Evolution education across the life sciences

Good job, and good luck in this noble endeavour of spreading scientific rigor, objectivity and facts against the creationist fairy tales.

An

http://viewsontheworld.blog.com/

Matt said: ...when the book came out, I could not get the Camera to review it.

Paul Burnett said:

Matt said: ...when the book came out, I could not get the Camera to review it.

What's "the Camera"?

Don't even get me started. As a former science educator (and still involved in a round about way), I'm very happy for things like this... but I am massively depressed by the state of science ed in the US.

Science teachers are caught in a major conundrum. On the one hand, you have valid science. On the other hand, you have creationist state officials, school board members, and parents. You must prepare the students for standardized testing, that (depending on the exam) may not have a lot of actual science beyond "heart pumps blood". If the state decides evolution (for example) won't appear on the state test (regardless of its appearance in the state curriculum), then there's not a lot of time available for teaching it.

For example, in my current project, I have to be able to certify that a tester has sufficient knowledge of scientific practices, life science, physical science (chemistry and physics), and Earth/Space science (geology, astronomy, climate, etc) and I have to do all this in less than 75 minutes and less than 45 questions.

Of course teachers teach to the test, their job depends on it. Any person who says 'we don't teach the test' is lying.

Standardized testing can be a good thing, but it has become this system for evaluating teachers and schools, not students... which is kind of silly when you think about it.

Sorry, soap box.

The conclusion is that science education is vitally important, but ignored in favor of things that are known to have direct impacts on student success in college (reading and math, with the emphasis on reading).

Add that to teachers that go into science because it's a high need area, who don't know anything about science and we have a recipe for disaster.

ogremk5 said: Don't even get me started. As a former science educator (and still involved in a round about way), I'm very happy for things like this... but I am massively depressed by the state of science ed in the US. Science teachers are caught in a major conundrum. On the one hand, you have valid science. On the other hand, you have creationist state officials, school board members, and parents. You must prepare the students for standardized testing, that (depending on the exam) may not have a lot of actual science beyond "heart pumps blood". If the state decides evolution (for example) won't appear on the state test (regardless of its appearance in the state curriculum), then there's not a lot of time available for teaching it.

I would contend that it is already time for the bathroom wall for the lying troll.

Atheistoclast said: We need more material about real biology: photosynthesis, phagocytosis, cytokinesis, germination, digestion etc.

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: Don't even get me started. As a former science educator (and still involved in a round about way), I'm very happy for things like this... but I am massively depressed by the state of science ed in the US. Science teachers are caught in a major conundrum. On the one hand, you have valid science. On the other hand, you have creationist state officials, school board members, and parents. You must prepare the students for standardized testing, that (depending on the exam) may not have a lot of actual science beyond "heart pumps blood". If the state decides evolution (for example) won't appear on the state test (regardless of its appearance in the state curriculum), then there's not a lot of time available for teaching it.

I would contend that 75% of the stuff about evolution in the school textbooks in the U.S can easily be exposed as either fraudulent (like Haeckel's embryo drawings) or unsupported by any empirical evidence (like eye evolution by natural selection). I would urge all school boards not to order any biology textbooks that include unnecessary material inserted about Darwinism. We need more material about real biology: photosynthesis, phagocytosis, cytokinesis, germination, digestion etc. I am a massive supporter of academic freedom legislation which allows teachers to present supplemental information that shows just how bad the theory of evolution is.

ogremk5 said: I've got seven college and high school text books on my self right now. The oldest is from 1988, the most recent is 2009. Not a single one of them has Haeckel's embryos as examples of evolution. The eye, of course, is an excellent example of evolution because we can trace the history of the bits that form the eye, in the genes, and in the structure. Don't you find it interesting that opsins are largely unchanged from bacteria to fruit flies to humans? NO, of course you don't. It's just one more thing you guys can't explain.

So, tell us theoclast, how did photosynthesis, phagocytosis, cytokinesis, germination, digestion all come about? I'd like to hear your mechanisms for the development of these PROCESSES (not structures note).

Should we then also offer the supplemental information that shows just how bad the notions of ID are? You are not a massive supporter of academic freedom, you are a supporter of pushing Judeo-Christian theology into the public classroom. You want academic freedom for yourself and your ideas while rejecting everyone else's evidence.

Tell us, since you have avoided this question every time it's been asked of you, what is the repeatable, testable, hypothesis of ID? What is the mechanism of ID? What is a tool, process, or discovery discovered by proponents of ID using principles of ID?

And finally, how do you expect to tell the difference between design and evolution, when you can't even tell the difference between design and random material?

Joe wrote:

"No developmental biologist is daft enough to suppose that he can explain how the eye is formed from protein-protein interactions. What I railed against was any suggestion that the eye has evolved from first beginnings through a process of natural selection and random mutation - there is no evidence for this at all. All we can identify are the genes involved in eye construction - and we can’t readily explain how natural selection produced them either."

Translation: Until you can explain every single thing about the eye and its evolution, including a mutation by mutation account and a step by step description of every single step in development, I am free to ignore any and all evidence about what is actually known. I can ignore the fact that it is all completely consistent with modern evolutionary theory. I can always demand more detail. I can always refuse to provide any alternative. I can always fail to provide any evidence for any alternative. No one can stop me from being a complete and total hypocrite.

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: I've got seven college and high school text books on my self right now. The oldest is from 1988, the most recent is 2009. Not a single one of them has Haeckel's embryos as examples of evolution. The eye, of course, is an excellent example of evolution because we can trace the history of the bits that form the eye, in the genes, and in the structure. Don't you find it interesting that opsins are largely unchanged from bacteria to fruit flies to humans? NO, of course you don't. It's just one more thing you guys can't explain.

No developmental biologist is daft enough to suppose that he can explain how the eye is formed from protein-protein interactions. What I railed against was any suggestion that the eye has evolved from first beginnings through a process of natural selection and random mutation - there is no evidence for this at all. All we can identify are the genes involved in eye construction - and we can't readily explain how natural selection produced them either.

So, tell us theoclast, how did photosynthesis, phagocytosis, cytokinesis, germination, digestion all come about? I'd like to hear your mechanisms for the development of these PROCESSES (not structures note).

Irrelevant. We should teach these processes without resorting to bizarre stories about their origins that are speculative and unfalsifiable - they just waste valuable class time.

Should we then also offer the supplemental information that shows just how bad the notions of ID are? You are not a massive supporter of academic freedom, you are a supporter of pushing Judeo-Christian theology into the public classroom. You want academic freedom for yourself and your ideas while rejecting everyone else's evidence.

The legislation allows educators to critically evaluate scientific theories on the basis of the evidence supporting them. If a teacher wants to talk about ID, but in a critical way, I have no problem with that.

Tell us, since you have avoided this question every time it's been asked of you, what is the repeatable, testable, hypothesis of ID? What is the mechanism of ID? What is a tool, process, or discovery discovered by proponents of ID using principles of ID?

ID is a scientific inference. It is not a mechanism. There are, however, mechanisms such as artificial selection, genetic engineering and directed evolution that lend themselves more to ID than they do to natural processes. These have been tried and tested to produce real results - of the sort Nature would not be capable of.

And finally, how do you expect to tell the difference between design and evolution, when you can't even tell the difference between design and random material?

Oh, but we can tell the difference between random processes and intelligent ones. Just read Vladimir Rubtsov SETI's "Criteria of artificality in SETI": http://www.springerlink.com/content/78158t60802l6wn6/ You can employ the same methods for biology.

ogremk5 said: OK, you win... evolution is out. Provide a 5 day unit on Intelligent Design, remembering that at least 2 of those days must be in a lab setting that can show students that ID is a valid science subject to the scientific method. As for design being an inference, so Behe was lying to a court of law, while under oath, after swearing on a Bible that ID describes a mechanism. Tell us 'clast, do you know more about ID than Behe? Really? Well, explain, in detail, what ID says. And how to determine it. OK 'clast, give us an example of a designed biological thing and a random biological thing and let's compare them.

Atheistoclast said: All we can identify are the genes involved in eye construction - and we can't readily explain how natural selection produced them either.

So, tell us theoclast, how did photosynthesis, phagocytosis, cytokinesis, germination, digestion all come about? I'd like to hear your mechanisms for the development of these PROCESSES (not structures note).

Irrelevant.

Oh, but we can tell the difference between random processes and intelligent ones. Just read Vladimir Rubtsov SETI's "Criteria of artificality in SETI": http://www.springerlink.com/content/78158t60802l6wn6/ You can employ the same methods for biology.

Atheistoclast said: ID is a scientific inference. It is not a mechanism. There are, however, mechanisms such as artificial selection, genetic engineering and directed evolution that lend themselves more to ID than they do to natural processes. These have been tried and tested to produce real results - of the sort Nature would not be capable of.

(ignore the troll....must ignore the troll...let the troll starve.....)

Hey, anyone see "The Daily Show" last night Asif Mandvi interviews Fox News talking head Noelle Nikpour (about school science curriculum. "choice" academic freedom, etc) he made her look like an idiot (correction revealed her to be an idiot - she made herself look like one)

the interesting thing is - I can'r parse how Noelle Nikpour's views are any different than some trolls posting to "the Thumb"

Dave Lovell said: Once you concede that artificial selection acting on random mutation can produce real results, you have to explain exactly what makes "intelligent selection" different from (as opposed to more efficient than) natural selection. Does a breeder's "intelligence" induce non-random mutations in his breeding stock, or does The Designer of the Universe read his mind and selectively mutate their genes to add the new desired features?

ogremk5 said: I'm sorry 'clast, you fail on an epic level again. Find me a modern textbook that states "This is how photosythesis developed." Or any of those other processes you said... or the eye. Find one. Go ahead I'll wait. Until you substantiate your claims, then you argument is utterly irrelevant.

Excellent, so we should also explain, in detail why astrology is wrong (oh, wait, Micheal Behe is OK with astrology in science class). In other words, you think science teachers should spend all the time in class explaining why all these other notions don't work. Did you perhaps read my post? You have obviously never been in a high school Biology class. I won't go into detail, because I have before, but I will ask you this.

OK, you win... evolution is out. Provide a 5 day unit on Intelligent Design, remembering that at least 2 of those days must be in a lab setting that can show students that ID is a valid science subject to the scientific method.

As for design being an inference, so Behe was lying to a court of law, while under oath, after swearing on a Bible that ID describes a mechanism. Tell us 'clast, do you know more about ID than Behe? Really? Well, explain, in detail, what ID says. And how to determine it.

OK 'clast, give us an example of a designed biological thing and a random biological thing and let's compare them.

Atheistoclast said:

Dave Lovell said: Once you concede that artificial selection acting on random mutation can produce real results, you have to explain exactly what makes "intelligent selection" different from (as opposed to more efficient than) natural selection. Does a breeder's "intelligence" induce non-random mutations in his breeding stock, or does The Designer of the Universe read his mind and selectively mutate their genes to add the new desired features?

If you don't know the difference between artificial and natural selection, you really are beyond the pale. But to try and explain: the former can select anything, whereas the latter only chooses variation that contributes to reproductive fitness - it is constrained in this respect. Both types of selection are limited by the fact that variation is also limited, but artificial selection can overcome a rough fitness landscape (with deleterious intermediate states) whereas natural selection cannot.

Atheistoclast said:

Dave Lovell said: Once you concede that artificial selection acting on random mutation can produce real results, you have to explain exactly what makes "intelligent selection" different from (as opposed to more efficient than) natural selection. Does a breeder's "intelligence" induce non-random mutations in his breeding stock, or does The Designer of the Universe read his mind and selectively mutate their genes to add the new desired features?

If you don't know the difference between artificial and natural selection, you really are beyond the pale. But to try and explain: the former can select anything, whereas the latter only chooses variation that contributes to reproductive fitness - it is constrained in this respect. Both types of selection are limited by the fact that variation is also limited, but artificial selection can overcome a rough fitness landscape (with deleterious intermediate states) whereas natural selection cannot.

Joe wrote:

"I am pretty sure there are some textbooks that do explore the origins of biological features, and do speculate on how natural selection can explain this."

And I can prove that you stated that conclusions should only be based on solid evidence. HYPOCRITE!

Atheistoclast said: I am a massive supporter of academic freedom legislation ...

Atheistoclast said: ...I have had eumelanin production in my skin disabled by mutation.

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: I'm sorry 'clast, you fail on an epic level again. Find me a modern textbook that states "This is how photosythesis developed." Or any of those other processes you said... or the eye. Find one. Go ahead I'll wait. Until you substantiate your claims, then you argument is utterly irrelevant.

I am pretty sure there are some textbooks that do explore the origins of biological features, and do speculate on how natural selection can explain this.

Excellent, so we should also explain, in detail why astrology is wrong (oh, wait, Micheal Behe is OK with astrology in science class). In other words, you think science teachers should spend all the time in class explaining why all these other notions don't work. Did you perhaps read my post? You have obviously never been in a high school Biology class. I won't go into detail, because I have before, but I will ask you this.

I am for having critical evaluation of theory in the classroom, not introducing pseudo-science.

OK, you win... evolution is out. Provide a 5 day unit on Intelligent Design, remembering that at least 2 of those days must be in a lab setting that can show students that ID is a valid science subject to the scientific method.

No. I would use the time to teach actual biology that comports with intelligent design, such as the universal genetic code, alveoli, flagella and microvilli.

As for design being an inference, so Behe was lying to a court of law, while under oath, after swearing on a Bible that ID describes a mechanism. Tell us 'clast, do you know more about ID than Behe? Really? Well, explain, in detail, what ID says. And how to determine it.

ID is not a mechanism. It is an inference and also an approach to understanding living organisms. Behe proposed a mechanism of non-random mutations (molecular saltations) that were induced by the Intelligent Designer.

OK 'clast, give us an example of a designed biological thing and a random biological thing and let's compare them.

What exactly do you mean? All biological features have been designed. Some may have been degraded by mutation over time. I am white because I have had eumelanin production in my skin disabled by mutation.

Q. But it is certainly, exaptation -- for example, a bird wing developing from some kind of feathered structure on a dinosaur that didn't necessarily allow flight, that's what evolutionary biologists propose, and they call it exaptation? [Behe]. That's entirely possible, and that's consistent with intelligent design, because intelligent design only focuses on the mechanism of how such a thing would happen.

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: ...I have had eumelanin production in my skin disabled by mutation.

So...you're admitting you're a mutant. Was the mutation caused by "The Fall" or do you have some other explanation for your mutation?

Although all creationists I have ever encountered have been authoritarians, and AC is no exception, there is another, post-modern element to creationism that's worth mentioning.

The need to deny the word evolution is a compulsion.

And there always seems to be an underlying issue with human evolution. People don't seem to react obsessively to the idea that insects evolved from a common ancestor.

Of course, humans have noted the similarities between themselves and other apes throughout recorded history, and undoubtedly did so before recorded history.

Medieval scholars were "methodological creationists" - they had no particularly more compelling explanation of nature than the Biblical account. They gradually became aware of Greek philosophers, but there was no scientific alternative.

However, in one way, they were radically different from a certain type of creationist.

Putting aside the question of "souls", the idea that a human being is essentially an ape with a somewhat more powerful brain is highly consistent with traditional western religious thought (note - I am non-religious, just making a point about creationists).

Far from denying the reality of the animal nature of the human body, its instinctive drives, and its similarity to the bodies of other species, medieval Christianity, and indeed, traditional modern Protestantism, emphasized this.

The medieval monks may seem crude and authoritarian in their efforts to free themselves from the domination of instinct, relative to their dharmic counterparts, but the idea was fundamentally the same.

Post-modern sheltered creationists, shielded from most pain, most physical threats, most premature deaths, and everyday discomfort, have adopted a narcissism that is highly at odds with traditional spiritualism of any type.

In essence, they declare themselves gods.

They aren't, they're apes like the rest of us.

I sometimes refer to them and their political fellow travelers on the loony right as "delicate hothouse flowers who can't understand the hothouse and want to smash it".

How ironic. If they succeed in playing a role in destroying modern, technological society - and that isn't impossible - they'll learn a harsh lesson.

Take away the central heating, air conditioning, indoor bathrooms, running water, food that doesn't run quickly away, fight back, or hurt when you pick it, take away the antibiotics and anesthesia, take away the clothing that doesn't have to be stitched together by hand, and hothouse flower narcissistic creationists - if any survived such an event - would be face to face with their clear relationship with the rest of the animal world.

Paul Burnett said:

Atheistoclast said: ...I have had eumelanin production in my skin disabled by mutation.

So...you're admitting you're a mutant. Was the mutation caused by "The Fall" or do you have some other explanation for your mutation?

Matt G said: ...didn't dark skin also arise via mutation?

harold said: ...there always seems to be an underlying issue with human evolution.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: ...there always seems to be an underlying issue with human evolution.

I have run into white creationists who absolutely foam at the mouth when you try to convince them that they are related genetically to darker-skinned humans. (That's worse than getting them to admit they had monkeys apes as distant ancestors.) Almost all the creationists I have ever dealt with were rabid racists when I got to know them.

ogremk5 said: I'm very happy for things like this... but I am massively depressed by the state of science ed in the US.

Robert Byers said: This creationist welcomes more attention to evolutionary biology being taught in schools. As long as creationism is taught or generally criticisms to evolution etc. The truth on important matters must be the object of education. Then it must be the American people who decide when contentions on education material come up. There is indeed a modern threat to the old evolutionary ideas and a draining away of confidence in evolution or the people pushing it. if there is a increase in one side and censorship of the side (that is the reason for the new efforts) then there will be no intellectual credibility in the eyes of the public and the kids. The kids know there is a modern dust up about whether evolution was true or not.

Robert Byers said: As long as creationism is taught...

Atheistoclast said: Creationism is not something that can be taught.

Paul Burnett said: Thanks, Joe. Byers, you got that? Even another troll agrees with US Supreme Court decisions, Federal Court decisions, and Panda's Thumb correspondents that creationism can't be taught in public schools. Could you please stop repeating that lie? That war is over, you guys lost.

'Clast, unfortunately, all of YOUR criticisms of evolution are fraudulent. And creationism/ID is inexorably linked to the Christian God, which does make it illegal to teach in schools.

Finally, a point that is brought up frequently, but you fail to notice.

Even if you completely debunk evolution right now... it STILL doesn't make design notions correct. Only positive supporting evidence can do that and you won't give us any. I have asked you a number of times in this thread alone. You refuse to do it. You will not give us the positive supporting evidence. Why is that?

Oh yeah, there isn't any.

ogremk5 said: 'Clast, unfortunately, all of YOUR criticisms of evolution are fraudulent. And creationism/ID is inexorably linked to the Christian God, which does make it illegal to teach in schools.

Even if you completely debunk evolution right now... it STILL doesn't make design notions correct. Only positive supporting evidence can do that and you won't give us any. I have asked you a number of times in this thread alone. You refuse to do it. You will not give us the positive supporting evidence. Why is that? Oh yeah, there isn't any.

Atheistoclast said:

ogremk5 said: 'Clast, unfortunately, all of YOUR criticisms of evolution are fraudulent. And creationism/ID is inexorably linked to the Christian God, which does make it illegal to teach in schools.

Well, creationism was taught in the past, so I don't see any legal impediment to teaching it.

However, I am opposed to teaching origins science in school. I would rather neither Darwinism nor Creationism used up valuable time in biology class.

Even if you completely debunk evolution right now... it STILL doesn't make design notions correct. Only positive supporting evidence can do that and you won't give us any. I have asked you a number of times in this thread alone. You refuse to do it. You will not give us the positive supporting evidence. Why is that? Oh yeah, there isn't any.

I agree. But we do have alternative mechanisms, such as artificial selection, genetic engineering and directed evolution that involve intelligence working with natural processes to produce things Nature herself cannot achieve. Check this out: Evolution by Intelligent Design http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/02-evolution-by-intelligent-design Lovely.

Atheistoclast said: Well, creationism was taught in the past, so I don't see any legal impediment to teaching it. However, I am opposed to teaching origins science in school. I would rather neither Darwinism nor Creationism used up valuable time in biology class.

I agree. But we do have alternative mechanisms, such as artificial selection, genetic engineering and directed evolution that involve intelligence working with natural processes to produce things Nature herself cannot achieve. Check this out: Evolution by Intelligent Design http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/02-evolution-by-intelligent-design Lovely.

Atheistoclast said: ..directed evolution that involve intelligence working with natural processes to produce things..

Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight). Here’s the catch, though. ... You get to give your talk, then you get grilled. No limitations, no restrictions. You have to answer questions from the audience, and the questioner can ask away to their heart’s delight.

Thanks, Joe. Byers, you got that? Even another troll agrees with US Supreme Court decisions, Federal Court decisions, and Panda’s Thumb correspondents that creationism can’t be taught in public schools.

— Paul Burnett

Matt Young said: Please, no more comments by or about Atheistoclast, that is, until the comment, "I accept Professor Plavcan's invitation to speak at the University of Arkansas on [date] at [time]."

Atheistoclast is welcome to come to my department to give a talk. No problem, if he can get himself here (budgets are tight). Here’s the catch, though. ... You get to give your talk, then you get grilled. No limitations, no restrictions. You have to answer questions from the audience, and the questioner can ask away to their heart’s delight.

Frank J said:

Thanks, Joe. Byers, you got that? Even another troll agrees with US Supreme Court decisions, Federal Court decisions, and Panda’s Thumb correspondents that creationism can’t be taught in public schools.

— Paul Burnett

C'mon, you know that Joe does not agree with the court decisions, and that he's just playing word games. He knows that a true critical analysis of evolution will not "surreptitiously imply something similar to creationism such as saltationism." Whereas the misrepresentations - with refutations censored of course - that the scam artists peddle as "critical analysis" will. In fact that scam, which Judge Jones linked to ID and creationism, promotes all of the mutually contradictory failed creationist "theories," given the prior misconceptions of most students. Which is why most fellow "Darwinists," and ironically many evolution-deniers like Robert (but not Joe), call it "creationism."

Atheistoclast said:

mitchell97 said:

Atheistoclast said: ..directed evolution that involve intelligence working with natural processes to produce things..

So how does this "Direction" come about? How many joules of energy are used to direct a particular mutation? Where does "god" get his energy to direct evolutionary processes? Or must we continue to use the cover word "MAGIC?" Wooooo!

We are working on it....I have authored a paper on the subject that is currently under review. Why are you lot always so pessimistic and derogatory in your tone and taste? We will find a solution to how the Designer implements his master plan. You can mock scientific progress all you like, but you won't stop it.

Yes, artificial selection is an alternative mechanism. It is distinct from natural selection even though both mechanisms rely on random/spontaneous variations.

What we have achieved in the last 10,000 years of agriculture and breeding is something Nature could never repeat given as much as 10,000 billion years.

Directed evolution is a form of protein engineering. Again, only through intelligent screening methods, and also induced mutagenesis, can new therapeutic proteins be designed which Nature could never have produced through a process of natural selection.

No, it is you who fails to understand that the intelligent design approach allows us to overcome the natural limits to biological change. Intelligent agents produce real results, whereas blind and undirected ones tend not to.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear: the Atheistoclast troll is no longer welcome to post comments on this thread, at least until it stops bluffing and accepts the offer to speak at the University of Arkansas. Please do not feed it any more.

Yes, we have your name and those papers. You are from Manchester. Very nice. But what is you INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION, your CURRENT POSITION, and you BACKGROUND? For example, I am Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arkansas, Graduated from Duke University in 1990, have a number of publications, with my research focusing mainly on sexual dimorphism in primates, etc etc. All that those papers of yours give is your address in Manchester. How about some information? Where did you get your degree? Do you have a current academic position, or are you employed in industry? Is this a comprehensive publication list? Etc. It is hard to sell “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed creationist from England who published two papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” as interesting. And to be clear here. You are welcome to come here as far as I am concerned. We can find a room for you to talk in. It will not be sponsored or hosted by the University in any official way, and you are entirely on your own financially.

I have no idea why Mr. P.'s comment was held for moderation, but here it is now. Defensible point, I suppose, and Prof. Plavcan can speak for himself, but I assumed that he was merely asking for information for an announcement -- as he has noted, you can't expect anyone to come to a talk by a speaker whom no one has heard of and who provides no identification. Presumably Atheistoclast's lack of an institutional affiliation would not disqualify him, but I would certainly expect him to state his qualifications, whatever they are. Thus, to my mind, it was Atheistoclast who chickened out by demanding the opportunity to speak to a class, not to give what would be essentially a seminar outside class.

To amplify a little om Matt Young's comment above, the information information Dr. Plavcan requested is absolutely standard. If you don't include credentials and affiliation in addition to a one- to two-paragraph abstract, almost nobody will take time out to attend. Listing publications helps as well, so that potential attendees can gauge their potential interest in the topic. (For most speakers, you would list "key publications" because the list is too long to fit on a one-page, or simply indicate something like "Dr. No has over 20 peer-reviewed publications in the field of geopolitics.")

Second, the only mischaracterizations in Dr. Plavcan's characterization of Bozorgmehr are the use of "creationist" instead of "neo-vitalist" (and I'm not sure that that is really a mischaracterization) and that Bozorgmehr has published three unremarkable papers, not two. The characterization of Bozorgmehr as “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed neo-vitalist from England who published three papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” is accurate based on the information we have. I'm also reasonably certain that "creationist" and "neo-vitalist" will be roughly equivalent draws.

Regarding "notables" -- you're again moving the goal posts. Bozorgmehr's claim was that The Man was afraid to invite him. Dr. Plavcan called his bluff. I'm sure Bozorgmehr would get the same publicity as other guests would usually get -- he certainly hasn't earned more extensive outreach than typical seminar speakers.

SWT beat me to it, but I also wanted to point out that the information MPlavcan requested is standard boilerplate information for advertising and introducing ANY university or college speaker. I give that information to introduce MYSELF on the first day of every class of every semester. Have Steve P. and Atheistoclast never attended any talks at a university?

Steve P. said: Matt Young, Atheistocast need not fall into Placvan's setup. It was (Placvan)and not Atheistoclast that tacked on conditions. Here's the money quote from the money post:

Yes, we have your name and those papers. You are from Manchester. Very nice. But what is you INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION, your CURRENT POSITION, and you BACKGROUND? For example, I am Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arkansas, Graduated from Duke University in 1990, have a number of publications, with my research focusing mainly on sexual dimorphism in primates, etc etc. All that those papers of yours give is your address in Manchester. How about some information? Where did you get your degree? Do you have a current academic position, or are you employed in industry? Is this a comprehensive publication list? Etc. It is hard to sell “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed creationist from England who published two papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” as interesting. And to be clear here. You are welcome to come here as far as I am concerned. We can find a room for you to talk in. It will not be sponsored or hosted by the University in any official way, and you are entirely on your own financially.

So we can see that Placvan required after the fact that Joe Bozorgmehr has to have credentials. Why was this not stipulated in the original invitation? Second, note how Placvan poisons the well by refering to Bozorgmehr as a creationist when we know that he refers to himself as a neo-vitalist, not a creationist. Furthermore, why would it be a hard sell? It would be an easy sell from your POV. Knocking out uncredentialed evolution skeptics ought to be a cinch and would help to solify the perception of evolution skeptics as irrational, mal-adjusted dolts. So there is no good reason to add caveats to the invitation. Why not let it be a no-hold barred, bare-fisted intellectual brawl? You can market it as such. Easy as pie. I'll even draw up the brochure FOC. Just ask Placvan to name the notables who will be in attendance besides himself and the general student audience. I'll do the rest. That's if Placvan has no misgivings about making the invitation.

Matt Young said: I have no idea why Mr. P.'s comment was held for moderation, but here it is now. Defensible point, I suppose, and Prof. Plavcan can speak for himself, but I assumed that he was merely asking for information for an announcement -- as he has noted, you can't expect anyone to come to a talk by a speaker whom no one has heard of and who provides no identification. Presumably Atheistoclast's lack of an institutional affiliation would not disqualify him, but I would certainly expect him to state his qualifications, whatever they are. Thus, to my mind, it was Atheistoclast who chickened out by demanding the opportunity to speak to a class, not to give what would be essentially a seminar outside class.

SWT said: To amplify a little om Matt Young's comment above, the information information Dr. Plavcan requested is absolutely standard. If you don't include credentials and affiliation in addition to a one- to two-paragraph abstract, almost nobody will take time out to attend. Listing publications helps as well, so that potential attendees can gauge their potential interest in the topic. (For most speakers, you would list "key publications" because the list is too long to fit on a one-page, or simply indicate something like "Dr. No has over 20 peer-reviewed publications in the field of geopolitics.") Second, the only mischaracterizations in Dr. Plavcan's characterization of Bozorgmehr are the use of "creationist" instead of "neo-vitalist" (and I'm not sure that that is really a mischaracterization) and that Bozorgmehr has published three unremarkable papers, not two. The characterization of Bozorgmehr as “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed neo-vitalist from England who published three papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” is accurate based on the information we have. I'm also reasonably certain that "creationist" and "neo-vitalist" will be roughly equivalent draws. Regarding "notables" -- you're again moving the goal posts. Bozorgmehr's claim was that The Man was afraid to invite him. Dr. Plavcan called his bluff. I'm sure Bozorgmehr would get the same publicity as other guests would usually get -- he certainly hasn't earned more extensive outreach than typical seminar speakers.

mplavcan said:

SWT said: To amplify a little om Matt Young's comment above, the information information Dr. Plavcan requested is absolutely standard. If you don't include credentials and affiliation in addition to a one- to two-paragraph abstract, almost nobody will take time out to attend. Listing publications helps as well, so that potential attendees can gauge their potential interest in the topic. (For most speakers, you would list "key publications" because the list is too long to fit on a one-page, or simply indicate something like "Dr. No has over 20 peer-reviewed publications in the field of geopolitics.") Second, the only mischaracterizations in Dr. Plavcan's characterization of Bozorgmehr are the use of "creationist" instead of "neo-vitalist" (and I'm not sure that that is really a mischaracterization) and that Bozorgmehr has published three unremarkable papers, not two. The characterization of Bozorgmehr as “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed neo-vitalist from England who published three papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” is accurate based on the information we have. I'm also reasonably certain that "creationist" and "neo-vitalist" will be roughly equivalent draws. Regarding "notables" -- you're again moving the goal posts. Bozorgmehr's claim was that The Man was afraid to invite him. Dr. Plavcan called his bluff. I'm sure Bozorgmehr would get the same publicity as other guests would usually get -- he certainly hasn't earned more extensive outreach than typical seminar speakers.

As far as I can tell his arguments are creationists arguments, but cast as somehow independent. Whatever.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said:

SWT said: To amplify a little om Matt Young's comment above, the information information Dr. Plavcan requested is absolutely standard. If you don't include credentials and affiliation in addition to a one- to two-paragraph abstract, almost nobody will take time out to attend. Listing publications helps as well, so that potential attendees can gauge their potential interest in the topic. (For most speakers, you would list "key publications" because the list is too long to fit on a one-page, or simply indicate something like "Dr. No has over 20 peer-reviewed publications in the field of geopolitics.") Second, the only mischaracterizations in Dr. Plavcan's characterization of Bozorgmehr are the use of "creationist" instead of "neo-vitalist" (and I'm not sure that that is really a mischaracterization) and that Bozorgmehr has published three unremarkable papers, not two. The characterization of Bozorgmehr as “a largely anonymous and uncredentialed neo-vitalist from England who published three papers and otherwise spends his time insulting people on the web” is accurate based on the information we have. I'm also reasonably certain that "creationist" and "neo-vitalist" will be roughly equivalent draws. Regarding "notables" -- you're again moving the goal posts. Bozorgmehr's claim was that The Man was afraid to invite him. Dr. Plavcan called his bluff. I'm sure Bozorgmehr would get the same publicity as other guests would usually get -- he certainly hasn't earned more extensive outreach than typical seminar speakers.

As far as I can tell his arguments are creationists arguments, but cast as somehow independent. Whatever.

Let me just say that I am happy to formally debate Dr. Plavcan in Arkansas on the subject of human evolution wrt paleontology, but also on the genetic mechanism. That would balance things out as I know more about the latter while he knows more about the former. If he invites me, I will find the time to come over in the Spring.

The conversation going on here is hilarious. Go on 'Clast. Do the dance and insult yourself infront of the world, if you have not already done so enough number of times.

Dr. Plavcan,

Notice how the invitation was for a talk and it has now become a debate. Please make sure there are real geneticists in the audience. And please videotape the part where a real expert in evo devo gets Joe to cry like a little baby and admit that he has no clue whatsoever about anything in genetics. I would volunteer, but I don't ever want this lunatic to have any personal information about me.

DS said: Dr. Plavcan, Notice how the invitation was for a talk and it has now become a debate. Please make sure there are real geneticists in the audience. And please videotape the part where a real expert in evo devo gets Joe to cry like a little baby and admit that he has no clue whatsoever about anything in genetics. I would volunteer, but I don't ever want this lunatic to have any personal information about me.

DS said: Dr. Plavcan, Notice how the invitation was for a talk and it has now become a debate. Please make sure there are real geneticists in the audience. And please videotape the part where a real expert in evo devo gets Joe to cry like a little baby and admit that he has no clue whatsoever about anything in genetics. I would volunteer, but I don't ever want this lunatic to have any personal information about me.

mplavcan said:

DS said: Dr. Plavcan, Notice how the invitation was for a talk and it has now become a debate. Please make sure there are real geneticists in the audience. And please videotape the part where a real expert in evo devo gets Joe to cry like a little baby and admit that he has no clue whatsoever about anything in genetics. I would volunteer, but I don't ever want this lunatic to have any personal information about me.

I replied last night, but my message in reply to Bozorgmehr is still held up, I think. Anyway, The original offer stands -- a talk. Not sponsored by the University of the Department. I will pay for nothing except mustard. If he shows up and asks to give a talk, I will find a room and post flyers. This is standard stuff. Asking for a formal debate is moving the goalposts. A formal debate does not allow the sort of interaction that was originally discussed.

The dipstick still wants you to legitimize his crapulence! He jus doesn't get it. Real scientists have nothing but contempt for those who refuse to address the evidence. Man, his back must be hurting from lugging those goalposts back and forth.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said:

DS said: Dr. Plavcan, Notice how the invitation was for a talk and it has now become a debate. Please make sure there are real geneticists in the audience. And please videotape the part where a real expert in evo devo gets Joe to cry like a little baby and admit that he has no clue whatsoever about anything in genetics. I would volunteer, but I don't ever want this lunatic to have any personal information about me.

I replied last night, but my message in reply to Bozorgmehr is still held up, I think. Anyway, The original offer stands -- a talk. Not sponsored by the University of the Department. I will pay for nothing except mustard. If he shows up and asks to give a talk, I will find a room and post flyers. This is standard stuff. Asking for a formal debate is moving the goalposts. A formal debate does not allow the sort of interaction that was originally discussed.

Fine, make it a Cambridge university-style informal debate where the floor can interrupt and pose questions at any point during the discussion. I would have to be at least formally introduced if this is going to work. I don't want to find myself in a room, talking to myself. I guarantee that, if properly advertised, the room would be packed. People would fighting for the seats. The press and media would likely also want to be present.

You are holding most of my messages. No idea why.

Atheistoclast said: I guarantee that, if properly advertised, the room would be packed. People would fighting for the seats. The press and media would likely also want to be present.

OK, please, no further comments by or about Atheistoclast until he accepts the invitation unequivocally and provides biographical information, such as his affiliation, for the announcement of the seminar.

Matt Young said: OK, please, no further comments by or about Atheistoclast until he accepts the invitation unequivocally and provides biographical information, such as his affiliation, for the announcement of the seminar.

You Tube videos on Evolution for High School and College students are now up-and-running. They utilize the approach pioneered by Salman Khan (Khan Academy) and are best accessed by way of my web-pages (Forsdyke Evolution Academy). Currently, there are 36 videos, each around 15 minutes, for a total of 9 hours viewing.

Dang, seems like AC’s offer to come to Arkansas is equivalent to Hovind’s $250,000 “challenge”. Neither ever had the slightest intention of paying off, no matter what conditions were met.

Atheistoclast said: But this is a lot of information to give merely to be allowed to use a room at some third-rate redneck university where nobody can speak English properly. It is not exactly Tufts or Harvard.I have repeatedly told you that I am unaffiliated to any educational institution. I am an anti-academic independent scientist.

Atheistoclast said: I want maximum exposure and attention. I want to denounce the entire corpus of current scientific thinking in biology and to persuade students to overthrow their professors. I want nothing short of revolution on the university campus: French-style.

Well that thar just pissed me off so much it made me loose my other tooth. Hell, I nearly choked on the chitlins I wuz eetin and spilled my grits down my overalls. Well damn if I aint gunna drive my pick'm up truck over to the chair's double wide and demand that we pull out all the banjos and sing us a lamentation to the Lawd fer our ignerunce and all of nowleje about that there siense stuff that we aint knowin. But I tell you one thin mister. We got us the best damn bar-bee-que here as anywhere, even fer them folks on the delta, and we make no bones about it. And our football team 'll whoop yer ass any day of the week and make you shit yer collards and okra from runnin in fear.

Time to sit on mah porch swing and pick my tooth and a tune on the banjo while drawing down one a them thar fat pay checks that I gits cuz I'm a lazy good fer nothin hound dog of a perfessor preachin sin an amorality that I just make up out my imainashun to the good peeple a this here natural state. Yes siree.

mplavcan said: Well that thar just pissed me off so much it made me loose my other tooth. Hell, I nearly choked on the chitlins I wuz eetin and spilled my grits down my overalls. Well damn if I aint gunna drive my pick'm up truck over to the chair's double wide and demand that we pull out all the banjos and sing us a lamentation to the Lawd fer our ignerunce and all of nowleje about that there siense stuff that we aint knowin. But I tell you one thin mister. We got us the best damn bar-bee-que here as anywhere, even fer them folks on the delta, and we make no bones about it. And our football team 'll whoop yer ass any day of the week and make you shit yer collards and okra from runnin in fear. Time to sit on mah porch swing and pick my tooth and a tune on the banjo while drawing down one a them thar fat pay checks that I gits cuz I'm a lazy good fer nothin hound dog of a perfessor preachin sin an amorality that I just make up out my imainashun to the good peeple a this here natural state. Yes siree.

bigdakine said:

mplavcan said: Well that thar just pissed me off so much it made me loose my other tooth. Hell, I nearly choked on the chitlins I wuz eetin and spilled my grits down my overalls. Well damn if I aint gunna drive my pick'm up truck over to the chair's double wide and demand that we pull out all the banjos and sing us a lamentation to the Lawd fer our ignerunce and all of nowleje about that there siense stuff that we aint knowin. But I tell you one thin mister. We got us the best damn bar-bee-que here as anywhere, even fer them folks on the delta, and we make no bones about it. And our football team 'll whoop yer ass any day of the week and make you shit yer collards and okra from runnin in fear. Time to sit on mah porch swing and pick my tooth and a tune on the banjo while drawing down one a them thar fat pay checks that I gits cuz I'm a lazy good fer nothin hound dog of a perfessor preachin sin an amorality that I just make up out my imainashun to the good peeple a this here natural state. Yes siree.

Well that dun beats chasin after yer little sistuh at night...

Almost makes me wanna get on one a them airplane cuntraptions and fly over there and git me some warm beers and show em what fer.