Why science literacy is in trouble

That would be demoted to a principle or law. Which is more important to science, Boyle's Law or Relativity?

John Pieret said: That would be demoted to a principle or law. Which is more important to science, Boyle's Law or Relativity?

I keep saying the creationists are coming for your children. And Canadian, British, Australian or anyone else's are fair prey for them as well.

Probably this professor is a creationist and perhaps a member of one or another fundie xian cult.

People outside the USA like to point and laugh at our problems and our world's largest lunatic fringes. While ignoring their own. Without eternal vigilance, it can happen anywhere.

"He also makes the comment that Evolution is the most important idea in all of biology (p. 7). Such phrases may lead the reader into thinking that scientists completely understand the theory of Evolution which would be incorrect, else Evolution would be a principle or a law and not a theory."

How does it follow logically that being "...the most important idea in all of biology..." implies that "...scientists completely understand the theory..."? How does it follow logically that if scientists did completely understand everything in evolution that it would automatically be considered a principle or a law? Name one "law" that is completely understood. Name one theory that is completely understood. Name one thing that is completely understood. Nome one theory, law or principle that is better understood than evolution.

"As well, it is a bit bold to claim that evolution is the most important idea in all of biology - biology is a huge field of study with other key discoveries."

Name one other theory, law or principle that is more important to biology than evolution.

Since she’s on the physics side of things, someone might mention to her that Einstein’s theory of relativity has not yet been ‘promoted’ to a principle or law.

This is a non-fiction text that describes the theory of Evolution. The text is divided into two parts, the first being more content driven and presented in a transmissive or textbook style, the second being more conversational or transactional whereby the author answers frequently asked questions posed by various people concerning the topic of Evolution.

Her areas of interest include physics educational research (PER), and the incorporation of science, technology, society and environment (STSE) outcomes into science courses at all levels to help students understand the relevancy of science, increase scientific literacy, and to promote citizenship.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, this brings out the curmudgeon in me. The reviewer wrote:

This is a non-fiction text that describes the theory of Evolution. The text is divided into two parts, the first being more content driven and presented in a transmissive or textbook style, the second being more conversational or transactional whereby the author answers frequently asked questions posed by various people concerning the topic of Evolution.

And they we see this:

Her areas of interest include physics educational research (PER), and the incorporation of science, technology, society and environment (STSE) outcomes into science courses at all levels to help students understand the relevancy of science, increase scientific literacy, and to promote citizenship.

While I have generally supported the goals of the Physics Education Research Community – they have done a fairly decent job of cataloging misconceptions that were formerly only anecdotal – I have also been bothered by a disturbing trend that suggests this community has become over laden with the jargon known as “educationeze.” I see it in PER sessions at the national and state meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). It makes many physicists in the research community extremely uncomfortable and suspicious of the value of PER. I think most people have recognized this phenomenon in which bloated vocabulary is substituted for substance in thinking. It makes the person doing the bloviating sound deep and profound to the uninitiated. However, this is precisely the kind of hyper-inflated vocabulary and shallow thinking that further exacerbates the existing problems with conceptual understanding; and it leads to remedies that are worse than the original misconceptions themselves.

Jesse said: Question: Just a plain 'ole curmudgeon or a carboniferous curmudgeon?

I keep saying the creationists are coming for your children. And Canadian, British, Australian or anyone else’s are fair prey for them as well. Probably this professor is a creationist and perhaps a member of one or another fundie xian cult.

— raven

Mike Elzinga said:

Jesse said: Question: Just a plain 'ole curmudgeon or a carboniferous curmudgeon?

Well, as an old fossil …

I e-mailed her a link to here. Maybe we'll get an answer.

There's only one true curmudgeon. ;-)

Has anyone looked at the biology curriculum review documents for one of her courses (this computer doesn't have any software to open them)?

http://people.stfx.ca/kamacleod/EDUC427A/Week_4/Biology%2011%20Curriculum%20Review.docx

http://people.stfx.ca/kamacleod/EDUC427A/Week_4/Biology%2012%20Curriculum%20Review.docx

If you go to the referenced review site above you can input your feedback to the publisher, which I strongly recommend you do.

It doesn't seem too far from the 'only a theory' nonsense. A bit of history and philosophy of science might be the cure...

j a higginbotham said: Has anyone looked at the biology curriculum review documents for one of her courses (this computer doesn't have any software to open them)? http://people.stfx.ca/kamacleod/EDUC427A/Week_4/Biology%2011%20Curriculum%20Review.docx http://people.stfx.ca/kamacleod/EDUC427A/Week_4/Biology%2012%20Curriculum%20Review.docx

As said above, send email to the publisher; SFX U here in Canada is not one of our more stellar universities and while I am not certain Prof. Macleod is such, there's a fair number of creobots on faculty there.

This fellow Canadian is right if she is suggesting evolution is not a fact like gravity ideas but only a theory(or to creationists a untested hypothesis). As posters here say new information could change or overthrow this "theory" like everything every year in origin issues.
Its not settled as great opposition and opinion in North America loudly proclaims.
This woman possibly is very intelligent (being Canadian its very possible like yours truly) and knows exactly the issue.
Evolution can not live on claims of infallibility in conclusions. It must make its case on the evidence.
its a great idea so it needs great evidence in great amounts. Piegan and dog breeds ain't going to convince anyone who sees a very complex and brilliant universe.

About a 4. Disappointing. Not as incoherent as usual, and admits that evidence has some value. Not acceptable.

Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein and Lorenz's later work, and even now, anomolies are being found that require further examination, so there is STILL no "Law" of gravity. It is, as it should be, a theory.

2.6

Evolution is an untested hypothesis!

Evolution claims infallibility!

Poppycock and horse feathers. Pure schizophrenia.

The germ theory of disease is still a theory too.

Doesn't mean that 5 or 10 million people every year don't die from HIV, TB, and malaria.

The theory of internal combustion is just a theory. Cars run just fine.

DS said: 2.6 Evolution is an untested hypothesis! Evolution claims infallibility! Poppycock and horse feathers. Pure schizophrenia.

In fact, I propose a redefinition of the Byers ranges from:

0 = Just Plain Stupid

to

10 = Profoundly Batshit Insane

I’ve yet to see Byers write anything that falls outside those two parameters and no expectations that he ever will. The majority of his rambling seem to fall between 9.1 and 9.9 on the “Keelyn Scale of get this NUT committed quick.”

Keelyn said:

DS said: 2.6 Evolution is an untested hypothesis! Evolution claims infallibility! Poppycock and horse feathers. Pure schizophrenia.

I'm not certain, but I think that the scoring system that was devised (I believe by Just Bob) for Byer's inane bullshit was something like a range of 0=reasonable and logical to 10=outright crazy - or something like that. I'll have to try and find it again. If I'm correct, DS, you might want to up that score a bit :). Personally, I give it a 7.1.

Robert Byers said: very intelligent (being Canadian its very possible like yours truly)

Before people go running off making accusations, or engaging in name calling, etc. (I mean, "creobots"? Come on!) it is worth stopping to reflect that MacLeaod's review of my brother's book was *positive* (read the whole thing). Yes, she did show an distressing lapse on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law', and regarding the centrality of evolution in biology, but these lapses are common even amongst practicing scientists. (And with a BSc and MSc physics, as well as a BEd and an in progress PhD, this lapse is the fault of HER instructors, not of herself). The solution is not ridicule, but education.

When I read the review, I sent a (I hope) nicely worded email with a couple of references to relevant literature. I should expect the misconception is fixed now, and problem solved.

Yes, MacLeod was wrong on a couple of minor, but important, points, but remember (in email interactions, etc.) that she is one of the good guys, i.e., someone who is dedicating her life to academic and public science education, and also someone who went out of her was to review (and thereby publicize) a children's book on evolution. If you contact her, be courteous.

As an aside: StFX is a secular school, and one of Canada's top ranked undergraduate universities, with a stellar science research faculty (I know, I just spent the last 3 years resident there as part of my PhD in paleontology).

Apologies. I should have edited that post more thoroughly. You guys get the point, I am sure. : )

Jason

See my comment below.

Jason Loxton said: Apologies. I should have edited that post more thoroughly. You guys get the point, I am sure. : ) Jason

Jason Loxton said: I should expect the misconception is fixed now, and problem solved.

Jason Loxton said: Before people go running off making accusations, or engaging in name calling, etc. (I mean, "creobots"? Come on!) it is worth stopping to reflect that MacLeaod's review of my brother's book was *positive* (read the whole thing). Yes, she did show an distressing lapse on the definitions of 'theory' and 'law', and regarding the centrality of evolution in biology, but these lapses are common even amongst practicing scientists. (And with a BSc and MSc physics, as well as a BEd and an in progress PhD, this lapse is the fault of HER instructors, not of herself). The solution is not ridicule, but education.

Jason Loxton said: (And with a BSc and MSc physics, as well as a BEd and an in progress PhD, this lapse is the fault of HER instructors, not of herself). The solution is not ridicule, but education.).

But at some stage of education, a person assumes responsibility for what s/he says.

— TomS

Yeah, people not past that point will study the subject before repeating an argument after hearing a refutation of that argument. It's the ones past that point that repeat arguments for which they've already been given refutations.

It’s the ones past that point that repeat arguments for which they’ve already been given refutations.

Frank J said:

I keep saying the creationists are coming for your children. And Canadian, British, Australian or anyone else’s are fair prey for them as well. Probably this professor is a creationist and perhaps a member of one or another fundie xian cult.

— raven

In all fairness there's also a chance that she just misunderstands the meaning of the terms. I too fell for the "only a theory" nonsense, even the "teach both sides" nonsense, well after getting a degree in chemistry. And I was agnostic-leaning-atheist at the time. Rather than brand her a "creationist" or "fundie" can't someone inform her of those misconceptions? She'll either have a "D'oh" moment as I did, or make excuses. If she does the latter, then one should ask her what she thinks the evidence supports in terms of the age of life and common descent. It's unlikely that she'll want to admit that she thinks that 99+% of biologists are wrong about such basic questions, even if she keeps insisting that they don't "know it all." So she'll either concede that mainstream science is correct, or evade those simple questions. If she does the latter, then it would be fair to call her an anti-evolution activist.

Frank J said:

But at some stage of education, a person assumes responsibility for what s/he says.

— TomS

That's why I keep bringing up my personal example. When I realized my mistake in 1997 (my "D'Oh moment") I took responsibility and moved on. She may do the same. Those who get increasingly defensive instead are past the point of no return. They have completely sold out to pseudoscience. Unfortunately, as you know, ~99% of those who show up on these boards challenging mainstream science, even as mere concern trolls, are well past that point.

Well, based on my own personal experiences, there appear to be more than enough of half-baked "scholars" in philosophy departments (and apparently schools of education) who i) do not actually understand the evidence for, or the mechanisms behind evolutionary theory and ii) are eager to make a name for themselves by advocating an "open minded" position.

Has there actually been a single creationist on this site who WASN’T past the point of no return, and proud of it?

— phantomreader42

Robert Byers said: This fellow Canadian is right if she is suggesting evolution is not a fact like gravity ideas but only a theory(or to creationists a untested hypothesis). As posters here say new information could change or overthrow this "theory" like everything every year in origin issues. Its not settled as great opposition and opinion in North America loudly proclaims. This woman possibly is very intelligent (being Canadian its very possible like yours truly) and knows exactly the issue. Evolution can not live on claims of infallibility in conclusions. It must make its case on the evidence. its a great idea so it needs great evidence in great amounts. Piegan and dog breeds ain't going to convince anyone who sees a very complex and brilliant universe.

I'm sorry about not keeping up with immediate Byers Scale Ratings, but occasionally I have some actual life besides watching for his latest PT performances. I applaud the ratings awarded by others, and agree fairly well with them. I would dispute, however, any move to alter the parameters of the scale, or would suggest that those wishing to rate on a different basis make clear the scale they're using with each post.

Frank J -

I have also had the experience of meeting reasonable, unbiased people like you who were transiently fooled by "teach the controversy" or "some scientists now dispute evolution" sound bites. The response to the facts was the same.

As a US-born dual citizen who largely grew up in Nova Scotia (although I did my undergraduate degree at McGill), I am glad to see that St FX is developing a strong reputation.

Unfortunately, I strongly share Raven's concern that this individual may be a creationist in thin disguise. Not only do the comments sound like barely coded creationist sound bites to begin with (and if that was picked up by PT readers, it was picked up by creationists, too), but the extremely worthwhile and valuable academic fields of Education (and Science Education in particular) may unfortunately be exactly the sort of thing a creationist would pursue. Although the overwhelming majority of people in these socially valuable fields are, of course, anything but, as we see in the example of Freshwater, for a denialist, the lure of a "license" to spread sectarian science denial, from a position of "authority", to a naive audience, is strong.

When I read the review, I sent a (I hope) nicely worded email with a couple of references to relevant literature. I should expect the misconception is fixed now, and problem solved.

... and still no contribution from Ms. Macleod. Maybe she just doesn't care.

Robert Byers said:

> “This fellow Canadian is right if she is suggesting evolution is not a fact like gravity ideas but only a theory. … ”

Our understanding of gravity is the Theory of Gravity. A theory is an explanatory model. It is pretty solid but needs a little revising because it does not take into account quantum-effects. The theory started with Newton and Einstein revised it. Gravity is an observed fact too.

Biological evolution is an observed fact also:

Observed Instances of Speciation

we also have the Theory of Biological evolution which explains the observed biological evolution. Darwin devised the theory and it has been tested for 150 years. It has survived thousands of tests. It has been modified a little by inclusion of Mendellian Genetics and developmental biology, but it is still basically as Darwin described it.

Given what I've researched on teaching the nature of science and my own grad school experience, it is entirely possible to maintain confusion on issues regarding the philosophy and nature of science. There needs to be substantial improvement in this area. Or put bluntly a high number of science PhDs are being graduated who have a very limited understanding of the philosophy of their own discipline.

Steve Taylor said: Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein and Lorenz's later work, and even now, anomolies are being found that require further examination, so there is STILL no "Law" of gravity. It is, as it should be, a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Bah. If wikipedia says it's a law, it's a law.

Of course, wikipedia also says it's a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gravity

I won't belabour a point I made as a contrarian, but I didn't want to associate to much with the devils.

FYI, I just sent this to her:

Dear Professor MacLeod -

Your recent review of Daniel Loxton's book on Evolution for younger readers has been the subject of recent discussion over at Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org), widely seen as the foremost science blogging site pertaining to both evolution and the teaching of sound science, including evolutionary biology, in science classrooms in North America and elsewhere around the globe. There are a number of us, myself included, who are quite skeptical of your observations here, since they are the very observations that many of us have seen from creationists for years:

"Although the text is very good in describing the theory of Evolution, there are points in the book where the author makes comments that could imply that Evolution is more than a theory. For example, '…Charles Darwin revealed the solution to the mystery of evolution' (p. 7). He also makes the comment that Evolution is the most important idea in all of biology (p. 7). Such phrases may lead the reader into thinking that scientists completely understand the theory of Evolution which would be incorrect, else Evolution would be a principle or a law and not a theory. As well, it is a bit bold to claim that evolution is the most important idea in all of biology – biology is a huge field of study with other key discoveries."

As a former evolutionary biologist, let me observe that I know of no other scientific theory that has been as well corroborated or as well established as the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution, which has as its fundamental core, the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection which was discovered independently by Charles Darwin and fellow British naturalist Alfred R. Wallace. Indeed, I concur completely with legendary evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky's observation that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Dobzhansky was among the "architects" of the Modern Synthesis, and his words published back in 1973 still remain quite true to this very day.). Nor do I know of any other scientific theory that has such important implications for our daily lives, as noted here, for example, by these Yale University biologists in a film documentary, "Darwin's Legacy Today", that was produced as part of a special Peabody Museum of Natural History exhibition devoted to Darwin's life and work and how his ideas promoted scientific research at Yale in the latter half of the 19th Century:

http://www.peabody.yale.edu/explore/darwin150.html

The leading North American organization devoted to promoting the teaching of evolution and other sound, well-established, science in science classrooms, the National Center for Science Education, has thought suffciently well of Mr. Loxton's book that it is offering an advanced "sneak peek" on its website:

http://ncse.com/news/2010/05/preview-loxtons-evolution-005479

I can assure you that NCSE is doing this because it recognizes both the importance and high quality of Mr. Loxton's book, not as a means of acquiring any financial gain from sales of this book.

I hope you the time and interest in "joining us" at Panda's Thumb, merely as a means of answering our questions and concerns regarding the tone and content of your review:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/05/why-science-lit.html

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

linzel said:

Steve Taylor said: Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein and Lorenz's later work, and even now, anomolies are being found that require further examination, so there is STILL no "Law" of gravity. It is, as it should be, a theory.

Ahhhh. And here I always thought "what goes up, must come down!"

John Kwok said: FYI, I just sent this to her:

As a former evolutionary biologist, ...

raven said: I keep saying the creationists are coming for your children. And Canadian, British, Australian or anyone else's are fair prey for them as well. Probably this professor is a creationist and perhaps a member of one or another fundie xian cult. People outside the USA like to point and laugh at our problems and our world's largest lunatic fringes. While ignoring their own. Without eternal vigilance, it can happen anywhere.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: FYI, I just sent this to her:

It can indeed happen anywhere. I don't mean to imply that it can't happen here in Australia, for instance. I do say that there's no sign here that the creationists and extreme fundamentalists are making any real progress. There'll always be a religious fringe, of course.

True, in the US, anyone can home-school their children, and the loony-tunes creocranks have been doing it for a long time, thus going far to ensure that those children will be scientifically illiterate, educationally stunted and socially deprived. This is not the case in my country. Home-schooling is only permitted under exceptional circumstances - some disabilities or extreme isolation - and it is very rare. And even home-schooled children must learn the State-approved curriculum, not some damfool set of lies cranked out by a religious publishing house.

The reason why the US is looked to for aid is that it is by far the largest single economy under one sovereign government in the world. But it is not the case that the US is, per capita or in terms of proportion of its GDP, the largest donor country. In fact it is very far from it. But don't believe me. Check the figures for yourself. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22032.pdf

linzel said:

Steve Taylor said: Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein and Lorenz's later work, and even now, anomolies are being found that require further examination, so there is STILL no "Law" of gravity. It is, as it should be, a theory.

Ahhhh. And here I always thought "what goes up, must come down!"

linzel said:

Steve Taylor said: Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein and Lorenz's later work, and even now, anomolies are being found that require further examination, so there is STILL no "Law" of gravity. It is, as it should be, a theory.

Ahhhh. And here I always thought "what goes up, must come down!"

TomS said: Of course. And the reason that airplanes can fly is that they are intelligently designed. Which just goes to show that birds are intelligently designed.

RBH said:

tomh said:

John Kwok said: FYI, I just sent this to her:

The Bathroom Wall is just over the horizon, guys.

How many creationists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None, electricity is just a theory.

Anybody can home school their children, which is what some creationists have done since the 1960’s.

raven said: True. It is a free country. Who cares all that much? If the creationists just sat under their rocks and fed lies to their kids and each other, no one would care. They don't do that though. They want everyone else to believe their nonsensical mythology ...

MrG said: These facts provide a great advantage in an argument with creationists. When they cry "CENSORSHIP!" the response is: "What censorship? You are free to write your tracts, to set up your websites, you can teach what you like to your kids in your private schools and in your home schooling.

eric said: They are also free to do their own R&D. This is another critical argument. There's loads of money going into ID, but no discoveries coming out. Ken Miller was absolutely right about ID being a science stopper; we have only to look at Behe's and Dembski's scientific output to see what adopting the ID hypothesis does to scientific productivity.

They are also free to do their own R&D. This is another critical argument. There’s loads of money going into ID, but no discoveries coming out.

John Kwok said: Nick Matzke was quoted (NOTE TO NICK: If I'm wrong about this, please let us know) immediately after the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling was issued, saying that ID needs to do its own science and to try getting it published in mainstream scientific journals if it wants to demonstrate its validity.

eric said: The creationist counter-argument is that mainstream journals are biased against them.

eric said: Most biotech research in the U.S. today is private: funded by venture capitalists and corporations who intend to make money off the results. Publications may be a feather in their cap, but publication is not the goal. This route is always open to ID, even if they think there's a giant science conspiracy against them. Yet, there are no buyers x ...

MrG said:

eric said: Most biotech research in the U.S. today is private: funded by venture capitalists and corporations who intend to make money off the results. Publications may be a feather in their cap, but publication is not the goal. This route is always open to ID, even if they think there's a giant science conspiracy against them. Yet, there are no buyers x ...

Oh that's a good one, I'll have to remember it. Then again, evolutionary biologists as such aren't generally involved in startups either -- biochemists and the like yes, but it would be hard to conceive of how, say, Dawkins or Ken Miller or PZ Myers could leverage their particular expertise into venture-capitalist meat.

Walabio said:

Robert Byers said:

> “This fellow Canadian is right if she is suggesting evolution is not a fact like gravity ideas but only a theory. … ”

Our understanding of gravity is the Theory of Gravity. A theory is an explanatory model. It is pretty solid but needs a little revising because it does not take into account quantum-effects. The theory started with Newton and Einstein revised it. Gravity is an observed fact too.

Biological evolution is an observed fact also:

Observed Instances of Speciation

we also have the Theory of Biological evolution which explains the observed biological evolution. Darwin devised the theory and it has been tested for 150 years. It has survived thousands of tests. It has been modified a little by inclusion of Mendellian Genetics and developmental biology, but it is still basically as Darwin described it.

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

The creationist counter-argument is that mainstream journals are biased against them. I don’t believe that for a second, but were it true, being shut out of journals would still not prevent creationists from making new discoveries.

— eric

A fun exercise for intro level physics students is to read a paper that came out in scientific American a few years ago (I'm sorry but I don't have the title handy) on MOND. It's an alternative gravitational theory that also tackles dark matter. It leads to some great discussion about what makes a theory good and how scientists look at real alternatives, in this case very skeptically waiting to see if it will in fact yield better explanatory power. Their heads also practically explode at the notion that everything they just learned about gravity maybe "wrong". And for those keeping score at home that would mean that there is in fact one more viable theory for gravity than there are viable scientific alternatives to evolution.

The Curmudgeon said: Frank J said:

There's only one true curmudgeon. ;-)

At your service.

Robert Byers said: Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

Paul Burnett said: *I just realized "hemisphere" is probably not in Byers' vocabulary, since his earth is not a sphere, but flat. But what would the cognate word for "hemisphere" be for a Flat Earther? Hemiplane?

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

3.7

John Kwok said: I give up. Maybe it's time we collect all of his nonsensical screeds and edit them as the "Collected Thoughts of Chairman Bob":

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

3.7

John Kwok said: Sorry Just Bob, that wasn't meant to insult you. I meant to say "Collected Thoughts of Chairman Booby Byers":

John Kwok said: I give up. Maybe it's time we collect all of his nonsensical screeds and edit them as the "Collected Thoughts of Chairman Bob":

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

3.7

Just Bob said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Just Bob, that wasn't meant to insult you. I meant to say "Collected Thoughts of Chairman Booby Byers":

John Kwok said: I give up. Maybe it's time we collect all of his nonsensical screeds and edit them as the "Collected Thoughts of Chairman Bob":

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Not the same thing. Gravity ideas are not defined by these words. Its rock solid evidence that it is operative and is the basis of clear endless examination and testing. Biology origins are not like this. They are imperfect forensic type of studies which with evolution need great evidence for such great unlikely claims. Its not the same thing. Seeing something work is not like hearing something worked but not seeing it.

3.7

Thanks, John. I recommended long ago that he be universally Bathroom Walled. He NEVER contributes anything worthwhile, even from a creationist perspective. That's why I just went to scoring his performances for hilarity and entertainment value--although I suppose it's sort of cruel laughter at the mentally defective.

John Kwok said: Well that's why I remarked earlier at another PT thread today that I can't wait for the SNL skit parodying him with someone like David Spade - or maybe better yet, the current cast member who plays MacGruber - as a really over-the-top version of "Chairman" Booby Byers:

Alex H said:

John Kwok said: Well that's why I remarked earlier at another PT thread today that I can't wait for the SNL skit parodying him with someone like David Spade - or maybe better yet, the current cast member who plays MacGruber - as a really over-the-top version of "Chairman" Booby Byers:

Quit calling him booby, you're insulting Sulidaes.

And Jefferson said: that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time

John Kwok said: Nah, I wouldn't think of insulting Sulidaes:

Alex H said:

John Kwok said: Well that's why I remarked earlier at another PT thread today that I can't wait for the SNL skit parodying him with someone like David Spade - or maybe better yet, the current cast member who plays MacGruber - as a really over-the-top version of "Chairman" Booby Byers:

Quit calling him booby, you're insulting Sulidaes.

However, since others do refer to him as Booby, and since I have some very intelligent Canadian relatives, then Booby is a most apt sarcastic nickname. Until and unless he can demonstrate that he is truly intelligent, he will be referred to as Booby by yours truly.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Nah, I wouldn't think of insulting Sulidaes:

Alex H said:

John Kwok said: Well that's why I remarked earlier at another PT thread today that I can't wait for the SNL skit parodying him with someone like David Spade - or maybe better yet, the current cast member who plays MacGruber - as a really over-the-top version of "Chairman" Booby Byers:

Quit calling him booby, you're insulting Sulidaes.

However, since others do refer to him as Booby, and since I have some very intelligent Canadian relatives, then Booby is a most apt sarcastic nickname. Until and unless he can demonstrate that he is truly intelligent, he will be referred to as Booby by yours truly.

I agree with Alex: addressing Mr Byers as "Booby" is a slur against gannets and all other seabirds. A far more accurate term would be "Idiot Byers"