner." --- Discovery Institute, June 17, 2008

"Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively. Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory." --- September 21, 2005

"This language promotes critical thinking skills. It has been in the TEKS for years. The TEKS guidelines are working fine and Texas students receive some of the best science education in the country. Nevertheless, some activist groups are protesting the “strengths and weaknesses” language. They assert that teaching “weaknesses” is a “wedge allowing teachers to insert their personal religious views into public science classrooms,” especially pertaining to evolution. As an appointed reviewer of the TEKS, I investigated this claim. It quickly became apparent that there was no basis for it. In fact, for several reasons, I doubt if even those who make this claim really believe it. Whatever problems they have with 'strengths and weaknesses,' religious infringement cannot be among them."

"The “strengths and weaknesses” language has been in place for a decade. If it had been used to introduce religion or supernatural explanations into the classroom, these groups would have a long list of specific incidents, with names, dates, etc. But when I contacted Dr. Dan Bolnik, an assistant professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas and the head of the 21st Century Science Coalition (from whose Web site the above quotes were obtained), Bolnik could not provide me with a single specific example of such an incident."

Folks, can we be honest? At some point, evolutionists are gonna hafta back up their stale worn-out “The-Sky-Is-Falling” rhetoric with some actual evidence around here. The verbal tactics you used in 2005 are NOT working too well in 2008!!!!

— FL

Of course, FL refuses to admit or realize that all of the so-called "weaknesses" taught in teaching the "strengths and weaknesses of Evolution(ary Biology)" are recycled from various Creationist arguments that have been debunked over and over and over again.

The great Rabbi Hillel was once asked by a gentile to explain the whole of the Law while the gentile stood on one foot, for the gentile was confused by the many interpretations and endless arguments over details. The Rabbi obliged: "Do not do to another what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole of Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go study."

Something like that has to be said to FL. His quibbles and word-games, his twists on Scripture, his deluded attempts to dispute facts, his retreat into obfuscation, his definitional antics, his semantic handwaving - all of them are bootless. Common ancestry of all living things is the whole of Evolution. The rest is commentary. It is detail - fascinating, lively, awe-inspiring, and myriad, but detail. There are disputes over some details. So what? Go study.

There are no weaknesses in this explanation for the diversity of life. None. There is no contrary evidence that can stand scrutiny. There are no competing theories. There is nothing in nature that contradicts it, and all observations confirm it. All living things are descended, with modification, from one or at most a few self-replicating molecules, a process that took something like four billion years. That's it.

At the edge of knowledge - which is where any good scientist would wish to be found - there are of course arguments. But there is no controversy over the central fact of evolution. Therefore, none can be taught. To teach that there is a controversy is to teach a falsehood. It is to purvey lies to children so that ignorant fools be not offended. Damn that for the pusillanimous, cowardly, reckless mendacity it is.

FL said: The simple truth is that the DI's position hasn't changed. There is no contradiction in what they stated in 2008 and what they stated in 2005. Here, check out the consistency for yourself.

"Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner." --- Discovery Institute, June 17, 2008

"Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively. Rather than require students to learn about intelligent design, what we recommend is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory." --- September 21, 2005

The Discovery Institute's position is clear and has remained consistent, as you can see from their own 2005 and 2008 statements. Nuff said on that one.

****** Well what about Csadams' concern about "forcing everybody else's kids to accept (the Discovery Institute's) interpretation of Scripture as science"? Personally, I wasn't aware that the DI as an organization advocated any specific interpretation of Scripture at all, let alone advocating this alleged specific interpretation of Scripture as science. Perhaps Csadams could show us which Scripture(s) the DI is/are specifically citing as an organization, as well as the specific interpretation of said Scripture(s) that the organization has officialy adopted and is publicly advocating for science teachers like herself to teach within the science classroom. My request is sincere, btw....I really want to see this.

Meanwhile, as for the quoted concern, let's look at it vis-a-vis the proposed Texas Science Standards, since that's where the "strengths and weaknesses" phrase is specifically located. Baylor chemistry professor Dr. Charles Garner is a TEKS reviewer who has reviewed the proposed Texas Science Standards. He reports:

"This language promotes critical thinking skills. It has been in the TEKS for years. The TEKS guidelines are working fine and Texas students receive some of the best science education in the country. Nevertheless, some activist groups are protesting the “strengths and weaknesses” language. They assert that teaching “weaknesses” is a “wedge allowing teachers to insert their personal religious views into public science classrooms,” especially pertaining to evolution. As an appointed reviewer of the TEKS, I investigated this claim. It quickly became apparent that there was no basis for it. In fact, for several reasons, I doubt if even those who make this claim really believe it. Whatever problems they have with 'strengths and weaknesses,' religious infringement cannot be among them."

Furthermore, Dr. Garner checked with a scientist from the OPPOSING side (the pro-evolution side) to locate any examples/evidence of religious infringement. Result: NONE.

"The “strengths and weaknesses” language has been in place for a decade. If it had been used to introduce religion or supernatural explanations into the classroom, these groups would have a long list of specific incidents, with names, dates, etc. But when I contacted Dr. Dan Bolnik, an assistant professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas and the head of the 21st Century Science Coalition (from whose Web site the above quotes were obtained), Bolnik could not provide me with a single specific example of such an incident."

So there's the rub. If the Texas Science Standards are about "forcing everybody else's kids to accept the DI's interpretation of Scripture", then why are scientists on BOTH sides of the fence unable to come up with ANY examples of religious infringment? Please tell me.

Stanton said:

lilly said: DS is Dave Stanton. Ask him. 'under pain of death'??? stop the drama! and live in reality!

The only person who's confused DS with David Stanton is the troll known as Bobby/jobby/cobby/etc. And yes, under pain of death, Bobby. If you don't believe me, then why is it that noted Christian Dominionists, such as Howard Ahmanson Jr. of the Chalcedon Foundation, have played a big role in financing Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, including the Discovery Institute? And you do realize that Christian Dominionists want a theocractic dictatorship, where the Bible is the literal law of the land, installed as government to replace the current democracy, right?

Seems Bobby is still somewhat compulsively in need of attention, even negative.
Fascinating.

Jerry Ross said: The problem with “teaching all sides” is that it can give fringe ideas a credibility they have not earned. Excessive concern for “balance” leads to presenting the speculations of cranks and crackpots as if they were on equal footing with the positions defended by vast majorities of qualified experts. Exactly the idea at the core of these parody t-shirts: Teach the Controversy Shirts

lilly said: Anyhow are you saying all ID supporters = dominionists?

lilly said: Anyhow are you saying all ID supporters = dominionists? that is as silly as saying all Darwinists = eugenecists. really bad logic there.

"(Sectarians) do not have the freedom to foist their sectarian beliefs upon others."

FL said: Well, let's move on a little farther. This time, let's try Louisiana, viz., the Louisiana Science Education Act. Another clear example of "Teach The Controversy." Now Mike wrote:

"(Sectarians) do not have the freedom to foist their sectarian beliefs upon others."

Okay. So in light of that statement, let's look at the Louisiana Science Education Act, which has been signed into law. My request is simple and direct: Just show me specifically where the LSEA as worded, allows "sectarians" to "foist their sectarian beliefs upon others" within the science classroom. That's all. Or, if that request is too difficult for you, simply show me specifically where the the LSEA as worded, allows "cranks and crackpots", as Ebonmuse put it, to obtain "equal footing" within the science classroom. Thanks in advance! FL

My request is simple and direct: Just show me specifically where the LSEA as worded, allows “sectarians” to “foist their sectarian beliefs upon others” within the science classroom. That’s all.

— FL

Mike Elzinga said: You seem to think we have no memories and are as stupid as you try to keep yourself.

Nor do they have any business using their pseudo-science to throw stumbling blocks into the learning paths of other people’s children. Doing so is nothing more than sectarian thuggery; and it makes these thugs no better than the street bullies who beat up students returning from school with books under their arms.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: You seem to think we have no memories and are as stupid as you try to keep yourself.

And yet, FL says that I'm the one without integrity simply because I have come to the conclusion that he's taken a holy vow to remain ignorance and spread stupidity for Jesus' sake.

Several people have invited you to make a list of the “weaknesses” you and your cohorts want introduced into the science classroom.

"....Geological evidence for the oceanic soup has not been located. If there ever was a dilute ocean that fed organic compounds into these smaller pools, there should be abundant evidence for it in the lower Precambrian sediments. None has been located, however. Remember, if the soup were as massive as the theory suggests, organic remains should be literally all over the earth in deep sediments of great age. Scientists have looked by have not found organic compounds." -- Thaxton Bradley & Olson, The Mystery of Life's Origin, c1984, pg 64.

"The significance of the isotopic enhancement of 12c (Carbon-12) in the very old kerogen in the Isua rocks in Greenland, is that there never was a primordial soup and that, nevertheless, living matter must have existed abundantly on Earth before 3.8 billion years ago." -- Hubert Yockey, "Comments on 'Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Reflections on Biogenesis and Evolution' by Avshalom C. Elitzur", Journal of Theoretical Biology, 176(1995) p.351.

(Nitrogen-isotope ratio studies that independently confirm that no primordial soup ever existed) Daniele L. Pinti, Ko Hashizume, and Jun-Ichi Matsuda, "Nitrogen and Argon Signatures in 3.8 to 2.8 Ga Metasediments: Clues on the Chemical State of the Archaen Ocean and the Deep Biosphere," Geochimica Et Cosmochimica Acta 65(2001), pg 2309. V. Beaumont and F. Robert, "Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Kerogens in Precambrian Cherts: A record of the Evolution of Atmospheric Chemistry?", Precambrian Research 96(1999), pp 63-82; Jay A. Brandes et al, "Abiotic Nitrogen Reduction on the Early Earth", Nature 395(1998), pp 365-367.

Regardless of how many chemical products useful to origin of life theorists came out of Miller’s experiments, many sources have shown that the earth’s early atmosphere was mainly composed largely of carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2), NOT methane or ammonia, as Miller's experiments required. The geochemical evidence is very clear on this point: the news release even admits, "The problem was that theoretical models and analyses of ancient rocks eventually convinced scientists that Earth's earliest atmosphere was not rich in hydrogen," and the Science paper admits, "Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition." Thinking along these same lines, leading origin of life theorist David Deamer observed that, "Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers, so the question arose again: what was the primary source of organic carbon compounds?" (Microbio. & Mol. Bio. Reviews, 61(2):239-261.)

Just as expected; the only thing FL has just demonstrated in that last ridiculous comment of his is that he is just as adept at quote-mining and mangling concepts and scientific history as any of the ID/Creationist leaders he slavishly follows. We’ve seen this boring shtick so often that it doesn’t fool anyone.

All ID/Creationists are faking it when they play these games. The bottom line here, FL, is that you cannot hide your ignorance of science from people who know. And no one here is going to waste time trying to teach you things which you have deliberately avoided learning all your life.

As for your attempts to derail this thread with long-winded arguments about your why your sectarian dogma should be taught in the public schools under the guise of ID/Creationism, nobody outside your sectarian religion gives a crap about your religious dogma.

You have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. If the sectarian dogma you choose to follow causes you angst and psychological trauma when you come up against the objective realities of science and the secular world, that is your problem. It belongs in your church. Deal with it without making it a problem for anyone else.

The Constitution of the United States forbids you to use the powers of secular government and secular institutions to make your sectarian psychological issues a burden for others.

You live in a secular society that protects and feeds you. Most of the people who do this for you want nothing to do with your childish sectarian dogma. Most people have a far more mature attitude about religious notions than you do. They are capable of making mature accommodations with reality. They don’t need to manufacture an elaborate pseudo-science in order to give their religious views the phony cachet of science. The fact that you have to do this is simply stark evidence of the paucity of your religion. It’s yours; keep it to yourself.

Dave Luckett said: The great Rabbi Hillel was once asked by a gentile to explain the whole of the Law while the gentile stood on one foot, for the gentile was confused by the many interpretations and endless arguments over details. The Rabbi obliged: "Do not do to another what is hateful to yourself. That is the whole of Torah. The rest is commentary. Now go study." Something like that has to be said to FL. His quibbles and word-games, his twists on Scripture, his deluded attempts to dispute facts, his retreat into obfuscation, his definitional antics, his semantic handwaving - all of them are bootless. Common ancestry of all living things is the whole of Evolution. The rest is commentary. It is detail - fascinating, lively, awe-inspiring, and myriad, but detail. There are disputes over some details. So what? Go study. There are no weaknesses in this explanation for the diversity of life. None. There is no contrary evidence that can stand scrutiny. There are no competing theories. There is nothing in nature that contradicts it, and all observations confirm it. All living things are descended, with modification, from one or at most a few self-replicating molecules, a process that took something like four billion years. That's it. At the edge of knowledge - which is where any good scientist would wish to be found - there are of course arguments. But there is no controversy over the central fact of evolution. Therefore, none can be taught. To teach that there is a controversy is to teach a falsehood. It is to purvey lies to children so that ignorant fools be not offended. Damn that for the pusillanimous, cowardly, reckless mendacity it is.

@Richard B. Hoppe:

Could you please stop using snotty names (like Disco Dancer) for ID porponents. Calling names is never productive. Its only function is to promote aggressive behaviour... I mean you wouldn't like it if i call you "monkey pooper", would you?

FL, as has been many times pointed out to you, the idea of abiogenesis - that is, that life arose by natural means from non-living material - is not confirmed, and it simply grows out of the idea that natural things occur naturally. Nobody knows exactly how it happened, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. That theory explains the diversity of life, not its origin.

If the textbook you quote does not say that the origin of life is still unknown, or implies that it is known, I'd agree that it is wrong. But I'll believe that when I see it. I think it's more likely that it does say that, and then goes on to describe various approaches to the investigation of the origin of life. None of these are accepted by a consensus of specialists in the field, and fierce debate continues.

So you can still believe, if you like, that a divine being started life on Earth by performing a miracle. People used to think that about a great many fully natural events. They were wrong about storms, lightning, pestilence, locusts, drought, flood, eclipses, famine, the seasons, earthquakes, intoxication, fertility, insanity, the behaviour of animals and the rainbow, but if you want to ascribe the origin of life to divine magic, nobody can prove you wrong. Yet.

On the other hand, there's ample evidence for evolution, and nothing against it that can stand inspection. Speciation? Observed. Transitional fossils? Got a raft of them. Precise genetic mechanism, down to the biochemical level? Right here. Specific measurement of mutation rate? Done. Sufficient time? Confirmed, from at least three different sources. Accurate predictions of the theory? Demonstrated many times over.

It's down and dusted. You haven't got a leg to stand on. You have no evidence. All the evidence is on the side of evolution. All living things have common ancestry. It's a fact, and the only "controversy" about it that exists is in the minds of people like yourself, who would prefer to remain ignorant, and to keep your own and other's children in ignorance.

Well, you won't be allowed to.

Here we go again. Do they never learn?

What am I saying?

On the other hand, there’s ample evidence for evolution, and nothing against it that can stand inspection. Speciation? Observed. Transitional fossils? Got a raft of them. Precise genetic mechanism, down to the biochemical level? Right here. Specific measurement of mutation rate? Done. Sufficient time? Confirmed, from at least three different sources. Accurate predictions of the theory? Demonstrated many times over.

Can you substantiate any of your above claims?

Nils Ruhr said: Could you please stop using snotty names (like Disco Dancer) for ID porponents. Calling names is never productive.

Nils Ruhr said: 3. There are limits to darwinsm (see bacterial flagellum, Michael Behe).

Nils Ruhr said: Evolution tells students that their religion is false.

1. Macroevolution cannot be observed, therefore the assumption that man evolved from lower life-forms is just pure speculation. That's something students have to know.

Nils Ruhr said: 1. Macroevolution cannot be observed, therefore the assumption that man evolved from lower life-forms is just pure speculation.

Yep, that's booby all right. Same MO. Paste quote, add stupid question. Use this simple technique to appoint self as judge of the evidence.

No, moron, I am not going to play your stupid game. The case is closed. Your ignorance is not an argument, and you don't get to judge. I don't care how wretchedly inadequate your mind or your education is, it's not up to me to inform you. The evidence is readily available to anyone of goodwill. I know you haven't got that, either, but go away and look it up anyway. Or better yet, just go away.

lilly the lying sack of shit said: Can you substantiate any of your above claims?

Nils Ruhr said: 1. Macroevolution cannot be observed, therefore the assumption that man evolved from lower life-forms is just pure speculation. That's something students have to know.

Is "macroevolution" impossible to study? Yes, because the word "macroevolution" is a word with no meaning at all! "Macroevolution" means nothing but whatever strawman the current creationist needs to throw out to hide from the evidence. They just claim that "macroevolution" has never been observed (usually without even pretending to define the term in a meaningful way), and pretend this is some kind of deathblow to science. They can't offer a speck of evidence that establishes any barrier between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", they don't bother to clearly define where they claim this barrier is, and they'll move the goalposts on an instant's notice. Any observed instance of "macroevolution" and they change the meaning of the word. "Macroevolution," as used by creationists, is nothing more than a pointer to an ever-shifting pile of strawmen that exist only in their hollow heads. It is a term without anything resembling meaning.

Nils Ruhr the creatioinst liar said: 3. There are limits to darwinsm (see bacterial flagellum, Michael Behe).

Nils Ruhr the creatioinst liar said: 4. Not really a weakness, rather a political issue: Evolution tells students that their religion is false. This is unacceptable at state sponsored (therefore SECULAR) schools. Evolution should be taught if anything only in private schools.

phantomreader42 said: lilly the lying sack of shit said:

Nils wrote:

"Evolution should be taught if anything only in private schools."

Funny, the United States Supreme Court disagrees. Now I wonder why that is? Everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion. Fortunately, the rest of us don't have to play along with such nonsense.

"...Organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life---possibly in the 'warm little pond' that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker." --- evolutionist John Oro, from Life's Origin, ed. J. William Schopf, c2002, pg 26.

These Carbon-ratio and Nitrogen-ratio information/citations were obtained from chemist Dr. Fazale Rana and astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross's book

"lilly" the lying sack of shit said: If you truly believe that Mr. Ruhr is a 'liar' you should have the guts to say that under your real name and publish your libelous comments on your own website.

Nils Ruhr said: @Richard B. Hoppe: Could you please stop using snotty names (like Disco Dancer) for ID porponents. Calling names is never productive. Its only function is to promote aggressive behaviour... I mean you wouldn't like it if i call you "monkey pooper", would you?

1. Macroevolution cannot be observed, therefore the assumption that man evolved from lower life-forms is just pure speculation.

And as a result, you were given a straight answer to that one with scientific documentation attached. Just like you wanted.

— FL

If the textbook you quote does not say that the origin of life is still unknown, or implies that it is known, I’d agree that it is wrong. But I’ll believe that when I see it. I think it’s more likely that it does say that, and then goes on to describe various approaches to the investigation of the origin of life. None of these are accepted by a consensus of specialists in the field, and fierce debate continues.

— Dave Luckett

All right, FL, I'll play your silly game. You are here committing the classic error of demanding that everything be known as a precondition of knowing anything. It's an error that arises from the simple either/or, black or white absolutism that characterises medieval and early-modern religious thought - the thought that you have absorbed. But the schoolmen were at least rigorous logicians, within their sphere. They would not have committed your error.

What you cite as "weaknesses" of the Theory of Evolution are not weaknesses at all. They are simply areas of no certain knowledge. It is not possible now, and it will never be possible, to know everything about the history of life (or pre-life) on Earth. There will always be areas of ignorance. One of those areas (at present, but probably not forever) is the actual origin of life itself. It is not known.

So what? Not everything is known, and never will be, but that is no reason to deny what is known. It is no reason to dismiss ample good evidence. The only method of disputing that evidence is to produce good evidence to the contrary. Only contrary evidence - not lack of evidence or uncertain knowledge - is a weakness. It is bootless to point to areas yet unknown. They are inevitable and perennial, and do not affect a theory that is well-supported by all the known evidence.

But contrary evidence you cannot find. There is none. All you can do is hope that fools will take "unknown" as meaning "disproven". I am not such a fool.

And that looks like a very good note on which to end the thread. Thanks, folks.