Nine anti-science bills in seven states

Well I guess that if teachers are being encouraged to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution, then they should have no objections to the strengths of evolution being in the science standards. They should have no objection to the strengths of evolution being tested on standardized tests. They should have no objection to their students being required to learn and understand all of the evidence from multipole independent fields, including some that require graduate level understanding of biology.

Man this is great. Now they will have to spend the entire four years of high school teaching nothing but the strengths of evolution. They can address the weaknesses in the last week, because by the then the students will understand the theory well enough to address those. Somehow, I don't think that students armed with so much knowledge about the theory of evolution are going to fall for any creationist bull crap.

Can anybody help me understand why "human cloning" would be included among "theories"?

The only thing I can think of is like this: Some things we don't like (evolution, AGW) are "only theories", therefore "theory" means something bad. So anything else we don't like (human cloning) must be a theory, too.

Just Bob said: Can anybody help me understand why "human cloning" would be included among "theories"? The only thing I can think of is like this: Some things we don't like (evolution, AGW) are "only theories", therefore "theory" means something bad. So anything else we don't like (human cloning) must be a theory, too.

If any of them demonstrated an ability to actually do critical analysis--for instance, tackling the easy task of demolishing ID--one might think that they actually cared about proper critiques.

Since, however, their "critical analysis" involves throwing as many fallacies and falsehoods at evolution as they can and hoping that at least some might stick (legitimately or otherwise), one is dubious of their stated intentions.

Glen Davidson

According to the creationist dictionary:

Theory: something that can't be proven, so it can't be true. At least we hope it isn't true because we don't want it to be true. And even if it is true, we hope no one will ever find out. And if they do find out, we'll just claim it isn't true.

To this end, the dishonesty institute is getting more public exposure, their people are appearing in the media on the conservative talk shows, without rebuttal of course, and as pointed out it's playing out in the state legislatures. Recently John West of the dishonesty institute gave a talk to the Faith & Law group in Washing DC whose mission is: "Faith & Law is a volunteer, nonprofit organization that helps congressional staff better understand the implications of the Christian worldview for their calling to the public square, through monthly lectures, bi-monthly reading groups, and the semi-annual “Great Objects Day” conference."

Better understand? So they are now infiltrating on the state AND federal levels to promote creationism and are finding a warm reception. I posted (w/video clip) on another item regarding Mike Huckabee's ststement that everyone should be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to listen to David Barton, the pseudo-historian, attack on the U.S. and how America was founded as a Christian nation (re the TBOE history standards).

Again, I think what is happening is the scientific establishment is not aggressively countering these attacks.

The next few years could be very active ones for opponents of public school creationism.

We have the disastrous situation in this country the evolution denial has become an obsessive priority of a substantial subset of one of the two major parties.

We also have a supreme court which has signaled its commitment to making its decisions on the ground of ideology, regardless of either strong precedent or overwhelming public opposition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html. Fortunately, only four members of the SCOTUS are fully committed in this way, although Kennedy seems to be joining the club. However, Justice Ginsberg is known to have health problems, and could be replaced with a far right ideologue in the event of, say, a Huckabee administration.

harold said: The next few years could be very active ones for opponents of public school creationism. We have the disastrous situation in this country the evolution denial has become an obsessive priority of a substantial subset of one of the two major parties. We also have a supreme court which has signaled its commitment to making its decisions on the ground of ideology, regardless of either strong precedent or overwhelming public opposition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html. Fortunately, only four members of the SCOTUS are fully committed in this way, although Kennedy seems to be joining the club. However, Justice Ginsberg is known to have health problems, and could be replaced with a far right ideologue in the event of, say, a Huckabee administration.

I have been writing editorials, and letters plus making newspaper forum comments for weeks- all to no avail.

Tennessee schools is gonna be grate!

Gary Hurd said: I have been writing editorials, and letters plus making newspaper forum comments for weeks- all to no avail.

The science and teaching communities need to have an easily accessible handbook of the specific misconceptions and mischaracterizations of ID/creationists contrasted with the actual concepts in science.

The irony in all this, is that this assault on eduction will drive away the very people necessary for the US to maintain a competitive edge in the global economy. So, if they get their victory, it'll be Pyrrhic and they can join the vast majority of Muslims in religious-induced ignorance and its associated poverty.

The bill doesn’t seem like anti-science to me, or anti-evolution.

More like freedom to teach, research, and to learn.

If science can achieve a certain level to the extent where there are rights and wrongs then these should be explained and the reasons why it is right or wrong. There is an amount of ethics to be taken into consideration with some research and subjects; also there can be too many restrictions. Some time for discussion is good.

For me there is sense in this bill.

The bill doesn’t seem like anti-science to me, or anti-evolution. More like freedom to teach, research, and to learn.

Marilyn said: The bill doesn’t seem like anti-science to me, or anti-evolution. More like freedom to teach, research, and to learn. If science can achieve a certain level to the extent where there are rights and wrongs then these should be explained and the reasons why it is right or wrong. There is an amount of ethics to be taken into consideration with some research and subjects; also there can be too many restrictions. Some time for discussion is good. For me there is sense in this bill.

The bills are not intended to promote skepticism, instead being created (so to speak) to push pseudoskepticism: "I'm just an impartial critic, only interested in the truth -- I don't have a dog in the fight."

"Then it seems very odd that you are performing a hatchet job on the white dog while completely ignoring the black dog."

Matt Young said:

The science and teaching communities need to have an easily accessible handbook of the specific misconceptions and mischaracterizations of ID/creationists contrasted with the actual concepts in science.

It exists and has also been published in book form. I wrote material linking pseudoscience to religious claims here, before the ascendancy descendancy of intelligent-design creationism and updated it here. And that does not count Why Intelligent Design Fails, an edited anthology. The problem is getting the material out.

Matt Young said:

The science and teaching communities need to have an easily accessible handbook of the specific misconceptions and mischaracterizations of ID/creationists contrasted with the actual concepts in science.

It exists and has also been published in book form. I wrote material linking pseudoscience to religious claims here, before the ascendancy descendancy of intelligent-design creationism and updated it here. And that does not count Why Intelligent Design Fails, an edited anthology. The problem is getting the material out.

Marilyn said: The bill doesn’t seem like anti-science to me, or anti-evolution. More like freedom to teach, research, and to learn. If science can achieve a certain level to the extent where there are rights and wrongs then these should be explained and the reasons why it is right or wrong. There is an amount of ethics to be taken into consideration with some research and subjects; also there can be too many restrictions. Some time for discussion is good. For me there is sense in this bill.

Except that this exact situation has existed for centuries. Why suddenly emphasize what hasn’t changed, AND point specifically to areas of science that offend the religious right? At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”. So at best, these bills would alter nothing whatsoever. What’s so great about passing useless bills? Do we detect any disingenuousness here?

Peter Henderson said: That is the level were you learn science, not critique it

The bell curve is alive and well, i.e., most people are not intelligent enuf to understand evolution, nor do they desire to do so. One of the reasons is the fundamental basis of religion, and that is fear. Here's an interesting perspective on the topic and why it's so difficult to overcome:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110402/sc_livescience/fearofdeathspursbeliefinintelligentdesign

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: The next few years could be very active ones for opponents of public school creationism. We have the disastrous situation in this country the evolution denial has become an obsessive priority of a substantial subset of one of the two major parties. We also have a supreme court which has signaled its commitment to making its decisions on the ground of ideology, regardless of either strong precedent or overwhelming public opposition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html. Fortunately, only four members of the SCOTUS are fully committed in this way, although Kennedy seems to be joining the club. However, Justice Ginsberg is known to have health problems, and could be replaced with a far right ideologue in the event of, say, a Huckabee administration.

It may also turn into an opportunity to once and for all show the true face of the so-called “Christianity” behind the ID/creationist movement. There is now a complete history of repeated, bald-face lying on the part of ID/creationists that goes back at least into the 1970s and before. What needs to happen is for teachers and organizations within the science community to compile an easily-read table or booklet of those lies, who propagated those lies, and what real science actually says regarding the subjects those lies are about. ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations must be clearly contrasted with the real concepts from science. Teachers and scientists should be combing the websites of the ICR, AiG, and the DI and compiling everything they can find there and documenting all of it before ID/creationists can get rid of it or hide it. And it shouldn’t stop there. ID/creationists need to have their faces continually ground into those lies every time they attempt to dissemble, every time they claim to speak from “authority,” and every time they attempt to bully. The names of these people need to be publicized and associated with those lies in a way that no one can ever mistake. ID/creationists should never be allowed to simply assert “from authority.” They need to be nailed every time. The hypocrisy of their “religion” needs to be constantly highlighted. We know they will try to retaliate by propagating more lies; but we also know that they always get scientific concepts and evidence wrong. They can either be portrayed as being incorrigibly stupid or incorrigibly dishonest. The fact that they never learn real science, or that they game the system in order to acquire letters after their names in order to appear “authoritative,” can also be highlighted. It’s the way they operate that needs to be emphasized. That is best done by contrasting what they do and say with the best possible articulation of reality that we can muster. There is no question that, if placed in such a situation by such stupid laws, teachers can and should make ID/creationist pseudo-science look as stupid as it actually is. And by the time it is over, ID/creationists would be screaming for teachers and the scientific community to stop. And we should not stop. After nearly 50 years of this crap, I personally have no more patience with these bastards; they can and should be taken down hard. And we don’t even have to be nasty about it; the lying and the behaviors of the ID/creationists speak for themselves.

DavidK said: The bell curve is alive and well, i.e., most people are not intelligent enuf to understand evolution, nor do they desire to do so. One of the reasons is the fundamental basis of religion, and that is fear. Here's an interesting perspective on the topic and why it's so difficult to overcome: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110402/sc_livescience/fearofdeathspursbeliefinintelligentdesign

I agree with hoary puccoon (there's something very satisfying about saying that). Evolution does not require high intelligence to understand. Sure the extremely advanced theoretical aspects are hard -- but that's true of everything.

The problem is not a lack of intelligence in the community, it's the lack of critical thinking skills due to unrelenting lies from creationists and right-wing ideologues.

Gary Hurd said: I have been writing editorials, and letters plus making newspaper forum comments for weeks- all to no avail.

For "whats happening " in Florida regarding SB 1854, please stay tuned to the Florida Citizens for Science Web site http://www.flascience.org/wp/ Teaching whatever you want in high school, to include unscientific, religious materials in science classes because it will foster critical thinking skills? give me a break.
Jonathan Smith VP Florida Citizens for Science

Paul Burnett said:

Gary Hurd said: I have been writing editorials, and letters plus making newspaper forum comments for weeks- all to no avail.

I have been writing the occasional Letter to the Editor for the last 35 or 40 years, and making on-line forum comments for at least ten years. I do not think it has been to no avail. We must continue to hold creationists' toes to the fire. Do not give up, or they win.

At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”.

FL said:

At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”.

Well, that statement is clearly wrong. Primordial soup, anyone?

FL said:

At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”.

Well, that statement is clearly wrong. Primordial soup, anyone?

Critical thinking, analysis foster good science by Robin Zimmer, March 11, 2011, The Tennessean As a Ph.D. with 30 years of experience within academia, government and industry, I am appalled that anyone interested in improving science education within the state of Tennessee could be opposed to William Dunn's House Bill 368. The Wall Street Journal reported that 80 percent of our high school seniors nationwide are now scoring below proficiency in science and mathematics (January 26). Moreover, our country has now slipped to 31st in world science and math education. It is clear that something is wrong with our approach to teaching and something must be done for the welfare of our kids, our state and our great nation. Mr. Dunn's timely amendment (HB 368) offers an improvement in our approach to science education. The bill simply proposes that public teachers be permitted to allow critical analysis of scientific theories within the public classroom. Two UT science department chairs testified in opposition to the bill. What strikes me as odd is how academic scientists could argue with an approach that, in all honesty, molded them into the professionals that they are today. What I am talking about is advanced critical thinking and analysis that lies at the very core of a scientist's world. A well functioning peer review system challenges a scientist's thinking and ensures critical and constructive discourse. This is the scientific process. Why would we deprive our future scientists from understanding how to critically challenge and assess scientific theories? Darwin's theory is limited Those who oppose the bill seem to be focused on the teaching of evolution as a non-controversial fact. But are there controversies associated with theories such as full Darwinian macroevolution? Sure there are. Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, recently published a book entitled: The Edge of Evolution, the Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it he notes that plasmodium bacteria, which cause malaria, have developed resistance to new drugs. This is indeed a form of evolutionary change through adaptation. But why is it that these bugs have not evolved significantly in other ways? Why is it that malaria is still confined to the tropics and has not evolved to thrive in more temperate regions? He then argues that there are limitations or boundaries to classic Darwinian evolution. Dr. Behe is not alone in questioning apparent boundaries. I am not writing to argue for or against macroevolution or any other scientific theory. But the bottom line is that critical thinking and analysis fosters good science. For high schoolers, their love of science and acumen for it will not come from memorizing and repeating textbook prose, but rather by diving into the strengths and weaknesses of theories such as evolution. Amazing biomedical advances are on the horizon, and these will drive economic growth in the decades to come, and the seeds of creativeness and innovation are sowed early in the high school years. Let us not deprive our kids, our state and our nation of the opportunity to regain our world prominence in science, technology and economic might. Robin D. Zimmer, who lives in Knoxville, is a private biotech consultant and affiliate of the Center for Faith and Science International, which was founded to assist faith-based organizations such as churches better understand the importance and benefits of science and how it relates to their faith.

FL said:

At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”.

Well, that statement is clearly wrong. Primordial soup, anyone?

I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won't publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue. It doesn't give them undo credential. If anything, it gives the scientific establishment the chance to put forth the evidence and stand behind it. What does ID predict that evolution doesn't explain?

You still have not explained how this bill will help children in Tennessee by forcing teachers to lie to them about science.

Furthermore, the main reasons why students are failing to learn are a) because politicians are cutting funding to schools, and b) because Creationists are convincing and coercing teachers to teach religious propaganda and pseudoscience in place of actual science in classrooms.

Also, it's been repeatedly demonstrated here and elsewhere in the Internet and in the real world that Michael Behe does not know what he's babbling about, especially since both of his books have been torn to pieces by critics all while he ignores any and all evidence that contradicts his inane armchair predictions. Lehigh University even keeps a disclaimer on the website clearly stating that his views do not reflect the Biology Department's views.

Jason Scott said: What does ID predict that evolution doesn't explain?

FL said: So, you choose to sidestep the post on the table, DS? But that's understandable. The point is clear enough. Meanwhile, let's talk about Tennessee. Consider the following: FL

What I am talking about is advanced critical thinking and analysis that lies at the very core of a scientist’s world. A well functioning peer review system challenges a scientist’s thinking and ensures critical and constructive discourse.

For high schoolers, their love of science and acumen for it will not come from memorizing and repeating textbook prose, but rather by diving into the strengths and weaknesses of theories such as evolution.

Now is another golden opportunity for you to explain what is “wrong” with “Primordial Soup.”

"More significant is the fact mentioned earlier that geological evidence for the oceanic soup has not been located. If there ever was a dilute ocean that fed organic compounds into these small ponds, there should be abundant evidence for it in the lower Precambrian sediments. Remember, if the soup was as as massive as the theory suggests, organic remains should be literally all over the earth in deep sediments of great age. Scientists have looked but have not found organic compounds." --Thaxton, Bradley, and Olson, The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1984, pg 65.

"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, quoted from "Comments on 'Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Refections on Biogenesis and Evolution' by Avshalom C. Elitzur", Journal of Theoretical Biology 176(1995), in Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, 2004, p.104.

"Several studies of the nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio in ancient kerogens carbonaceous deposits) show that while there may have been some ammonia in Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's origins 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, the quantities would have been inadequate to sustain the prebiotic chemical pathways necessary for life's spontaneous origin. The answer is in: There was no prebiotic soup on the menu billions of years ago when life began." -- from Rana and Ross, Origins of Life, p. 104. The studies they are referring to are V. Beaumont and F. Robert, "Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Kerogen in Precambrian Cherts: A Record of the Evolution of Atmospheric Chemistry", in Precambrian Research 96(1999), pp63-82, and Jay A. Brandes et al, "Abiotic Nitrogen Reduction on the Early Earth", Nature 395 (1998), pp365-367.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2010) — For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life. "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London.

FL, as usual, is playing word-games. He knows that the exact means by which life arose are not known. He is trying to use that to imply that the general assumption that life arose naturally from simpler chemicals - what he calls "primordial soup" - is not "thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff".

This is false equivalence, obviously. The exact means is indeed on the cutting edge of biochemistry. The general assumption that life arose naturally from precursor chemicals is the only one that science can make, because it is the only one that does not invoke supernatural means.

I know of no high-school biology text that states or implies that the origin of life is known. I only know texts which state or imply the general assumption above - as they must, if they are to be science textbooks - and then speculate or present some hypotheses.

I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won’t publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue.

Hmm. No answer, Mike...?

FL said:

Now is another golden opportunity for you to explain what is “wrong” with “Primordial Soup.”

As you wish, Mike. Let's get caught up on this one.

"More significant is the fact mentioned earlier that geological evidence for the oceanic soup has not been located. If there ever was a dilute ocean that fed organic compounds into these small ponds, there should be abundant evidence for it in the lower Precambrian sediments. Remember, if the soup was as as massive as the theory suggests, organic remains should be literally all over the earth in deep sediments of great age. Scientists have looked but have not found organic compounds." --Thaxton, Bradley, and Olson, The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1984, pg 65.

"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, quoted from "Comments on 'Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Refections on Biogenesis and Evolution' by Avshalom C. Elitzur", Journal of Theoretical Biology 176(1995), in Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, 2004, p.104.

"Several studies of the nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio in ancient kerogens carbonaceous deposits) show that while there may have been some ammonia in Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's origins 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, the quantities would have been inadequate to sustain the prebiotic chemical pathways necessary for life's spontaneous origin. The answer is in: There was no prebiotic soup on the menu billions of years ago when life began." -- from Rana and Ross, Origins of Life, p. 104. The studies they are referring to are V. Beaumont and F. Robert, "Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Kerogen in Precambrian Cherts: A Record of the Evolution of Atmospheric Chemistry", in Precambrian Research 96(1999), pp63-82, and Jay A. Brandes et al, "Abiotic Nitrogen Reduction on the Early Earth", Nature 395 (1998), pp365-367.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2010) — For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life. "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London.

So, do you understand what's wrong with the Primordial Soup stuff that's found in the high school biology textbooks, Mike? Can you see the need for the Tennessee science education bill? FL

New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

So, do you understand what’s wrong with the Primordial Soup stuff that’s found in the high school biology textbooks? Can you see the need for the Tennessee science education bill?

FL said:

I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won’t publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue.

You already know why. Too much fear factor. The fact is that Evolution DOES have some problems with it, both prebiotic and postbiotic. The "ministers of creationism", as you put it, probably would not be able to convince the PBS viewers to (for example) legalize teaching YEC in the classroom, of course. They would most likely lose on that one. But if they played their cards right, they absolutely would be able to expose enough problems and blank-spots to justify a common-sense "critical-thinking" science education bill such as the Tennessee proposal. They could score really big on that one with the TV viewers. (You already see how easy it is to do so, when it comes to Primordial Soup and prebiotic evolution.) Also it's pretty likely that the "ministers of creationism" would be able to publicly call out the evolutionist side whenever it resorted to employing theological/religious arguments, such as dysteleology, instead of sticking to their science arguments like they're supposed to. That would cause the evolutinist side to lose points also. Hence the fear factor. You've got a good suggestion (and I'd love to see such a major TV debate myself), but the evolutionists wouldn't dare show up. FL

FL said: Needing a link to the ScienceDaily article, Dale? No problem. Be sure to check out the headline too:

New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

You already have the refs/cites for the other sources I quoted, of course. I'll conclude by repeating my earlier questions to Mike:

So, do you understand what’s wrong with the Primordial Soup stuff that’s found in the high school biology textbooks? Can you see the need for the Tennessee science education bill?

FL

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2010) — For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a 'primordial soup' of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the 'soup' theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life. "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all," said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London. "We present the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent -- one that is riddled with tiny interconnected compartments or pores." The soup theory was proposed in 1929 when J.B.S Haldane published his influential essay on the origin of life in which he argued that UV radiation provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist. "Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life," said senior author, William Martin, an evolutionary biologist from the Insitute of Botany III in Düsseldorf. "But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life." In rejecting the soup theory the team turned to the Earth's chemistry to identify the energy source which could power the first primitive predecessors of living organisms: geochemical gradients across a honeycomb of microscopic natural caverns at hydrothermal vents. These catalytic cells generated lipids, proteins and nucleotides which may have given rise to the first true cells. The team focused on ideas pioneered by geochemist Michael J. Russell, on alkaline deep sea vents, which produce chemical gradients very similar to those used by almost all living organisms today -- a gradient of protons over a membrane. Early organisms likely exploited these gradients through a process called chemiosmosis, in which the proton gradient is used to drive synthesis of the universal energy currency, ATP, or simpler equivalents. Later on cells evolved to generate their own proton gradient by way of electron transfer from a donor to an acceptor. The team argue that the first donor was hydrogen and the first acceptor was CO2. "Modern living cells have inherited the same size of proton gradient, and, crucially, the same orientation -- positive outside and negative inside -- as the inorganic vesicles from which they arose" said co-author John Allen, a biochemist at Queen Mary, University of London. "Thermodynamic constraints mean that chemiosmosis is strictly necessary for carbon and energy metabolism in all organisms that grow from simple chemical ingredients [autotrophy] today, and presumably the first free-living cells," said Lane. "Here we consider how the earliest cells might have harnessed a geochemically created force and then learned to make their own." This was a vital transition, as chemiosmosis is the only mechanism by which organisms could escape from the vents. "The reason that all organisms are chemiosmotic today is simply that they inherited it from the very time and place that the first cells evolved -- and they could not have evolved without it," said Martin. "Far from being too complex to have powered early life, it is nearly impossible to see how life could have begun without chemiosmosis," concluded Lane. "It is time to cast off the shackles of fermentation in some primordial soup as 'life without oxygen' -- an idea that dates back to a time before anybody in biology had any understanding of how ATP is made."

FL said:

I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won’t publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue.

You already know why. Too much fear factor. The fact is that Evolution DOES have some problems with it, both prebiotic and postbiotic. The "ministers of creationism", as you put it, probably would not be able to convince the PBS viewers to (for example) legalize teaching YEC in the classroom, of course. They would most likely lose on that one. But if they played their cards right, they absolutely would be able to expose enough problems and blank-spots to justify a common-sense "critical-thinking" science education bill such as the Tennessee proposal. They could score really big on that one with the TV viewers. (You already see how easy it is to do so, when it comes to Primordial Soup and prebiotic evolution.) Also it's pretty likely that the "ministers of creationism" would be able to publicly call out the evolutionist side whenever it resorted to employing theological/religious arguments, such as dysteleology, instead of sticking to their science arguments like they're supposed to. That would cause the evolutinist side to lose points also. Hence the fear factor. You've got a good suggestion (and I'd love to see such a major TV debate myself), but the evolutionists wouldn't dare show up. FL

Anyone else notice how FL refuses to explain to us how this and other anti-science, anti-education bills will help children learn science?

More word games from FL.

Finding a few out-of-context quotes by scientists who have some minor objection to the use of the slang term "primordial soup" to describe possible conditions of abiogenesis.

No actual arguments against abiogenesis, let alone evolution.

No evidence that he knows or cares what kind of model the inexact, deliberately humorous term "primordial soup" might actually apply to.

No actual defense of any type of rationale for the actual Tennessee bill that is being proposed.

Just dishonest, nit-picking gotcha games about the exact words "primordial soup".

By the way, although I'm not a fan of "live debates" on complex subjects, they have been going a lot better for science than they used to.

Way back in the day, when scientists weren't very aware of organized creationism, Gish and his ilk used to be able to trick unassuming scientists with average scientist speaking skills into "debates"; then they would jam the auditorium with plants who would have cheered if Gish had literally taken a crap on the stage, and run through a slide show of then-somewhat-original, now-cliche creationist talking points and use the old "never stop talking as fast as possible" trick.

And really, even then, all they really accomplished was to get a bunch of bussed-in brainwashed cases, who as I noted would have cheered at anything anyway, to cheer.

Ummm, Dale, the rest of the ScienceDaily article does NOT contradict the first sections of it which I quoted, nor does it contradict the headline. (It's the same article, duhhh!)

The rest of the article simply explains the details (that are summarized in its first couple paragraphs. If you look carefully, you'll even see that the part I quoted, the first couple paragraphs, mentions the alternative theory being offered by the researchers.)

Gotta do better 'n' that, people. Sheesh!

FL

Jason Scott said: I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won't publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue. It doesn't give them undo credential. If anything, it gives the scientific establishment the chance to put forth the evidence and stand behind it. What does ID predict that evolution doesn't explain?

FL the delusional malicious mendacious IDiot barked:

I have never understood why twenty-five top scientists won’t publicly debate twenty-five ministers of creationism on PBS and force the issue.

You already know why. Too much fear factor. The fact is that Evolution DOES have some problems with it, both prebiotic and postbiotic. The "ministers of creationism", as you put it, probably would not be able to convince the PBS viewers to (for example) legalize teaching YEC in the classroom, of course. They would most likely lose on that one. But if they played their cards right, they absolutely would be able to expose enough problems and blank-spots to justify a common-sense "critical-thinking" science education bill such as the Tennessee proposal. They could score really big on that one with the TV viewers. (You already see how easy it is to do so, when it comes to Primordial Soup and prebiotic evolution.) Also it's pretty likely that the "ministers of creationism" would be able to publicly call out the evolutionist side whenever it resorted to employing theological/religious arguments, such as dysteleology, instead of sticking to their science arguments like they're supposed to. That would cause the evolutinist side to lose points also. Hence the fear factor. You've got a good suggestion (and I'd love to see such a major TV debate myself), but the evolutionists wouldn't dare show up. FL

FL said: Ummm, Dale, the rest of the ScienceDaily article does NOT contradict the first sections of it which I quoted, nor does it contradict the headline. (It's the same article, duhhh!)

The rest of the article simply explains the details (that are summarized in its first couple paragraphs. If you look carefully, you'll even see that the part I quoted, the first couple paragraphs, mentions the alternative theory being offered by the researchers.)

Gotta do better 'n' that, people. Sheesh!

Finding a few out-of-context quotes by scientists who have some minor objection to the use of the slang term “primordial soup” to describe possible conditions of abiogenesis.

And we did, FL. You just handwaved Dale away.

You still haven't provided any reason for us to believe that this anti-science, anti-education bill will help children, and you still refuse to explain what you mean by "Primordial soup," beyond to suggest you don't know anything about science beyond Creationist slander.

After all, FL, you constantly forget that you've established yourself to be a shameless, unctuous liar who hates Science, education and learning.

FL said:

Now is another golden opportunity for you to explain what is “wrong” with “Primordial Soup.”

As you wish, Mike. Let's get caught up on this one. ...

"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, quoted from "Comments on 'Let There Be Life: Thermodynamic Refections on Biogenesis and Evolution' by Avshalom C. Elitzur", Journal of Theoretical Biology 176(1995), in Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life, 2004, p.104.

"Several studies of the nitrogen-15 to nitrogen-14 ratio in ancient kerogens carbonaceous deposits) show that while there may have been some ammonia in Earth's atmosphere at the time of life's origins 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, the quantities would have been inadequate to sustain the prebiotic chemical pathways necessary for life's spontaneous origin. The answer is in: There was no prebiotic soup on the menu billions of years ago when life began." -- from Rana and Ross, Origins of Life, p. 104. The studies they are referring to are V. Beaumont and F. Robert, "Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Kerogen in Precambrian Cherts: A Record of the Evolution of Atmospheric Chemistry", in Precambrian Research 96(1999), pp63-82, and Jay A. Brandes et al, "Abiotic Nitrogen Reduction on the Early Earth", Nature 395 (1998), pp365-367.

Stanton said: And we did, FL. You just handwaved Dale away. You still haven't provided any reason for us to believe that this anti-science, anti-education bill will help children, and you still refuse to explain what you mean by "Primordial soup," beyond to suggest you don't know anything about science beyond Creationist slander.

Then how come you refuse to explain what you mean by your use of “Primordial soup,”

or how come you refuse to explain how these anti-science, anti-education bills will help children learn?

Time to ban this ass hat to the bathroom wall once again.

None of the bull crap has anything to do with the topic of this thread. All the ass hat can do is try to claim that high school textbooks try to tell students that "primordial soup" explains everything and that it is a proven fact and no problems remain. Of course he doesn't demonstrate this and he can't, because nothing could be further from the truth. Just another lying racist bigot playing word games and ignoring reality. Obviously this ass hat has no clue how science works or what is in textbooks.

And as far as fear is concerned, you have to be powerful fearful to refuse to read even one scientific paper, especially when you know that it will prove that you were absolutely wrong and that we have known better for forty years. Talk about fear! Man what a hypocrite.

Remember, if the soup was as as massive as the theory suggests, organic remains should be literally all over the earth in deep sediments of great age. Scientists have looked but have not found organic compounds.” –Thaxton, Bradley, and Olson, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, 1984, pg 65.

Quite obviously, FL equates "critical thinking" with taking his own personal foregone conclusions on faith. And if you do not, you simply aren't thinking!

This is your mind on religion, folks.

(Emphasis added to quotes) I take it, then, that you agree with the material you quoted that the earth is well over three billion years old. Good to know.

Well, at least Dale H was willing to make an effort to (unsuccessfully) defend his assertion of “quotemining.”

That this is nothing more than sterile quibbling over word values by FL is easily demonstrated by asking one simple question:

Suppose the term "primordial soup" were narrowly applied to the chemical environment immediately around deep sea hydrothermal vents. What difference would this make to the general hypothesis that life arose from simpler reagents through natural processes in a natural environment?

Why, none whatsoever, of course. It's only a closer specification of that environment.

So why on Earth would FL think that this helps his thesis, that life was supernaturally created?

Why, it doesn't, of course. So why's he quibbling over the meaning of a phrase that started out as a joke, and is still no more than pop-science at best?

Because quibbling over word values is all FL can do. If all you can do is bang the table, then bang away.

First, the ass hat quotes stuff that he claims he doesn't agree with. Then he claims that we must document each and every instance of his quote mining. Well here is a news flash for you, all FL has is quote mining. He has never actually read a real scientific paper. That is why he is reduced to quote mining thirty year old stuff he doesn't agree with. He doesn't actually understand any science, that is why all he can do is quote and hope no one notices that it never supports his crap. He is emotionally and intellectually incapable of even trying to read one real paper. He had his chance, he refused. Why bother with him any more?

Ban him to the bathroom wall or this bull crap will go on for weeks. It will still go on for weeks there, but that's just fine.

Gosh, why is FL quoting somthing 27 years out of date?

I suggest you learn some science, rather than quotemining statements from scientists that are 27 years out of date.

Hey Peter, I forgot to mention something.

Your meteorite gig still relies on the existence of the Primordial Soup.

Just think about it, that's all.

FL :)

FL said:

(Emphasis added to quotes) I take it, then, that you agree with the material you quoted that the earth is well over three billion years old. Good to know.

I remain a YEC, as always. However, you are not a YEC, so it's a fact that YOU agree with the "well over three billion years old" portions that you emphasized. So therefore you have every reason to agree with the given explanations of "what's wrong with Primordial Soup", and you also can clearly see the need to support and pass the Tennessee science education bill. FL

Is there any reason why the exact words “primordial soup” need to be used in high school Biology?

Energy from the sun, volcanoes, and lightning caused chemical reactions among these gases (nitrogen, methane, ammonia, but no free oxygen), which eventually combined into small organic molecules such as amino acids. Rain trapped and then carried these molecules into the oceans, making a primordial soup of organic molecules. In this soup, proteins, lipids and the other complex organic molecules found in present-day cells formed. --pg 388.

Mike Elzinga asked for an explanation...

FL said:

Energy from the sun, volcanoes, and lightning caused chemical reactions among these gases (nitrogen, methane, ammonia, but no free oxygen), which eventually combined into small organic molecules such as amino acids. Rain trapped and then carried these molecules into the oceans, making a primordial soup of organic molecules. In this soup, proteins, lipids and the other complex organic molecules found in present-day cells formed. --pg 388.

Okay, now we're all on the same page as to what 'primordial soup' means.

FL -

First of all, that didn't even answer the one question you tried to answer. It didn't explain whether the words "primordial soup" NEED to be included in high school biology courses.

The quote you present, if I trusted that it were presented in an honest way (which I don't), should indeed be modified in the next edition of that textbook. In the way you have presented it, it appears to state a hypothesis about abiogenesis as if it were definitive fact. he hypothesis is a tenable one and worthy of presentation, but as a hypothesis.

However, given your track record of quote mining, I remain skeptical. No doubt the book explains just above or below that the statements are hypothetical.

I would personally be perfectly happy to see abiogenesis discussed without reference to "primordial soup", but you are the one who has some obsessive issue with the term.

Anyway, since you're answering questions, how about the rest of them -

Do the words “primordial soup” refer to any part of the theory of biological evolution?

What does the term “primordial soup” refer to, in your own words?

What were, in your own words, the precise objections or clarifications that the scientists you quoted had with respect to the term “primoridial soup”?

FL said: Scientists still haven’t found ANY geological evidence of ANY primordial soup.

is Oparin’s 1924 ‘primordial soup’ theory presented as a theory or as a fact? Are you just quotemining again?

Primordial soup can lead to racism! Don't believe in it.

Go back a few sentences - is Oparin’s 1924 ‘primordial soup’ theory presented as a theory or as a fact? Are you just quotemining again?

I'm new to the forum and concerned about equal time science bills. I know it seems like validation, but not debating creationists is giving tacit concession to their arguments. They have Wikis and websites and television shows that are well-produced. They also have a museum that looks as good as the USC Museum of Anthropology (only there are saddles on the dinosaurs). If a national debate is not held, and by this I mean a formal intellectual dust-off in the public square about what theory best fits the evidence and why, creationism will nurture itself in the absence of it. Scientists have not banded together across disciplines to make a single head-on move to confront it. Science, it's time to rally.

And one comment: I do not know FL (I keep calling him "Fruity Loops" in my mind) but I try to remember that he's at the bottom of a pile-on. I do not agree with him, but I want his point of view to be debunked in the spirit of science, with coolness and clarity. It seems like he's amassed his share of grudges here. Don't ban him. Don't diss him. Beat him! He writes his POV clearly. Do the same. Stay up all night and write the world's most fantastic rebuttal to his stuff, the kind that gets forwarded.

FL said: "There NEVER was any primordial soup."

Jason Scott said: And one comment: I do not know FL (I keep calling him "Fruity Loops" in my mind) but I try to remember that he's at the bottom of a pile-on. I do not agree with him, but I want his point of view to be debunked in the spirit of science, with coolness and clarity. It seems like he's amassed his share of grudges here. Don't ban him. Don't diss him. Beat him! He writes his POV clearly. Do the same. Stay up all night and write the world's most fantastic rebuttal to his stuff, the kind that gets forwarded.

Because, 27 years later, scientists STILL haven’t found any geological evidence of ANY primordial soup. What Thaxton Bradley and Olson said, is the present scientific state of affairs. Never been overturned. On top of that, carbon-ratio and nitrogen-ratio scientific studies (quoted from the, ummmmm, 2004 source) confirmed that–how did Yockey put it?–“there never was any primordial soup”. That’s a direct corroboration of what Thaxton et al said in 1984. NO geological evidence.

I remain a YEC, as always. However, you are not a YEC, so it’s a fact that YOU agree with the “well over three billion years old” portions that you emphasized. So therefore you have every reason to agree with the given explanations of “what’s wrong with Primordial Soup”, and you also can clearly see the need to support and pass the Tennessee science education bill

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information

You gotta love some this delusional. Primordial couldn't possibly form and anyway it isn't stable even if it did, so not finding massive amounts of if billions of years later proves that non of it could have ever existed! Brilliant.

There is no evidence of Jesus in the fossil record, so he never existed. Anyone who believes in him is just looking for an excuse for racism. Don't be fooled, chicken noodle soup is much better than primordial soup and if you don't believe that you are racist.

Only three more weeks of this nonsense to go.

FL said: So, do you understand what's wrong with the Primordial Soup stuff that's found in the high school biology textbooks, Mike? Can you see the need for the Tennessee science education bill?

Here's one of the problems with your debate scenario, Jason.

Try finding 25 creationists with enough scientific credentials to meet the 25 real scientists. (A bunch of Pentecostal pastors haven't earned the right to "debate" scientists.) But still maybe it's possible to find the 25, even if it's limited to folks with real PhDs from real universities.

But here's the catch: try to find 25 who AGREE with each other about such basic facts as the age of the universe and Earth, the speed of light, radiometric dating, common descent, the SLOT, scientific authority of the Bible, etc.

Oh, and you can't recruit them all from the same tiny organization or fundamentalist denomination, because if you do that, then all the other creationist organizations are guaranteed to disagree with them on some basic facts.

It won't be hard to find the 25 scientists from various disciplines who all agree with each other on the basic facts, or who accept the expertise of their colleagues on matters outside their own fields.

I'm sorry to hear about the frustration factor... What about The Discovery Institute? Do they constitute a "School of Thought" that is more or less unified? Could there ever be "The Discovery Institute versus the National Academy of Science"?

I don't want creationism taught as a scientific theory and can't understand why it keeps creeping back into legislatures. I'm actually furious about all of this. Some believe that teaching the controversy builds critical thinking, while it can also be argued that creationism waters down science into something compatible with what the Amish understand. The Amish have no interest in biology, save that the harvest comes in Spring. That isn't good enough for me. It's not critical thinking at all to expect a harvest in Spring. I want to know why the harvest comes in Spring, how to increase its yield, how to make a healthier plant. Will creationism provide the answers, or will the science of geology and genetics? Is this not worth demonstrating?

Jason Scott said: What about The Discovery Institute? Do they constitute a "School of Thought" that is more or less unified? Could there ever be "The Discovery Institute versus the National Academy of Science"?

The Discovery Institute is a Creationist think-tank, funded by right-winged Christian fundamentalists, and staffed entirely by evolution-deniers.

They claim that they want to produce alternative explanations to Evolutionary Biology, in the form of "Intelligent Design Theory," but, all they have accomplished is recycle repeatedly debunked appeals to ignorance, and other Creationist claims that used to be sanitized of any reference to the Bible, as well as churn out Creationist, anti-science propaganda, and promote immense harm to American education by finding illegal loopholes with which to insert the teaching of Creationism into, and removing the teaching of science from science classrooms.

It appears to be pretty obvious to everyone here that FL flunked miserably; and predictably.

The taunting and feces tossing is a defensive response of a child that doesn’t know what has just happened to him. He is being taken through a process of evaluation, and he doesn’t comprehend what is being asked.

FL’s level of cognitive development is clearly in lower elementary school; as I have mentioned before. It is not immediately obvious because he has learned a set of “compensating behaviors” that make it appear that he understands instructions, can articulate concepts, and can reason. It’s a babbling patter that he employs in his attempts to disrupt the evaluation process.

Such compensating mechanisms are fairly common; especially in cultures in which a premium is placed on rote memorization. FL grabs materials that contain the words he thinks respond to, or give the answer to, a question. It isn’t necessary in FL’s world to understand what is in those materials; and clearly he doesn’t. Nor does he understand the meaning or the relevance of the material; he can only look to see if the “correct” words are there. Nor can he assess the validity of the material.

It is somewhat like beginning physics students who are asked to solve a simple problem. They immediately start scanning formulas that have what they think are the correct letters in them, and into which they will plug in numbers and crank out the “correct” answer.

I have looked over FL comments going back about 4 years. There is not one example in any of his comments in which he has been able to articulate a concept or assess the validity or relevance of any of his copy/paste “answers.”

FL’s tactics are all word gaming and “my-daddy-can beat-up-on-your-daddy” style of argumentation; in other words, what one typically finds in young children arguing “from authority.”

FL appears to be articulate within his small sectarian culture. Within that culture, one can give the appearance of being educated by being able to quickly flash a bible verse, cite an “authority,” give the appearance of erudition by citing an etymology of a word, and by just having at one’s fingertips a lot of copy/paste materials in which one can find the right words over which to haggle. This is what FL has done; it is his sole intellectual achievement. And he may have gamed the system in doing it.

But that is where the cognitive development stops. Most instructors encounter this kind of arrested development in a number of students in each class each year. When such students are asked to explain and articulate concepts, they copy/paste or recite memorized “definitions.” And when they receive a failing grade, mommy and daddy barge in and complain.

Even worse, the Tennessee attempt to allow any “authority” into the science classroom will drag in all sorts of parents who think learning is rote memorization and copy/pasting out of some “authoritative” source. Fundamentalists are still encouraging young children who have not yet developed more advanced cognitive abilities to taunt their teachers just as FL taunts people on Panda’s Thumb. And the expectation from such fundamentalists is that teachers must succumb to any cited “authority” as though it carries the same weight and validity of hard-won scientific understanding.

And further, teachers will not be expected to encourage the development of higher cognitive abilities in their students by pushing them and probing them with tests and questions that stretch the students to develop.

Instead, we will see what we see from FL’s behavior right here on PT; namely, constant word-gaming, taunting, snark, and “nya, nya, nya, my preacher can beat up on the teacher.” The classroom will turn into a battlefield of warring “authorities” and a kindergarten level of rote memorization.

FL has absolutely no clue about what just transpired here in his responses. He has no clue about how he was lead into exhibiting the behaviors he displays. He cannot comprehend what is meant by the word “explain.” Instead, he instinctively throws up crap and distractions, hoping that teachers will never notice that FL has never ever, in all that noise, demonstrated the cognitive level of ability required to explain anything.

Even those here who are not experts in any of the sciences recognize what is going on. And even those with only a little experience with cognitive development recognize that FL’s level sits squarely at the elementary school level. FL’s “use of words” in nothing more than a well-practiced smoke screen that attempts to hide a grotesquely stunted intellectual development and “fool the teacher.”

It doesn’t fly; and we have just goaded FL into dramatically displaying why the “critical thinking” law is a sham. FL’s very own example provides the argument against fundamentalist “critical thinking.”

And he didn’t see it coming. Watch him babble now.

To answer your question however, Oparin’s primordial soup thing is presented as “hypothesis”, along with the oft-mentioned meteorite hypothesis that Peter H mentioned, and the commonly-taught RNA World hypothesis. They all appear on that same page and all are classified as “hypothesis.”

However, that wasn’t quite the original issue, was it? You’ve decided to shift the ground of discussion a little (the usual evolutionist response when things get tight.) What y’all were quibbling about originally, was the meaning of the term “primordial soup”, remember? That’s what you guys were asking about, remember? Well, I answered all that. I expressed my agreement with what 2004 Glencoe says is the meaning of the term “primordial soup”, as specified and quoted from the textbook itself.

So if you disagree with what 2004 Glencoe specifically said the term meant, (or if you disagree with how the term is used in the ScienceDaily article I offered you) then just say so, and then provide your OWN published biology textbook definition that you accept. Then we can rationally compare/contrast the two given meanings.

At the high school level, the science being presented is nowhere near state of the art, it is all thoroughly established, uncontested, endlessly examined, standard stuff. None of it is remotely “wrong”.

Well, that statement is clearly wrong. Primordial soup, anyone?

harold said: Now we can all agree that your original point was wrong. The high school textbook you chose to quote mentioned the term "primordial soup" in the context of discussing hypotheses of abiogenesis. It is clearly established, standard, uncontested, etc, that hypotheses of abiogenesis include those that suggest emergence of replicators in a viscous saline fluid environment ("primordial soup", if it's really necessary to use that term). Therefore whoever you were quoting was correct, and the high school textbook contents were standard. Some scientists may strongly disfavor this particular category of abiogenesis hypothesis, possibly even for good reason, but it is still a historically important hypothesis that fuels research to this day.

Hmm. I think I may have struck a nerve or something.

FL :)

FL said: Hmm. I think I may have struck a nerve or something. FL :)

FL said: "I think I may have struck a nerve or something."

Some scientists may strongly disfavor this particular category of abiogenesis hypothesis, possibly even for good reason, but it is still a historically important hypothesis that fuels research to this day.

By demonstrating that you are too cowardly to explain how these anti-science, anti-education bills will help children learn science

You agree that critical thinking skills are an important part of the scientific enterprise, right? (Please say a direct “yes” or “no” at this time, because it’s not clear where you stand on this question.) If your answer is “yes”, then that’s how the Tennessee bill and other science education bills will help children learn. Get off the canned spoonfeeding, get on the critical thinking.

FL said:

By demonstrating that you are too cowardly to explain how these anti-science, anti-education bills will help children learn science

Hmm. At 900 am, this morning, I posted the following explanation. You missed it. I'll repeat it again for you, but you need to read it this time. With comprehension.

You agree that critical thinking skills are an important part of the scientific enterprise, right? (Please say a direct “yes” or “no” at this time, because it’s not clear where you stand on this question.) If your answer is “yes”, then that’s how the Tennessee bill and other science education bills will help children learn. Get off the canned spoonfeeding, get on the critical thinking.

FL

"Conference Concludes Origin of Life Research Is at a Standstill" by Brian Thomas, M.S. (March 11, 2011) Where did the first living cell come from? According to The Independent, Charles Darwin "was flummoxed by the ultimate mystery of mysteries: what led to the origin of life itself?"1 Since Darwin's time, his naturalistic followers have been diligently seeking the answer. During a recent conference at Arizona State University, a collection of scientists discussed this very question. By the end of the discussion, the answer was clear—they don't know. "Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan.2 (continued at the following link) http://www.icr.org/article/6023/

"Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began." http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28

FL, if there's a science teacher alive who's prepared to tell a class that the origin of life is known, and it's that life arose in a "primordial soup" in the general environment of the early oceans, then that teacher is teaching an error. The origins of life are not exactly known. Period.

I very much doubt if there is such a teacher anywhere. If there were, the school administration would have every right to call his or her professional competence into question. All your efforts are directed against a castle in the air. You might as well lay lance in rest and charge a windmill.

However, if a teacher taught students that the origins of life are not exactly known, but that there are several hypotheses, that these hypotheses have become steadily more refined and specific over recent decades, and that in any case science must attempt to find natural explanations for nature, then that teacher is teaching fact.

And those facts do not help you in the least. Quibble all you like over what the various hypotheses are called. It avails you nothing. Supernatural special creation of life or of the species is not on the table, and it is going to stay off the table.

FL said:

Some scientists may strongly disfavor this particular category of abiogenesis hypothesis, possibly even for good reason, but it is still a historically important hypothesis that fuels research to this day.

So, you DO concede that some scientists "may strongly disfavor" the standard, textbook-taught primordial soup hypothesis, "possibly even for good reason." That is good. And we've already seen some of those reasons, and the names of the scientists too.

So here's the deal (and this is for everybody): Are you willing to support the Tennessee science education bill, which would conceivably allow science and biology teachers to discuss with their classes, those same scientists' "good reasons" for "disfavoring" the primordial soup hypothesis?

Do you want canned spoon-feeding straight from the biology textbook when the science class arrives at the origin-of-life chapter, or do you want biology students exposed to more than one scientific POV, and guided towards thinking critically about the concepts presented, such as primordial soup?

(Are you even willing to allow high school biology teachers to expose their students to recent ScienceDaily articles that discuss primordial soup being abandoned by scientists? Hmmm?)

It's just something to think about. How would you respond?

FL the delusional malicious mendacious IDiot opined:

Is there any reason why the exact words “primordial soup” need to be used in high school Biology?

I can think of an automatic reason Harold: the phrase is used in the high school biology textbooks. (You took high school biology class, right? How about you Stanton?) Let's just put a stop to you guys trying to quibble over the meaning of the phrase 'primordial soup.' Let's just use Glencoe's textbook "Biology: The Dynamics of Life" (2004).

Energy from the sun, volcanoes, and lightning caused chemical reactions among these gases (nitrogen, methane, ammonia, but no free oxygen), which eventually combined into small organic molecules such as amino acids. Rain trapped and then carried these molecules into the oceans, making a primordial soup of organic molecules. In this soup, proteins, lipids and the other complex organic molecules found in present-day cells formed. --pg 388.

Okay, now we're all on the same page as to what 'primordial soup' means. Hopefully. FL

Supernatural special creation of life or of the species is not on the table, and it is going to stay off the table.

The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

FL said:

Supernatural special creation of life or of the species is not on the table, and it is going to stay off the table.

I don't recall the Tennessee science education bill saying anything about "supernatural special creation of life." Do you? The science education goals of the Tennessee bill are very clear and reasonable:

The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, directors of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Seems clear enough. FL

So FL found one high school textbook that, according to him, overstated the case for abiogenesis. Big whoopee. There is a lot of scientific evidence concerning abiogenesis and students should be taught this evidence. They should not be taught that everything is already known or that no questions remain and of course they probably are not. So FL is just tilting at windmills and chasing ghosts.

Now if FL thinks that this logic is sound, perhaps we can find some preacher somewhere who uses his religion to justify his racism. In that case we would be justified in asking everyone to reject that religion and any religion that was anything like it, right?

Dave Luckett said: FL, if there's a science teacher alive who's prepared to tell a class that the origin of life is known, and it's that life arose in a "primordial soup" in the general environment of the early oceans, then that teacher is teaching an error. The origins of life are not exactly known. Period. I very much doubt if there is such a teacher anywhere. If there were, the school administration would have every right to call his or her professional competence into question. All your efforts are directed against a castle in the air. You might as well lay lance in rest and charge a windmill. However, if a teacher taught students that the origins of life are not exactly known, but that there are several hypotheses, that these hypotheses have become steadily more refined and specific over recent decades, and that in any case science must attempt to find natural explanations for nature, then that teacher is teaching fact. And those facts do not help you in the least. Quibble all you like over what the various hypotheses are called. It avails you nothing. Supernatural special creation of life or of the species is not on the table, and it is going to stay off the table.

Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God.

FL said:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Seems clear enough.

FL lied: I don’t recall the Tennessee science education bill saying anything about “supernatural special creation of life.” Do you? The science education goals of the Tennessee bill are very clear and reasonable

Paul Burnett said:

FL said:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Seems clear enough.

You forgot to include the "[wink wink nudge nudge]" that everybody knows is really there.

Follow the trail in every state that has had one of these “critical thinking” bills proposed: Not a one of the proposers has a scientific background. They are all legislators that have previously proposed or supported an overtly religious creationist - not scientific - agenda. This is just another thinly disguised attempt at the same tired goal of replacing science with religiously-inspired scientific illiteracy.

FL said: Ummm, Dale, the rest of the ScienceDaily article does NOT contradict the first sections of it which I quoted, nor does it contradict the headline. (It's the same article, duhhh!) The rest of the article simply explains the details (that are summarized in its first couple paragraphs. If you look carefully, you'll even see that the part I quoted, the first couple paragraphs, mentions the alternative theory being offered by the researchers.) Gotta do better 'n' that, people. Sheesh! FL

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: Scientists still haven’t found ANY geological evidence of ANY primordial soup.

That's easy - it all got eaten - there was none left.

If the Tennessee bill was really an effort to teach “critical thinking”, then why limit its scope to discussing biological evolution, cloning and anthropogenic global warming?

(a) The general assembly finds that: (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens; (2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and (3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

I have to wonder, in those states in which bills are proposed to allow "critical analysis" to be taught, how many of them currently have laws or regulations that would prevent teaching actual methods of critical analysis?

If they don't have laws preventing it (and I'd be very surprised if any of them have that), then why the alleged need for a law to permit it?

Henry J

FL said:

If the Tennessee bill was really an effort to teach “critical thinking”, then why limit its scope to discussing biological evolution, cloning and anthropogenic global warming?

Take another look John. It's clearly NOT limited to just those items.

(a) The general assembly finds that: (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens; (2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and (3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

So that's definitely clear enough. FL

FL the delusional IDiot barked:

If the Tennessee bill was really an effort to teach “critical thinking”, then why limit its scope to discussing biological evolution, cloning and anthropogenic global warming?

Take another look John. It's clearly NOT limited to just those items.

(a) The general assembly finds that: (1) An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens; (2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and (3) Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

So that's definitely clear enough. FL

Dale Husband said: Gee, why don't we also encourage critical thinking of the Bible and the dogmas based on it, and the history of religion too? Oh, you are opposed to that because you'd rather have people accept those dogmas without question and beleive whatever lies you and the other fundamentalist cult leaders say. You are a fraud and a hypocrite, FL.

Henry J said: I have to wonder, in those states in which bills are proposed to allow "critical analysis" to be taught, how many of them currently have laws or regulations that would prevent teaching actual methods of critical analysis? If they don't have laws preventing it (and I'd be very surprised if any of them have that), then why the alleged need for a law to permit it? Henry J

FL believes - for official purposes, anyway - that a bill that says its concerns are not limited to "evolution, global warming, origin of life, and human cloning" must mean just that. It's only a coincidence that it specifies those, only another that they happen to be the bugbears of the fundamentalist far right.

Can he really think such a disclaimer is to be accepted? Why? Because it's said?

Can he really think even if that disclaimer were accepted, it makes any difference to the effect of the legislation?

It seems that FL does think he can argue that if there are words in the bill that say the bill seeks to encourage "critical thinking", and there are other words that say inter alia that it isn't mainly concerned with criticising evolution, that this must be true.

The disconnect from reality is so blatant that even he must be able to see it. Or you'd think so - but I wonder. How disconnected is FL?

DS said: Look everyone knows the history of these stupid bills, the motivation behind them, the way they have been implemented and the way they have evolved over time. Ask yourself this, if they will only improve science education, why does FL care? He hates science. He absolutely refuses to learn any science. He isn't the one for giving any advice on the subject.

mrg said:

Marilyn said: The bill doesn’t seem like anti-science to me, or anti-evolution. More like freedom to teach, research, and to learn. If science can achieve a certain level to the extent where there are rights and wrongs then these should be explained and the reasons why it is right or wrong. There is an amount of ethics to be taken into consideration with some research and subjects; also there can be too many restrictions. Some time for discussion is good. For me there is sense in this bill.

Oh, how tiresome.

mrg said: The bills are not intended to promote skepticism, instead being created (so to speak) to push pseudoskepticism: "I'm just an impartial critic, only interested in the truth -- I don't have a dog in the fight." "Then it seems very odd that you are performing a hatchet job on the white dog while completely ignoring the black dog."

So, you DO concede that some scientists “may strongly disfavor” the standard, textbook-taught primordial soup hypothesis, “possibly even for good reason.” That is good. And we’ve already seen some of those reasons, and the names of the scientists too.

So here’s the deal (and this is for everybody): Are you willing to support the Tennessee science education bill,

which would conceivably allow science and biology teachers to discuss with their classes, those same scientists’ “good reasons” for “disfavoring” the primordial soup hypothesis?

Do you want canned spoon-feeding straight from the biology textbook when the science class arrives at the origin-of-life chapter, or do you want biology students exposed to more than one scientific POV, and guided towards thinking critically about the concepts presented, such as primordial soup?

(Are you even willing to allow high school biology teachers to expose their students to recent ScienceDaily articles that discuss primordial soup being abandoned by scientists? Hmmm?)

It’s just something to think about. How would you respond?

Marilyn said: I associate black and white as in being read all over or something that has been made clear to understand not black is wrong or white is right or visa versa. Tiresome or not there comes a time when mum says don’t do that it is wrong, and perhaps you will agree, there are things you shouldn’t do because it is wrong or should do because it is right. Also you have to take a bit of hindsight and foresight into consideration.

mrg said:

Marilyn said: I associate black and white as in being read all over or something that has been made clear to understand not black is wrong or white is right or visa versa. Tiresome or not there comes a time when mum says don’t do that it is wrong, and perhaps you will agree, there are things you shouldn’t do because it is wrong or should do because it is right. Also you have to take a bit of hindsight and foresight into consideration.

What language are you writing in? I would like to run it through a translation utility so I can figure out what it says.

Marilyn said: I associate black and white as in being read all over or something that has been made clear to understand not black is wrong or white is right or visa versa.

Tiresome or not there comes a time when mum says don’t do that it is wrong, and perhaps you will agree, there are things you shouldn’t do because it is wrong or should do because it is right. Also you have to take a bit of hindsight and foresight into consideration.

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class? Does he really think that it will stop the law suits? Does he really think that it will override the constitution? Does he really think that it will increase science scores?

Maybe it will just be an easy way to tell which states are still teaching real science and which states have sold out to the religious right. Do you really want your state to be identified with the anti science nut jobs when you are trying to attract scientists and businesses in order to save your economy? Do you really want to fall into another Dover trap and ruin education for everyone? Wait ... what? Oh. Never mind.

John Kwok said: I believe that's supposedly British English translated into Russian, which was translated into Mandarin Chinese, and then, miraculously, translated back into English. I'm still pugzling over Marilyn's queer comments myself.

In short, the Tennesee bill is another Lie For Jesus.

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class?

FL said:

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class?

Hmm. You've been waiting OVER 3 YEARS for that to happen in Louisiana. Why hasn't it happened?

FL said:

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class?

Hmm. You've been waiting OVER 3 YEARS for that to happen in Louisiana. Why hasn't it happened?

Umm, you skipped the question DS. Do you concede that one point?

eric said: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here FL.

eric said:

FL said:

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class?

Hmm. You've been waiting OVER 3 YEARS for that to happen in Louisiana. Why hasn't it happened?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here FL. If it's that we should be happy that the LSEA has apparently not led to more creationism being taught in classrooms, I agree. It has not done what you and your ilk wanted it to do, and that is a good thing. I think maybe what you're doing is trying to parse a practical defeat as a symbolic victory. The legislation did not have the effect on the classroom that you wanted it to have. So you've been reduced to crowing about its mere passage. "Our team arrived at the stadium without injury! Time to celebrate!" Its quite comical.

John Kwok said:

eric said:

FL said:

Does FL really think that passing this bill will help at all when creationists start using it as an excuse to preach in science class?

Hmm. You've been waiting OVER 3 YEARS for that to happen in Louisiana. Why hasn't it happened?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here FL. If it's that we should be happy that the LSEA has apparently not led to more creationism being taught in classrooms, I agree. It has not done what you and your ilk wanted it to do, and that is a good thing. I think maybe what you're doing is trying to parse a practical defeat as a symbolic victory. The legislation did not have the effect on the classroom that you wanted it to have. So you've been reduced to crowing about its mere passage. "Our team arrived at the stadium without injury! Time to celebrate!" Its quite comical.

With any luck, LSEA will be repealed by the LA legislature. I know that LA state senator Peterson is planning to introduce legislation soon (I don't think I am at liberty to say) that will do just that.

FL said: Umm, you skipped the question DS. Do you concede that one point?

FL said: Umm, you skipped the question DS. Do you concede that one point?

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

FL said:

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

Documentation? Proof? Evidence? Anything?

DS said: (FL isn't) a very good example of how to learn science.

Heh, FL ran from these questions well over a year ago.

Regarding the bills...
1) Good teachers teach critical analysis anyway. So these bills are a waste of paper.

2) ID and creationism are still religious based systems and therefore illegal to teach in public schools. Federal courts decided this issue, so states have no say in the matter. So in that respect, these laws are a waste of paper.

3) Creationist teachers will (and do) illegally teach creationism anyway (breaking one of the guiding principles of Christianity) regardless of what the law says. These bills are a waste of paper.

Hey FL, you ran out on other thread when I asked you provide any scientific notion that was proven correct vie legislative action.

BTW: It was october of 2009, if I recall correctly when you said you would provide evidence that ID was science and could be taught in the classroom. You never did.

While you're at it, since you think you can teach ID in Tennessee now, why don't you provide us with a lesson plan than includes 40% laboratoty time than can be used to show, unambiguously that ID has merit. In other words, your lab and teaching method will have to convince people of all religions or no religion that ID is correct.

And if you can do that, why not present it to some actual scientists and see what they think? Oh wait... nevermind.

FL the utterly clueless, quite delusional, Xian IDiot barfed:

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

Documentation? Proof? Evidence? Anything?

FL said:

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

Documentation? Proof? Evidence? Anything?

mrg said:

eric said: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here FL.

I found it humorous: "In three years, this law has had ABSOLUTELY NO PERCEPTIBLE EFFECT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!" That makes it seem as something a bit silly to fight against -- but then again just as silly to fight FOR.

OgreMkV said:

FL said:

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

Documentation? Proof? Evidence? Anything?

Just out of curiosity (and you don't have to answer, I just want it stated), why do you think you have the right to demand evidence of us when you refuse to provide requested evidence of your statements? Why do you demand we answer your questions without answering ours?

There are no good reasons why students should be exposed to only one para-cognitive interpretation of metaphysical phenomena. Darwinian metaphysics is not the only possible metaphysics. Why shouldn't all possible perspectives on ontology and cosmogony be studied? This could perhaps be done in a religious studies class with Darwinism as one of the religions.

mrg said:

John Kwok said: I believe that's supposedly British English translated into Russian, which was translated into Mandarin Chinese, and then, miraculously, translated back into English. I'm still pugzling over Marilyn's queer comments myself.

Y'know, come to think of it, it DOES look like something spat out by an online language translator.

BTW: It was october of 2009, if I recall correctly when you said you would provide evidence that ID was science and could be taught in the classroom. You never did.

Marilyn said: If evolution and creation is conflicting with each other then the definite points for each should be made clear and with any other subject in science and nature. Perhaps not in the evolution class or creation class but in a separate class that should be part of the curriculum. Or at least two sessions should be put aside to cover the possibilities or facts of strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories. If the differences can be pointed out then and there in class then why not I don't think it would be out of place. The right to disagree or agree should remain.

Marilyn said: Though you have found it difficult I think you have understood what I am trying to put over to you, queer comments was not my aim.

FL said:

BTW: It was october of 2009, if I recall correctly when you said you would provide evidence that ID was science and could be taught in the classroom. You never did.

That one's been done on both the ATBC forum and the PT forum, Ogre. Lotsa good jalapeno discussions, as I recall. You'll like 'em. So do a search on both forums. Take your time. Be thorough. Good luck. But I won't do it for you, nor spend any time on this thread with it. My apologies. FL

“Veto this bill, Gov. Jindal, or explain to Louisiana taxpayers the pointless waste of public money that will inevitably ensue from your signing it.” Unfortunately for Governor Jindal and his state, Derbyshire’s Cassandra-like warning has borne ample fruit.

Mike Elzinga said: One can already find all the debunking needed against ID/creationism in published books and on line.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: One can already find all the debunking needed against ID/creationism in published books and on line.

Besides, wouldn't it be redundant to ask the class to read INTELLIGENT DESIGN FOR DUMMIES?

Mike Elzinga said: It should be “DUMMIES FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN.”

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It should be “DUMMIES FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN.”

No, that would be the author citation.

I was there remember FL?

Your sole comment on the subject was “Privileged Planet” and that was refuted so quickly, you ran back to Biblical arguments.

FL said:

He doesn’t, because Creationists use the Louisiana Bill to forcefeed Creationism pseudoscience and religious propaganda to students

Documentation? Proof? Evidence? Anything?

FL said:

I was there remember FL?

Oh yes, I remember well. You and some others had extensive difficulty with the ID material that was presented.

Your sole comment on the subject was “Privileged Planet” and that was refuted so quickly, you ran back to Biblical arguments.

Readers can go back to the ATBC forum for themselves, and do the search for the FL Debate Thread. Then they can verify your statements for themselves. Suffice it to say that you (1) do not have a copy of that book, (2) are utterly bereft of any knowledge of the book's contents (because you've never read the book, not even for free at your local library), save what I shared with you on ATBC. And (3) you remain unable to refute even that much. To my surprise, the ATBC posters CONTINUED to ask questions and offer challenges on the primary debate topic (Evolution Incompatible with Christianity) while I was attempting to discuss the ID issue. Apparently some evolutionist nerves had been struck, yes? So I tried to accomodate them as well as you during the final days of the debate. Also, you are sincerely reminded that "I" was not the guy who got worn out and quit and shut the thread down. Honestly? You ATBC guys got no stamina, no perseverence, no Wheaties. I would have supported another couple of week's worth of dialog. So readers are welcome to go back and search the ATBC forum and see what really happened there. However, THIS thread is about all the good, pro-science stuff they're doing in Tennessee. (Btw, Evolution IS your religion. Plus you're hopped in the sack with Atheism too--a sort of Menage-A-Trois of materialism, as it were. Eww!!) FL

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6313;st=#entry153105 If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity. And furthermore: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/its-not-just-evolution-that-discredits-genesis/ Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6313;st=#entry153218 Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment? :D

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6313;st=#entry153231 Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale. What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread: "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity." What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity. Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility. Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there. Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity. FloydLee

Dave Luckett said: FL believes - for official purposes, anyway - that a bill that says its concerns are not limited to "evolution, global warming, origin of life, and human cloning" must mean just that. It's only a coincidence that it specifies those, only another that they happen to be the bugbears of the fundamentalist far right. Can he really think such a disclaimer is to be accepted? Why? Because it's said? Can he really think even if that disclaimer were accepted, it makes any difference to the effect of the legislation? It seems that FL does think he can argue that if there are words in the bill that say the bill seeks to encourage "critical thinking", and there are other words that say inter alia that it isn't mainly concerned with criticising evolution, that this must be true. The disconnect from reality is so blatant that even he must be able to see it. Or you'd think so - but I wonder. How disconnected is FL?

Dale Husband said: So he sidestepped the real issue!

JohnVanko said: They are pre-modern and have not yet arrived at the age of reason.

FL said:

I was there remember FL?

Oh yes, I remember well. You and some others had extensive difficulty with the ID material that was presented.

However, THIS thread is about all the good, pro-science stuff they're doing in Tennessee.

(Btw, Evolution IS your religion. Plus you're hopped in the sack with Atheism too--a sort of Menage-A-Trois of materialism, as it were. Eww!!) FL

I wonder if making kids stupider and deliberately mistrustful and illiterate of science for Jesus is FL's definition of "critical thinking skills."

Marilyn said:

mrg said:

John Kwok said: I believe that's supposedly British English translated into Russian, which was translated into Mandarin Chinese, and then, miraculously, translated back into English. I'm still pugzling over Marilyn's queer comments myself.

Y'know, come to think of it, it DOES look like something spat out by an online language translator.

Though you have found it difficult I think you have understood what I am trying to put over to you, queer comments was not my aim. If I were a student going into a biology class I would expect that I would be there to learn biology but if someone could point out where something was wrong then I would appreciate their explanation of correction. If evolution and creation is conflicting with each other then the definite points for each should be made clear and with any other subject in science and nature. Perhaps not in the evolution class or creation class but in a separate class that should be part of the curriculum. Or at least two sessions should be put aside to cover the possibilities or facts of strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories. If the differences can be pointed out then and there in class then why not I don't think it would be out of place. The right to disagree or agree should remain. I appreciate your translation skills with my comment.

FL the delusional malicious mendacious Xian IDiot barked:

“Veto this bill, Gov. Jindal, or explain to Louisiana taxpayers the pointless waste of public money that will inevitably ensue from your signing it.” Unfortunately for Governor Jindal and his state, Derbyshire’s Cassandra-like warning has borne ample fruit.

"Ample fruit"? Please document exactly what this means. Give link's, cut-n-paste's, anything, just show me the actual evidence of this "ample fruit", and specifically show where any "public money has been wasted" because of the passage of the LSEA three years ago. (And ya better not have a buncha worms in that ample fruit either!) FL

harold said: It's still a crappy bill, and I'm glad it's going away, but I do appreciate you pointing out that it also didn't work for you.

Evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory. You may as well say gravity or relativity is a religion. Let's drop the nonsense and try to stay on point, please.

First of all, I know I'm a newcomer. I haven't been part of the never-ending go-round, and my opinions may seem naive. I do not believe that FL's questions are being answered directly. I also believe that some kind of "evolution compatible with Christianity" argument is displacing the main thrust of this thread, which is to weigh whether the Tennessee critical thinking bill is in the best interest of science education.

FL asked if you read the book. If not, say no. He also asks for proof that creationists are forcefeeding their ideas to students in the classrooms down there. Now, there's got to be a public of that. Find it and post it. Or admit that you can't and give him his point.

John Kwok reminds us that mainstream Christianity has no trouble with evolution. That's true. If a fringe element of Christianity insists upon emphasizing a discontinuity between these perspectives, they do so in spite of this fact.

We all must recognize that teaching students "strengths and weaknesses" has drawbacks. Ask a classroom filled with adolescents to explain nuclear fission to the best of their ability, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their theories to the existing model of the atomic nucleus. Then give them two weeks to build an H-bomb. What do you mean you don't know how! We talked about it in class! This may convince a roomful of students that some ideas are quite lofty and cannot be applied given a cursory understanding of their mechanics.

your snide insult....

“Even in your own holy book it says life came from inanimate dust”

John Kwok said: If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution, by recognizing that mainstream science has established the reality of biological evolution without a doubt, then what's yours, FL's and other delusional creos excuses for not following in their wake.

FL said: (Oooh, did I say that? Yeah, I said that. Because it's true. What, you think your pal St. Darwin is gonna save anybody's butt from Hell-Fire-With-Barbecue-Sauce? You and every hungry-jack demon in Hades Kitchen knows that ain't true!)

“Even in your own holy book it says life came from inanimate dust”

That's just plain wrong, and IBIG correctly told Phhht "No" on that one. Phhht is wrong on that one. IBIG is correct. In the Bible, it does NOT say that life came from inanimate dust. In the Bible, life only comes from life. In the Bible, life and living biological objects, NEVER appear naturalistically. Did you know that? Not even plants. They ONLY appear through the living God's own supernatural actions. (Usually a vocal command, except for human origins--now THAT was Next-Level business.) God merely said a vocal command--nothing more, and no "deep time" either--and then birds/aquatics/land animals SUDDENLY appear where NONE existed before. (See Genesis 1.) God breathes His breath of life into an inanimate human figure fashioned (by God himself) out of pure dirt, and then it SUDDENLY becomes a living human full of cells neurons heart nerves circulatory ligaments tissue, and an immaterial mind and immaterial soul, all at once. Each time, each situation, the appearances of life in the Bible are immediate (absent one minute, present next minute)--and totally beyond the reach of mutation and natural selection, or ANY natural laws theories hypotheses at all, to explain. (See Genesis 1 again.) So, long story short, Phhht is wrong; IBIG is right. FL

So, in other words, FL, you want that God magically poofed everything into existence taught as science, in a science classroom, instead of actual science.

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone "critical thinking skills"?

You also haven't explained why Intelligent Design is scientific and not religious, and you still haven't explained how the anti-science, anti-education bill in Tennessee will help children learn when previous, identically worded bills have failed to help children improve their education.

tomh said:

John Kwok said: If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution, by recognizing that mainstream science has established the reality of biological evolution without a doubt, then what's yours, FL's and other delusional creos excuses for not following in their wake.

Dumbest argument ever.

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

tomh said:

John Kwok said: If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution, by recognizing that mainstream science has established the reality of biological evolution without a doubt, then what's yours, FL's and other delusional creos excuses for not following in their wake.

Dumbest argument ever.

FL said: Just to move us somewhat closer to the original topic of Tennesee and other states, let me offer a simple statement from the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987):

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

Do you guys agree with the Supreme Court on this one? Or do you disagree? And if so, why? FL

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone “critical thinking skills”?

FL said: Anyway, let me respond to something Mr. Phhht said to IBIG, something John Vanko noted.

“Even in your own holy book it says life came from inanimate dust”

That's just plain wrong, and IBIG correctly told Phhht "No" on that one. Phhht is wrong on that one. IBIG is correct. In the Bible, it does NOT say that life came from inanimate dust. In the Bible, life only comes from life. In the Bible, life and living biological objects, NEVER appear naturalistically. Did you know that? Not even plants. They ONLY appear through the living God's own supernatural actions. (Usually a vocal command, except for human origins--now THAT was Next-Level business.) God merely said a vocal command--nothing more, and no "deep time" either--and then birds/aquatics/land animals SUDDENLY appear where NONE existed before. (See Genesis 1.) God breathes His breath of life into an inanimate human figure fashioned (by God himself) out of pure dirt, and then it SUDDENLY becomes a living human full of cells neurons heart nerves circulatory ligaments tissue, and an immaterial mind and immaterial soul, all at once. Each time, each situation, the appearances of life in the Bible are immediate (absent one minute, present next minute)--and totally beyond the reach of mutation and natural selection, or ANY natural laws theories hypotheses at all, to explain. (See Genesis 1 again.) So, long story short, Phhht is wrong; IBIG is right. FL

God merely said a vocal command–nothing more, and no “deep time” either–and then birds/aquatics/land animals SUDDENLY appear where NONE existed before. (See Genesis 1.) God breathes His breath of life into an inanimate human figure fashioned (by God himself) out of pure dirt, and then it SUDDENLY becomes a living human full of cells neurons heart nerves circulatory ligaments tissue, and an immaterial mind and immaterial soul, all at once. Each time, each situation, the appearances of life in the Bible are immediate (absent one minute, present next minute)–and totally beyond the reach of mutation and natural selection, or ANY natural laws theories hypotheses at all, to explain. (See Genesis 1 again.)

FL said: Just to move us somewhat closer to the original topic of Tennesee and other states, let me offer a simple statement from the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987):

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

Do you guys agree with the Supreme Court on this one? Or do you disagree? And if so, why? FL

FL said:

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone “critical thinking skills”?

I said that what God did was specifically supernatural. Didn't say "scientific" at all. Nor did I call for teaching Gen. 1 in biology classrooms. I said nothing in my previous post about Gen. 1 being "an alternative scientific explanation." Didn't say anything about teaching creationism or Genesis in the science classroom AT ALL. See, folks? This is that shifting-tactic I was referring to earlier. My previous post dealt ONLY with correcting Mr. Phhht's mistaken statement about what the Bible said. That's all. And that's precisely when we see the shifting-tactic kicking in. Unable to just respond to my specific reply concerning Phhht's specific claim, here comes the other stuff, stuff I hadn't mentioned at all. (Needless to say, this tactic was visible at near-pandemic levels during the marathon ATBC debate. Go figure.) FL

What, you think your pal St. Darwin is gonna save anybody's butt from Hell-Fire-With-Barbecue-Sauce? You and every hungry-jack demon in Hades Kitchen knows that ain't true!)

FL said:

I was there remember FL?

Oh yes, I remember well. You and some others had extensive difficulty with the ID material that was presented.

Your sole comment on the subject was “Privileged Planet” and that was refuted so quickly, you ran back to Biblical arguments.

Readers can go back to the ATBC forum for themselves, and do the search for the FL Debate Thread. Then they can verify your statements for themselves. Suffice it to say that you (1) do not have a copy of that book, (2) are utterly bereft of any knowledge of the book's contents (because you've never read the book, not even for free at your local library), save what I shared with you on ATBC. And (3) you remain unable to refute even that much. To my surprise, the ATBC posters CONTINUED to ask questions and offer challenges on the primary debate topic (Evolution Incompatible with Christianity) while I was attempting to discuss the ID issue. Apparently some evolutionist nerves had been struck, yes? So I tried to accomodate them as well as you during the final days of the debate. Also, you are sincerely reminded that "I" was not the guy who got worn out and quit and shut the thread down. Honestly? You ATBC guys got no stamina, no perseverence, no Wheaties. I would have supported another couple of week's worth of dialog. So readers are welcome to go back and search the ATBC forum and see what really happened there. However, THIS thread is about all the good, pro-science stuff they're doing in Tennessee. (Btw, Evolution IS your religion. Plus you're hopped in the sack with Atheism too--a sort of Menage-A-Trois of materialism, as it were. Eww!!) FL

Jason Scott said: It deserves more than a snarky rejoinder. Make your case.

Malchus said: Floyd never presented any evidence that Christianity and evolution are in conflict. He also never presented any evidence that ID is valid.

“Even in your own holy book it says life came from inanimate dust”

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Gen. 1:20) And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.(Gen. 1:24)

Jason Scott said: First of all, I know I'm a newcomer. I haven't been part of the never-ending go-round, and my opinions may seem naive. I do not believe that FL's questions are being answered directly.

tomh said:

Jason Scott said: It deserves more than a snarky rejoinder. Make your case.

Make my case? Kwok made it for me. Because three religious leaders claim that they see no confilict between creation and evolution, Kwok says that one needs an excuse for not "following in their wake." In other words, one should just accept their opinions without question. If that sounds like a good argument to you, I see little hope for you. To me it sounds like the dumbest argument ever.

FL said: Check it out Dale. Mr. Phhht said:

“Even in your own holy book it says life came from inanimate dust”

Even the verses YOU quoted are sufficient to disprove what Phhht said. For in each of your verses, God INITIATED something, and HIS prior action caused the living objects to appear--so it's clearly God from whom life came, NOT "from inanimate dust" as Phhht claimed. *** Meanwhile, exactly how did "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air", as you quoted? You are specifically told how God did it in chapter 1.

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” (Gen. 1:20) And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.(Gen. 1:24)

In both cases, you see a direct vocal command from God. THAT's how it happened. You are told directly what happened. God simply SPOKE, and that incalculably powerful Voice literally commanded the stated life to appear. One minute absent, the next minute present. Nothing could stop or even delay that Divine command once given. Btw, there's nothing necessarily wrong with what you suggested about it maybe taking several hours to get all the birds or all the cows in place, but the fact is that the birds/animals would necessarily START poppin' up as soon as God gave the vocal command for each category (air/water/land). Why? Because there was Nothing to stop or even delay His command from executing. Remember, the Genesis text doesn't even suggest the SLIGHTEST amount of delay at all, following each command. And of course, evolution could never produce this sort of mass creation action within a few short hours anyway. *** So, Dale, thanks for helping me refute Phhht's claim. (And don't bother denying it, 'cause you DID!!) FL

Floyd never presented any evidence that Christianity and evolution are in conflict.

1. According to biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation, absolutely necessary, to explain the origin of the first humans. (Gen. 2:7, 2:21-22.) Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. "First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. "It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." --Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000.

"Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..." ---David Olroyd, The Weekend Review (Australia), Mar. 20-21, 1993.

"Evolution has no goal." -- Jerry Coyne "Evolution has no goal." -- Talk Origins website "Evolution has no goal." -- Biology 391 Online, "Organic Evolution", University at Tennessee-Martin "...(A) completely mindless process. The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past." -- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition (textbook).

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." -- "Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007.

"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man." -- evolutionary philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals (textbook), 1990.

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. "Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!" ---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978.

"(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms..." "I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution." --Jacques Monod, (TV interview, June 10 1976).

"What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?" "...Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend." ---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, June 21, 2008.

Mike Elzinga said: What he apparently wants to do is constantly discuss his sectarian beliefs; and so eventually he will attempt to drag every discussion into an argument over who is a “true” Christian (it is he, of course).

FL said: Well, certainly an interesting night. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to go to bed and dream about PandasThumb. (Or would that count as a nightmare? Hmm.) Since Malchus is busy praying for me (thanks again!), I suppose I should at least offer a small response before retiring. Malchus wrote:

Floyd never presented any evidence that Christianity and evolution are in conflict.

Let's check that out. *** After the ATBC debate, I combined my ATBC "Evolution Incompatible with Christianity" evidences into one neat, readable list for future use. Here it is. Think it over, hmm? (Numerous QUOTES and assertions (but NO evidences) from various sources, cherry picked and arranged according to FL's extreme biases)

Dale Husband said: You forget that Kwok was talking about a religious issue, not a scientific one. I suppose you think religions themselves are dumb, but that opinion of yours does not invalidate Kwok's argument; it only shows your extreme bias on the subject.

tomh said:

Dale Husband said: You forget that Kwok was talking about a religious issue, not a scientific one. I suppose you think religions themselves are dumb, but that opinion of yours does not invalidate Kwok's argument; it only shows your extreme bias on the subject.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Kwok's argument is that, "If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution," then all "delusional creos," (and, presumably, everyone else), should "follow in their wake." This is the argument you find so compelling?

John Kwok said:

Marilyn said: Though you have found it difficult I think you have understood what I am trying to put over to you, queer comments was not my aim. If I were a student going into a biology class I would expect that I would be there to learn biology but if someone could point out where something was wrong then I would appreciate their explanation of correction. If evolution and creation is conflicting with each other then the definite points for each should be made clear and with any other subject in science and nature. Perhaps not in the evolution class or creation class but in a separate class that should be part of the curriculum. Or at least two sessions should be put aside to cover the possibilities or facts of strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories. If the differences can be pointed out then and there in class then why not I don't think it would be out of place. The right to disagree or agree should remain. I appreciate your translation skills with my comment.

Sorry Marilyn, I concur with mrg that I would rate your "translation" skills on a 0 to 10 scale. What he has merely alluded to, I shall state; your remarks rate a 0 (Zero). If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution, by recognizing that mainstream science has established the reality of biological evolution without a doubt, then what's yours, FL's and other delusional creos excuses for not following in their wake. As the "notorious" accomodationist Ken Miller has said, those who espouse faiths hostile to science should reject them. The Dalai Lama has said that if Buddhism is wrong and science right, then Buddhism must conform to science. Instead of adhering to your primitive, irrational beliefs that predate the Dark Ages in Europe, then maybe you should heed Ken Miller and the Dalai Lama's advice.

The next full moon isn’t until 2:44 GMT, Mon, April 18, 2011.

Dale Husband said:

tomh said:

Jason Scott said: It deserves more than a snarky rejoinder. Make your case.

Make my case? Kwok made it for me. Because three religious leaders claim that they see no confilict between creation and evolution, Kwok says that one needs an excuse for not "following in their wake." In other words, one should just accept their opinions without question. If that sounds like a good argument to you, I see little hope for you. To me it sounds like the dumbest argument ever.

You are welcome to your opinion. However, I do not require your hope for me. Don't pick a fight with me; state a fact, or make a point of clarification. I'm doing my best to tackle the vitriol. Help me out. I think the difference as stated is not that one should accept arguments without question, but that one should realize how mainstream religions are in concert with science and how fringe groups are not. Arguments for a biblical literalist reading of creation are certainly within a person's freedom to worship, but they are not scientific arguments.

Jason Scott said:

tomh said: Make my case? Kwok made it for me. Because three religious leaders claim that they see no confilict between creation and evolution, Kwok says that one needs an excuse for not "following in their wake." In other words, one should just accept their opinions without question. If that sounds like a good argument to you, I see little hope for you. To me it sounds like the dumbest argument ever.

You are welcome to your opinion. However, I do not require your hope for me. Don't pick a fight with me; state a fact, or make a point of clarification. I'm doing my best to tackle the vitriol. Help me out. I think the difference as stated is not that one should accept arguments without question, but that one should realize how mainstream religions are in concert with science and how fringe groups are not. Arguments for a biblical literalist reading of creation are certainly within a person's freedom to worship, but they are not scientific arguments.

Another way of looking at the issue is: On being told that religion and (evo) science are inherently incompatible, it is an obvious statement of fact that there is no consensus on that claim among the devout, and no expectation that there will be a consensus any time soon.

Of course, since I don't care in the slightest if someone passionately believes in the Big G or indignantly does not, my question is more why I would care if religion is incompatible with (evo) science or not.

And ... strictly speaking, this is not a question that says anything about science anyway. If religion has a problem with science, all the sciences can do is shrug and say: "It moves nonetheless."

PS: Since it DOES "move nonetheless", one would hardly be able to avoid concluding that people who are outraged over it have a personal problem -- and conclude that sooner or later, they'll get over it.

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone “critical thinking skills”?

I said that what God did was specifically supernatural. Didn't say "scientific" at all. Nor did I call for teaching Gen. 1 in biology classrooms. I said nothing in my previous post about Gen. 1 being "an alternative scientific explanation." Didn't say anything about teaching creationism or Genesis in the science classroom AT ALL. See, folks? This is that shifting-tactic I was referring to earlier. My previous post dealt ONLY with correcting Mr. Phhht's mistaken statement about what the Bible said. That's all. And that's precisely when we see the shifting-tactic kicking in. Unable to just respond to my specific reply concerning Phhht's specific claim, here comes the other stuff, stuff I hadn't mentioned at all. (Needless to say, this tactic was visible at near-pandemic levels during the marathon ATBC debate. Go figure.) FL

Thank you for confirming that you are a science denier, FL. That also makes you a blasphemer against the real God, since science and its methods have been established via a great many trials over several centuries as being a reliable way to understand the universe which God supposedly made, as well as everything in it. You do not truly beleive in God at all, FL. You worship an idol that happens to be called God and is taught about in the Bible, a man-made book. That's as absurd as me bowing down to worship a tree because I got some fruit from it one day. But the tree didn't create me. Were you created by the God of the Bible? No, because he never existed. If there is a God, he has to be something profoundly different from that silly image we see of him in that 2000 year old book!

John Kwok said:

Dale Husband said:

FL said:

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone “critical thinking skills”?

I said that what God did was specifically supernatural. Didn't say "scientific" at all. Nor did I call for teaching Gen. 1 in biology classrooms. I said nothing in my previous post about Gen. 1 being "an alternative scientific explanation." Didn't say anything about teaching creationism or Genesis in the science classroom AT ALL. See, folks? This is that shifting-tactic I was referring to earlier. My previous post dealt ONLY with correcting Mr. Phhht's mistaken statement about what the Bible said. That's all. And that's precisely when we see the shifting-tactic kicking in. Unable to just respond to my specific reply concerning Phhht's specific claim, here comes the other stuff, stuff I hadn't mentioned at all. (Needless to say, this tactic was visible at near-pandemic levels during the marathon ATBC debate. Go figure.) FL

Thank you for confirming that you are a science denier, FL. That also makes you a blasphemer against the real God, since science and its methods have been established via a great many trials over several centuries as being a reliable way to understand the universe which God supposedly made, as well as everything in it. You do not truly beleive in God at all, FL. You worship an idol that happens to be called God and is taught about in the Bible, a man-made book. That's as absurd as me bowing down to worship a tree because I got some fruit from it one day. But the tree didn't create me. Were you created by the God of the Bible? No, because he never existed. If there is a God, he has to be something profoundly different from that silly image we see of him in that 2000 year old book!

Agreed, and I strongly endorse your observations regarding FL's acute case of mendacity, FL. His just a classic example of Lyin' for JESUS!!!!

FL said:

Why is GODPOOFEDIT scientific? Why do you think it is an alternative scientific explanation? How will forcefeeding children GODPOOFEDIT in a science classroom teach them science, let alone “critical thinking skills”?

I said that what God did was specifically supernatural. Didn't say "scientific" at all. Nor did I call for teaching Gen. 1 in biology classrooms. I said nothing in my previous post about Gen. 1 being "an alternative scientific explanation." Didn't say anything about teaching creationism or Genesis in the science classroom AT ALL. See, folks? This is that shifting-tactic I was referring to earlier. My previous post dealt ONLY with correcting Mr. Phhht's mistaken statement about what the Bible said. That's all. And that's precisely when we see the shifting-tactic kicking in. Unable to just respond to my specific reply concerning Phhht's specific claim, here comes the other stuff, stuff I hadn't mentioned at all. (Needless to say, this tactic was visible at near-pandemic levels during the marathon ATBC debate. Go figure.) FL

tomh said:

John Kwok said: If the Archbishop of Canterbury (the current one), Dalai Lama, and even, Pope Benedict, see no conflict between creation and evolution, by recognizing that mainstream science has established the reality of biological evolution without a doubt, then what's yours, FL's and other delusional creos excuses for not following in their wake.

Dumbest argument ever.

FL said: Well, certainly an interesting night. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to go to bed and dream about PandasThumb. (Or would that count as a nightmare? Hmm.) Since Malchus is busy praying for me (thanks again!), I suppose I should at least offer a small response before retiring. Malchus wrote:

Floyd never presented any evidence that Christianity and evolution are in conflict.

Let's check that out. *** After the ATBC debate, I combined my ATBC "Evolution Incompatible with Christianity" evidences into one neat, readable list for future use. Here it is. Think it over, hmm?

FL,

I'm not interested in your thoroughly debunked 'reasons Chrisitianity and science are incompatible' (and yes, it is science because every single thing you argued in that thread applies to every science. Besides, the mere fact that Ken Miller exists blows your entire notion out of the water... a Christian who studies evolution... oh wait, nevermind, I forgot. You think that Ken Miller is not a Christian because he's Catholic. Silly me. You, if I recall correctly, also think that the pope is not a Christian...

Anyway, I haven't read Privileged Planet because it's completely fallacious. I have limited time for reading and I choose to read real science instead of fairy tale science. It doesn't take hardly any work at all to bebunk the notion that the position of the planet is because of a designer. It's the reasoning of a 4-year-old. I know this because my 4-year-old makes the same kind of correlations.

Now, on to ID. FL, I've asked you 3 times now, if you want ID taught, then present a lesson plan including 40% of the time in a lab that will unambiguously show (to everyone) that ID is correct.

Now, I want to make sure you remember something. This is not about evolution, so no attacks or challenges there. This is not about religion, so don't go there either. This is about the positive evidence for ID that you claimed almost 2 years ago to have and still haven't presented.

BTW: For everyone's benefit, I've got some new research papers on self-replicating RNA that I will post as soon as I get some time to read and write about it.

Make my case? Kwok made it for me. Because three religious leaders claim that they see no confilict between creation and evolution, Kwok says that one needs an excuse for not “following in their wake.” In other words, one should just accept their opinions without question.

If that sounds like a good argument to you, I see little hope for you. To me it sounds like the dumbest argument ever.

FL said: "So, long story short, Phhht is wrong; IBIG is right."

He also asks for proof that creationists are forcefeeding their ideas to students in the classrooms down there. Now, there’s got to be a public of that. Find it and post it. Or admit that you can’t and give him his point.

John Vanko said:

FL said: "So, long story short, Phhht is wrong; IBIG is right."

Herein lies a serious problem. For FL, and for IBIG. If FL's Creator is more than just a Magician who transforms inanimate dust into living beings (which is simply divinely-guided abiogenesis, as phhht was arguing, but abiogenesis nonetheless), then the Magician has put Himself into every living thing. Every living thing is a direct descendant of the Magician! (Common divine descent.) That's Pantheism. And FL is, evidently, confirming and promoting Hinduism. I wonder if the congregation at FL's church knows he espouses uniting Christianity with Hinduism? I don't think they would approve of that. Perhaps he should consider retracting his claim.

OgreMkV said: Yet, in none of that has any scientist found any evidence of anything beyond natural law.

Matt Young said:

He also asks for proof that creationists are forcefeeding their ideas to students in the classrooms down there. Now, there’s got to be a public of that. Find it and post it. Or admit that you can’t and give him his point.

I have been following this thread as little as possible (having read it all before), but I assume that "down there" is Louisiana. I have no specific information, but you may be interested in this article, which states, "The authors estimate that 14-21 % of teachers unconstitutionally endorse creationism in the classroom, while others find ways to undermine the theory of evolution or avoid teaching it entirely."

1. According to biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation, absolutely necessary, to explain the origin of the first humans. (Gen. 2:7, 2:21-22.) Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. “It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).” –Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000. “Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process…” —David Olroyd, The Weekend Review (Australia), Mar. 20-21, 1993.

2. According to biblical Christianity God, and Jesus as well, created everything specifically with TELEOLOGY (goal-directedness, purposefulness, and conscious forethought). The Bible makes clear that humans were not “lucky accidents” (to borrow evolutionist Ken Miller’s phrase), instead we humans were and are purposefully created. See Gen. 1:26-27 and Col. 1:16. However, evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. “Evolution has no goal.” – Jerry Coyne “Evolution has no goal.” – Talk Origins website “Evolution has no goal.” – Biology 391 Online, “Organic Evolution”, University at Tennessee-Martin “…(A) completely mindless process. The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past.” – Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition (textbook).

3. According to biblical Christianity, we humans were, and are, specifically created in the image of God. See Gen. 1:26-27. (Btw, only humans were created in the image of God, not animals.) However, evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.” – “Evolution and the Brain”, Nature science journal, June 14, 2007. “The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view. It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man.” – evolutionary philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals (textbook), 1990.

4. Evolution teaches (in fact, absolutely requires) that death was present on this planet PRIOR TO Adam and Eve’s famous sin (commonly known as the Fall). This evolutionist monster directly crashes into the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in Romans 5:12-17. How bad is the Train-Wreck? VERY bad. Here, read this: “Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. “Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins–and this is what evolution means–then Christianity is nothing!” —- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978.

5. Biblical Christianity: God is loving and caring towards all, he even cares for animals (for example, Matt. 10:29). Evolutionary theory clearly denies this foundational claim. “(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms…” “I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.” –Jacques Monod, (TV interview, June 10 1976). “What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn’t God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?” “…Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend.” —Jason Rosenhouse’s Evolutionblog, June 21, 2008.

Dave, I'd like to just add that this is perfect example of Floyd's cherry-picking.

If he claims that Mayr's statement is universally correct, then why doesn't he also acept Mayr's other statements, specifically in support of evolution.

FL, you can't pick and choose. If you use one quote as an expert opinion, then you must use all of them.

In any case, Mayr is not talking about science here. He's discussing his opinion. It obviously wouldn't be scientific if I said, 'red cars are better than otehr cars'.

Learning to tell the difference between a scientific statement that has evidential support and an opinion that may or may not have evidential support is a skill that I suggest you pick up.

You think that Ken Miller is not a Christian because he’s Catholic.

FL said:

You think that Ken Miller is not a Christian because he’s Catholic.

And that's just ONE of the more blatant falsehoods on the table. So let's work with it. (I didn't even mention Miller's Catholicism in my previous posts. Sheesh, you guys.) Remedial Logic 101: At the ATBC debate, I openly said that the Pope was a Christian. Challenging Quiz Question: Is the Pope Catholic? If your TI-89 calculations indicate that the answer is "Yes", then is Miller's membership in a Catholic parish sufficient to eliminate him from being a Christian? (Be sure to say "Yes" or "No" directly.) FL

In any case, Mayr is not talking about science here...

First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

FL said:

In any case, Mayr is not talking about science here...

Oh, but yes Mayr is. DIRECTLY.

First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

Seems clear enough. FL

“It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).” –Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000.

FL is throwing his usual temper tantrum by trying to hassle the adults who keep nailing him. It’s his "True Christian" Nature brought to him by his “Salvation.” Nobody wants it.

If he wants to trash the house, he should be locked in the Bathroom Wall where he can crap away all he wants.

This thread is pretty much brain-dead; pull the plug.

This thread is pretty much brain-dead; pull the plug.

Thanks Matt.

Matt Young said: ... try not to feed the trolls.

Here is the consequence of legislating "critical thinking", indeed a euphemism for injecting creationism into public school classrooms:

It leads to self-contradiction a la IBIG, who said, "THEORY OF (COMMON DESCENT) EVOLUTION is a LIE!!!" (Sept. 14, 2011, old BW303)

Then said, "Life only comes from life" meaning life is a magical elixir given from 'First Life' who is eternal, refuting phhht who said, "Once there was no life. Now there is life. QED" (Sept. 8, 2010, old BW288). So all life on Earth is the descendant of First Life. Thus Common Descent (from First Life) is fact.

So how can Common Descent be both lie and fact? This is IBIG's Law of the Excluded Middle.

You can't have it both ways, IBIG. Either Common Descent is fact, or it is lie. Which is it?

You can’t have it both ways, IBIG. Either Common Descent is fact, or it is lie. Which is it?

Please do not encourage the IBIG troll.

On a lighter note Matt, I think our creo trolls should learn something from this young woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5mK7dzyUkM&feature=player_embedded#at=16

I think the Force is especially strong in that young padawan, don't you think?

In reflecting a bit about an earlier part of this thread, I've come up with a question for our resident biologists.

Way back on page 3, the indefatigable FL "explained" his position by saying that that he agreed with Yockey and with Thaxton et al. that there was no primordial soup because they said there was no "geological evidence" for a primordial soup. (Of course, he also rejects assertions for which there is ample geological evidence, but that is tangential to my point here.)

Yockey, in a truly awful paper, argues based on isotope ratios that there was no primordial soup because life was already abundant 3.8 billion years ago. This, of course, scarcely helps FL's core positions.

Thaxton et al., on the other hand, make the argument that if there had been a "primordial soup" that we would find "geological evidence" of it. Unless I missed it, they don't present an actual argument for this, they just make the assertion. This struck me as an odd expectation, since I would be surprised if any of the "soup" (if it indeed existed) would survive to the present day.

This in turn leads to my question: do we actually have any samples of biological material from, say, the Cambrian period or earlier? Trilobite protein, for example? My understanding is that petroleum is much younger than that.

SWT said: In reflecting a bit about an earlier part of this thread, I've come up with a question for our resident biologists. Way back on page 3, the indefatigable FL "explained" his position by saying that that he agreed with Yockey and with Thaxton et al. that there was no primordial soup because they said there was no "geological evidence" for a primordial soup. (Of course, he also rejects assertions for which there is ample geological evidence, but that is tangential to my point here.) Yockey, in a truly awful paper, argues based on isotope ratios that there was no primordial soup because life was already abundant 3.8 billion years ago. This, of course, scarcely helps FL's core positions. Thaxton et al., on the other hand, make the argument that if there had been a "primordial soup" that we would find "geological evidence" of it. Unless I missed it, they don't present an actual argument for this, they just make the assertion. This struck me as an odd expectation, since I would be surprised if any of the "soup" (if it indeed existed) would survive to the present day. This in turn leads to my question: do we actually have any samples of biological material from, say, the Cambrian period or earlier? Trilobite protein, for example? My understanding is that petroleum is much younger than that.

These kinds of ignorance might be refuted in a way lay people could understand, by calling attention to the study of contemporary evolution, used in practical applied scientific research. These include, the evolution of deadly bacteria, responding to antibiotics,as well as the evolution of insects responding to pest control. I am sure there are others.

Edmund L. Cogburn, Houston, Texas

We have never suggested a mandate to force teachers to teach creation, but we exhort Christian parents and churches to re-double their efforts to teach not only critical thinking skills but also the truth of the Bible as God’s Word. Students need to be taught that the Bible is completely consistent with the findings of science.

Kallie Walkner said: Thank you for the auspiciousgood writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to farmore added agreeable from you! By the wayHowever, how cancould we communicate

Good luck fighting this, we're having the same (although less severe) problem in the UK although not so much on a governmental level. A number of faith groups have been encouraging teachers to let them come into classes and teach the other side of the "debate". On top of that faith schools are actively being encouraged by tax breaks and other incentives from the state, which all leads not only to evolution not being taught properly but also to religious ghettoisation.

I can recommend for anybody interested in this sort of stuff that they listen to my favourite podcast - The Pod Delusion. It's UK-centric, but not exclusively, and deals in many cases which affect every secular state equally.

Nice info :-) visit my blog pfllc.blogspot.com