The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Mt. Vernon: Creationists clobbered for BOE

Posted 8 November 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

Today voters in the Mt. Vernon, Ohio, City School District firmly rejected two creationist candidates for the Board of Education. The overt creationists, Jeff Cline and Steve Kelly, were among six candidates running for three slots on the 5-member board. Two incumbents, Margie Bennett and Jodi Goetzman, both of whom voted to terminate John Freshwater's teaching contract, were also running. With all precincts reporting, these are the unofficial results from the county Board of Elections: Goetzman: 4,296; Bennett: 3,973; Feasel: 3,704; Curry: 3,652; Cline: 2,963; Kelly: 2,541 Cline and Kelly, the two overt creationists in the race, placed dead last, while the two incumbents, who defended the teaching of honest science and faced down the fundamentalists, placed first and second. Nice! In addition, a 1.38 mill emergency levy for the school district passed. It appears that in spite of all the Sturm und Drang of the Freshwater affair, voters in the District value education and in particular honest science education. I'm considerably cheered by these results.

83 Comments

SensuousCurmudgeon · 8 November 2011

You may be cheered, Richard, but what will be blog about now?

SensuousCurmudgeon · 8 November 2011

Aaarg! I mean: What will we blog about now?

Steve P. · 8 November 2011

Meal ticket heard going 'riiiiiiiiiiip'.

Hoppe forgets though that in addition to humanists/skeptics/atheists/skeptics/whateverists, a sizable portion of Christians also have a marked disdain for fundamentalists.

You guys just conveniently lump us all together. I know, its easier that way.

Gotta run to 7 Eleven to get you some glue, Hoppe. It's on me. You just pay the courier charges is all.

:)

Joe Felsenstein · 8 November 2011

Steve P. said: Meal ticket heard going 'riiiiiiiiiiip'. Hoppe forgets though that in addition to humanists/skeptics/atheists/skeptics/whateverists, a sizable portion of Christians also have a marked disdain for fundamentalists. You guys just conveniently lump us all together. I know, its easier that way. Gotta run to 7 Eleven to get you some glue, Hoppe. It's on me. You just pay the courier charges is all. :)
Hoppe should ignore that. He did say "fundamentalists", not Christians. While at the 7-11 "Steve P." should try to get something that will help him with his reading skills. It seems that he is the one doing the "lumping" and he has projected this onto Richard Hoppe. Richard, congratulations on a great victory in defense of freedom of religion. I am sure your efforts made a solid contribution to the outcome of the election.

Chris Lawson · 8 November 2011

Funny, isn't it, how Steve P. can turn a post that does not contain the words Christian, atheist, humanist, or skeptic into a complaint about the misrepresentation of those groups? Gotta feed that persecution complex.

Anyway, great work Richard. It's nice to know that the sense can prevail. The only sad thing is how long and hard and expensive the struggle has been to get good science taught honestly in schools. One would have thought it should be easy to win these battles.

mplavcan · 8 November 2011

Congratulations. Hard work pays off.

robert van bakel · 9 November 2011

Great! Who is Feasel? And what does he and the next on the list Curry support?

OT; Has UD opened up to genuine criticism?

Roger · 9 November 2011

Steve P. said: ... a sizable portion of Christians also have a marked disdain for fundamentalists. :)
And we applaud them. Why you believe the religious affiliations of the 6 candidates is the issue is beyond me. The issue is about having board members who support real scientific education and not using their position to promote a creationist agenda regardless of their personal beliefs.

harold · 9 November 2011

Just plain good news.

SWT · 9 November 2011

Good day for Ohio, great day for Mt. Vernon.

Richard, thanks for your reporting on the situation.

harold · 9 November 2011

I do strongly disagree with fundamentalists.

Do I have "contempt" for them? Not necessarily. That's not the point here. I strongly support their right to live and believe as they see fit - as long as they respect the rights of others.

Neither they, nor any other group, gets to use taxpayer funded school science classes to declare their own idiosyncratic mythology to be more "scientific" than other religions. This principle is good for everyone, including fundamentalists.

Atheistoclast · 9 November 2011

Joe Felsenstein said: Richard, congratulations on a great victory in defense of freedom of religion. I am sure your efforts made a solid contribution to the outcome of the election.
A minor setback in rolling hill country. We will have more success on the Pacific seaboard. I really do need to start writing some letters and doing more PR work.

Kevin B · 9 November 2011

harold said: I do strongly disagree with fundamentalists. Do I have "contempt" for them? Not necessarily. That's not the point here. I strongly support their right to live and believe as they see fit - as long as they respect the rights of others. Neither they, nor any other group, gets to use taxpayer funded school science classes to declare their own idiosyncratic mythology to be more "scientific" than other religions. This principle is good for everyone, including fundamentalists.
It is, however, perfectly reasonable to be contemptuous of the behaviour of those who *do* try to trample on the rights of others.

eric · 9 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: A minor setback in rolling hill country. We will have more success on the Pacific seaboard.
Elections are now over for the year. Don't hold us in suspense; in what districts did you actually have success yesterday? And I'm not being snarky - I really want to know. I'm sure there are probably a few districts who elected creationists to local education positions, and if you know who/where they are, that would be interesting information to share with the rest of us.

Gary_Hurd · 9 November 2011

So, some good news this morning.

dalehusband · 9 November 2011

Steve P. said: Meal ticket heard going 'riiiiiiiiiiip'. Hoppe forgets though that in addition to humanists/skeptics/atheists/skeptics/whateverists, a sizable portion of Christians also have a marked disdain for fundamentalists. You guys just conveniently lump us all together. I know, its easier that way. Gotta run to 7 Eleven to get you some glue, Hoppe. It's on me. You just pay the courier charges is all. :)
That has to be one of the dumbest and most dishonest comments ever here!
Atheistoclast said:
Joe Felsenstein said: Richard, congratulations on a great victory in defense of freedom of religion. I am sure your efforts made a solid contribution to the outcome of the election.
A minor setback in rolling hill country. We will have more success on the Pacific seaboard. I really do need to start writing some letters and doing more PR work.
Why not do some more actual science? Oh, never mind. You can't, because you are too stupid to do that or even know what that is. What is it about Creationists that makes them lie so damn much???

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 9 November 2011

I would not expect that more Freshwaters would be palatable to the voters, any more than Bozo Joe would be.

Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 9 November 2011

That has to be one of the dumbest and most dishonest comments ever here!
And there's a lot of competition for that distinction!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JolAqJ0usJrTB6OwiWo5WekPQ9qFbbwN6xU-#93111 · 9 November 2011

This is great! It's truly heartening to see the people of Mt. Vernon stand up to science being replaced with mythology. Kudos to them, and all who kept this issue in the spotlight.

Unfortunately, they will be back. Some other school district, some other name, but they will be back.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlcQQiUmhnnI548KOk_jPMs0OOm21vEpPA · 9 November 2011

As a former resident of Mount Vernon, I have mixed feelings about all this. Happy that the creationist candidates were defeated, depressed that Mount Vernon is once again the center of this sort of controversy.

I attended Mount Vernon Middle and High School (1976-1982) and throughout my school years was never exposed to any creationist/religious propaganda in science class (or any other class, for that matter).

johnpdeever · 9 November 2011

As a *current* resident of Mount Vernon I was very relieved as well. Must note though that the levy is a renewal levy (no new money), so perhaps we shouldnt take its passing as approval of how the Freshwater affair was handled. After the previous levy failed and we lost things like all high school busing, many recognized that this one had to pass. Something like 4700 people voted "no" on the levy, meaning they not only don't want the schools funded at current leves, they want to punish the schools by forcing more cutbacks.

As a district parent and voter I place direct responsibility for this state of affairs on Freshwater and his supporters.

Re the "meal ticket," Yes Mr. Hoppe you should give back all that steady massive income you've made from taking on these people. Sheesh. In actuality, you and the other unpaid volunteers who've spoken up and paid for newspaper ads and so on may very well have *saved* our district much money in potential lawsuits. Not to mention the further embarrassment and community hard feelings which Mr. Freshwater's actions provoked.

Thank you.

Richard B. Hoppe · 9 November 2011

Thanks for your kind words, John. We appreciate them.

By the way, that was Atheistoclast's one permitted comment in this thread. Any more will go to the BW, along with any responses. Please DNFTT! Thanks!

raven · 9 November 2011

This is indeed good news.

Schools are supposed to exist to educate kids, not to brainwash them in weird fundie beliefs.

bigdakine · 9 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Joe Felsenstein said: Richard, congratulations on a great victory in defense of freedom of religion. I am sure your efforts made a solid contribution to the outcome of the election.
A minor setback in rolling hill country. We will have more success on the Pacific seaboard. I really do need to start writing some letters and doing more PR work.
Please do, it will give us more opportunity to refute your nonsense.

MosesZD · 9 November 2011

I think the word is "blowback." That is, people are getting seriously tired of the overtly-religious sticking their damn noses into everything...

Nullifidian · 9 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: A minor setback in rolling hill country. We will have more success on the Pacific seaboard. I really do need to start writing some letters and doing more PR work.
Yes. Yes, you do. By all means, please be the public face of ID. That will make it even easier to defeat.

stevaroni · 10 November 2011

Nullifidian said: By all means, please be the public face of ID.
Wrong end.

evergreenrain · 10 November 2011

I'm not familiar with the local politics involved, but were the "creationists" advocating a Genesis-only science curriculum, or a balanced approach between ID and evolution? If they advocate a balanced approach, then the people of Mt. Vernon lost that election.

There is clearly room for both ID and evolution in any classroom that values free thought and the right of students to know all valid possibilities. In the spirit of J.S. Mill, students must be shown all possibilities and then make up their own minds. Besides, if evolution is so great, it ought to be a slam dunk every time in the classroom.

Like it or not, it is becoming increasingly evident that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning involved intelligence. Court cases and elections don't solve scientific inquiries. These holes in evolutionary metaphysics will not go away until they are addressed. Even Jastrow acknowledges that with the universe still expanding, it is indicative of a beginning.

W. H. Heydt · 10 November 2011

evergreenrain said:A bunch of nonesense.
You really haven't been paying attention, have you? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: There is clearly room for both ID and evolution in any classroom that values free thought and the right of students to know all valid possibilities.
OK. Tell me exactly what the "valid possibilities" for ID are. What does ID say happened? Based on what objectively identifiable evidence? When did all this happen? Be specific, please. Science does this every day. The mainstream explanation is quite detailed, quite specific, and supported by a significant pile of actual evidence. People didn't just make it up, they went out and measured stuff. Aside from "well, I just feel that ID is a valid explanation", exactly what do you want us to teach, Evergreen? That at some unspecified time, in some unspecified manner, some unspecified intelligent agent that may or not be the deity of some unspecified religion, did some unspecified action that filled some unspecified gap in the laws of physics and allowed the universe to go *poof*, and this is backed up by some unspecified evidence which has never been demonstrated? If not that, then what? Be specific. Sounds "valid" to me, Evergreen.

apokryltaros · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: I'm not familiar with the local politics involved, but were the "creationists" advocating a Genesis-only science curriculum, or a balanced approach between ID and evolution? If they advocate a balanced approach, then the people of Mt. Vernon lost that election. There is clearly room for both ID and evolution in any classroom that values free thought and the right of students to know all valid possibilities.
Intelligent Design was not, is not, still is not, never intended to ever be science to begin with. In other words, it is illegal to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to science in a science classroom in the United States because Intelligent Design is not science.
In the spirit of J.S. Mill, students must be shown all possibilities and then make up their own minds.
Being shown "all possibilities" is a worthless and pointless endeavor if students have never been taught what is and is not science to begin with. And then there is the matter of being confused by science-hating religious bigots.
Besides, if evolution is so great, it ought to be a slam dunk every time in the classroom.
Yet, Intelligent Design proponents refuse to explain how going "DESIGERDIDIT" and "GODDIDIT" and "EVOLUTION IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO" is supposed to be better than actual science.
Like it or not, it is becoming increasingly evident that the universe had a beginning and that this beginning involved intelligence. Court cases and elections don't solve scientific inquiries. These holes in evolutionary metaphysics will not go away until they are addressed. Even Jastrow acknowledges that with the universe still expanding, it is indicative of a beginning.
The beginning of the Universe is totally inconsequential to Evolutionary Biology/Biological Evolution. That, and how is saying "GODDIDIT at the beginning of time" supposed to make Intelligent Design scientific, and supposed to make Evolution not scientific?

evergreenrain · 11 November 2011

On the contrary, I have been paying attention. This is about more than some teacher's job. However, going back to the article, if the tables had been turned and the alleged "creationists" had won, it still would not be good. Politics and science are a bad mix. That combination has hampered and/or retarded scientific inquiry for centuries.

Thankfully where I went to public high school teachers were/are allowed to teach both and students are encouraged to question all scientific theories. We had some great debates in those classes and I think everyone came out of Biology I and II with a better appreciation for all the possibilities.

In a free and open society, people (including students) have the right to make decisions based on the information presented in the market place of ideas. Phil Johnson has an excellent synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy with regards to these ideas in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Mill, it is always correct to consider alternate viewpoints in depth so that one understands why one’s beliefs are correct. Evolutionists and Intelligent Designers should welcome the chance to demonstrate to each young mind why that mind should be for their version of events. Everyone’s ideas are forced to grow and strengthen. Force feeding information to children in a one-sided fashion reeks of Hitler’s fascist Germany and Stalin’s communist Russia. Nobody should want that.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

By the way...
evergreenrain said: Court cases and elections don't solve scientific inquiries.
This is true. Court cases and elections don't solve scientific inquiries. Neither do debated, or persuasion, or wishful thinking or religious revisionism. Scientific research producing carefully tested evidence solve scientific inquiries. Fortunately, mainstream science has been doing this for 150 years, and has amassed entire buildings full of evidence, often in the form of publicly accessible natural history museums, where you can see it for yourself.

These holes in evolutionary metaphysics will not go away until they are addressed.

Um, they are being addressed. They have been addressed, more or less constantly, since the time of Galileo. Evolutionary metaphysics, whatever that means, are apparently just fine. It's creationist metaphysics that has yet to put the first little scrap of evidence on the table.

Even Jastrow acknowledges that with the universe still expanding, it is indicative of a beginning.

Um, yes. We know this. We call it "The Big Bang". We think we understand the physics of it pretty well. Bafflingly, you seem to feel that the relatively simple interaction between atomic forces is too complicated to have arisen naturally, but the phenomenally more complex thing that is a universe-creating diety can poof into existence with no trouble.

evergreenrain · 11 November 2011

ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry. Consider the cell; all the information contained therein can't be accounted for by "random" events. It's just not possible.

The cell contains realities that Darwinian evolution can't account for. The cell is a tiny factory where digital information encoded on a strand of DNA provides instructions for complex processes like quality control, adaptation, replication, etc. We have to develop engineering concepts (quality control for example) which requires a great deal of intelligence. It turns out, the cell has been doing this all along. Where did this internal intelligence come from? This is cellular technology that goes beyond the bounds of Darwin. We need something to take us to the next level, and ID goes there.

Dawkins has even said aspects of the universe may give the appearance of design but we must keep telling ourselves that it really is due to evolution. What kind of scientific inquiry is that? Deny what you observe and keep telling yourself what your friends tell you to believe? Talk about sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "Old Glory".

But Darwin has his own problems. Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren't at a state of entropy. Therefore we couldn't have always existed.

Mike Elzinga · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: On the contrary, I have been paying attention. This is about more than some teacher's job. However, going back to the article, if the tables had been turned and the alleged "creationists" had won, it still would not be good. Politics and science are a bad mix. That combination has hampered and/or retarded scientific inquiry for centuries. Thankfully where I went to public high school teachers were/are allowed to teach both and students are encouraged to question all scientific theories. We had some great debates in those classes and I think everyone came out of Biology I and II with a better appreciation for all the possibilities. In a free and open society, people (including students) have the right to make decisions based on the information presented in the market place of ideas. Phil Johnson has an excellent synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy with regards to these ideas in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Mill, it is always correct to consider alternate viewpoints in depth so that one understands why one’s beliefs are correct. Evolutionists and Intelligent Designers should welcome the chance to demonstrate to each young mind why that mind should be for their version of events. Everyone’s ideas are forced to grow and strengthen. Force feeding information to children in a one-sided fashion reeks of Hitler’s fascist Germany and Stalin’s communist Russia. Nobody should want that.
I have the distinct impression that you know almost nothing about the history of the ID/creationist movement. Some of us posting here have been around ever since Henry Morris and Duane Gish founded the Institute for Creation Research in the early 1970s; and we know all the dirty tricks and tactics that ID/creationists have evolved in their attempts to push this fraud off onto the public, especially onto already fearful and ignorant sectarians. ID/creationism has always been a pseudo-science concocted by sectarians attempting to squelch the teaching of evolution in the public school science curriculum. ID/creationism has a well-documented history, and you can find much of its history in the links to the court cases at the National Center for Science Education. Introducing politically motivated pseudo-science into the classroom under the ruse of promoting “critical thinking” has been one of the more recent sales pitches by ID/creationists since they lost their most recent court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover. ID/creationists have always had the goal of stifling the teaching of evolution. Whether it be passing laws outlawing it, passing laws requiring equal time for ID/creationist pseudo-science, or passing laws that protect infinite interruptions in the guise of “critical thinking,” the goal has always been to prevent students from learning one of the most important central cores of our scientific achievements. And it is all because ID/creationists have always been aggressive proselytizers who think that their religion is supported by science. One makes a very serious mistake in believing that anything ID/creationists have to offer are “legitimate alternative scientific interpretations to the scientific evidence.” ID/creationism is and has always been pseudo-science from the time that Henry Morris and Duane Gish concocted it. It remains pseudo-science even when it was deliberately morphed into “intelligent design” to get around the 1987 US Supreme Court decision on Edwards v. Aguillard. The only value one gets from studying ID/creationism is as typical case study in the political scamming of the public with a pseudo-science heavily marketed with politically corrupting tactics. It would be an ideal topic for a course dealing with the tactics of fraud and disinformation. In fact, such a course would include reading and discussing those transcripts, depositions, and decisions of the court cases that can be downloaded from the National Center for Science Education. Before coming here and attempting to repeat old, worn-out ID/creationist arguments, I would strongly advise you to dig into the history of the ID/creationist sectarian political movement.

Mike Elzinga · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry. Consider the cell; all the information contained therein can't be accounted for by "random" events. It's just not possible. ... But Darwin has his own problems. Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren't at a state of entropy. Therefore we couldn't have always existed.
Please don’t repeat those canards here. Some of us know something about all this. You don’t know anything about “information,” entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics. Not one ID/creationism advocate has ever gotten these concepts right; EVER. Henry Morris deliberately pitted a misrepresentation of evolution against a misrepresentation of thermodynamics. This is how he started his pseudo-science. We have a hard, well-documented record of it.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: Consider the cell; all the information contained therein can't be accounted for by "random" events. It's just not possible.
Why not? Again, be specific. Creationists have been spouting this for years, but still, nobody has been able to give a coherent explanation of what exactly the cell contains that requires intelligent intervention. Michael Behe can't do it, and he's the leading proponent of "irreducible complexity". Bill Dembski can't do it, and he's the leading proponent of "specified complex information". So give it a shot, Evergreen, what specifically about the cell requires design?
The cell contains realities that Darwinian evolution can't account for.
Like what?
The cell is a tiny factory where digital information encoded on a strand of DNA provides instructions for complex processes like quality control, adaptation, replication, etc.
Um, no. The creationist parody of the cell is a little tiny factory. The real cell is a mass of well-understood chemical processes. If there's some specific function you cant' explain through physical processes, by all means, tell us what it is.
We have to develop engineering concepts (quality control for example) which requires a great deal of intelligence.
Yup. But that's how we do things. That's why we make technological advances in the blink of an eye that took nature billions of years.
It turns out, the cell has been doing this all along. Where did this internal intelligence come from?
We know this. It comes from the feedback mechanism of trial and error, which, while not intelligent, provides a simple, reliable system for incremental evolution. It's slow. Way slow. Much, much slower than intelligent design, but eh. Such is life.
Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren't at a state of entropy. Therefore we couldn't have always existed.
Well, hell, I have it all wrong. You see, I work with the laws of thermodynamics all day long, and all this time I thought they were about the flow of heat and work in a thermal gradient. But obviously, I was wrong. Looks like I'm going to have a very busy tomorrow when all the power supplies and amplifiers I've designed in the last 25 years stop working. But, be that as it may. Please, Evergreen, enlighten us, exactly what about he 2nd law of thermodynamics do you think is the problem? And for that matter, exactly why do you think an intelligent agent could violate the laws of thermodynamics anyway, no matter how good his design was? We sure can't, and we understand thermodynamics pretty damned well. How intelligent do you have to be before you can violate the laws of physics?

evergreenrain · 11 November 2011

stevaroni, sorry I wasn't more clear on my comment regarding Jastrow. Let me explain if more fully. Jastrow doesn't like Big Bang because it places limits on what naturalistic science can affirm and poses problems for naturalism itself. Hawking also says of the Big Bang in the Theory of Everything, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

One other thing about cellular technology that I forgot to mention above: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from? Evolution can't tell us.

I am just saying that there are real problems with evolution, that ID can help fill. Maybe the reality is that some form of evolution assisted ID, or maybe Darwinian evolution is a bunch of hogwash. I don't know, but we as a scientific community must have the courage to go there and find out.

As you can see from this string, this is a great way to expand the minds of young people. Again, back to my original point, making political slogans and hiring lawyers doesn't solve anything. It has been a pleasure, and I will check back later. Thanks for the hospitality and comments.

fnxtr · 11 November 2011

Translation: "I'm getting creamed by people who actually know what they're talking about. Didn't expect that, I'm outta here."

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: One other thing about cellular technology that I forgot to mention above: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from? Evolution can't tell us.
Huh? Of course evolution is capable of adding information. That is because evolution is capable of testing options. That's why evolution looks so much like design, because it actually uses one of the mechanism used by human designers - trial and error. That's how evolution works. Nothing is designed in advance because evolution has no foresight. Mutation and genetic drift continually create slight variation. These variations are tested in massive parallel to see which ones work best, then after the fact, the options that work best are allowed to iterate the cycle again. The information added is "this variation works best", the agent that adds the information is the environment, which adversely selects against the lesser options. The mechanism for making this selection is decision after the fact. There is no missing link.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: Again, back to my original point, making political slogans and hiring lawyers doesn't solve anything.
Yes, making political slogans and hiring lawyers doesn't solve anything. But that's what creationists do. Witness slogans like "Theory in Crisis", and the endless attempts to legislate "equal time" for teaching a prima facia religious dogma under the guise of objective fact. Science doesn't do this, Creationists do this. Scientists go off and measure stuff in painstaking detail and publish their results to open peer review. That's why we know how HOX genes work and what Tiktallik looked like, while creationists can't even honestly answer the question "what actual evidence do you want us to teach".

Atheistoclast · 11 November 2011

stevaroni said:
evergreenrain said: One other thing about cellular technology that I forgot to mention above: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from? Evolution can't tell us.
Huh? Of course evolution is capable of adding information. That is because evolution is capable of testing options. That's why evolution looks so much like design, because it actually uses one of the mechanism used by human designers - trial and error. That's how evolution works. Nothing is designed in advance because evolution has no foresight. Mutation and genetic drift continually create slight variation. These variations are tested in massive parallel to see which ones work best, then after the fact, the options that work best are allowed to iterate the cycle again. The information added is "this variation works best", the agent that adds the information is the environment, which adversely selects against the lesser options. The mechanism for making this selection is decision after the fact. There is no missing link.
This is a flawed argument. Often in evolutionary adaptation, the "variation that works best" involves a loss of function and physical loss of genetic material. The literature is replete with examples of mutational degradation proving to be beneficial in a particular environment. For example, white skin, blue eyes and blond hair are are the result of mutations that inhibit the production and expression of the dark pigment of eumelanin in varying degrees. Evolution didn't create a blond hair gene or a blue eye gene - that would be new information. It just messed about with some receptors and the like that led to the loss of eumelanin. This was beneficial to Northern Europeans because eumelanin blocks the absorption of UV necessary for Vitamin D production, and this can be detrimental in a climate with little sunlight.

DS · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: One other thing about cellular technology that I forgot to mention above: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from? Evolution can't tell us. I am just saying that there are real problems with evolution, that ID can help fill. Maybe the reality is that some form of evolution assisted ID, or maybe Darwinian evolution is a bunch of hogwash. I don't know, but we as a scientific community must have the courage to go there and find out. As you can see from this string, this is a great way to expand the minds of young people. Again, back to my original point, making political slogans and hiring lawyers doesn't solve anything. It has been a pleasure, and I will check back later. Thanks for the hospitality and comments.
You seem to have been listening to creationist nonsense instead of studying biology. Genetic variation is produced by random mutations. Natural selection decreases the frequency of those mutations that are less favorable in a given environment and therefore increases the frequency of those mutations that are more favorable in that environment. This, in combination with genetic drift, gene duplication and other processes definitely increases information. It is the source of new alleles and new genes and new structures and new functions. To deny this is to ignore all of the evidence that exists. You wouldn't want to do that now would you? Of course there are some unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, thanks goodness or I would be out of a job. But ID isn;t going to help, never has, never will. It offers no testable predictions and has no explanation for the available data. IT is scientifically worthless. Scientists have had the courage to investigate evolution for the last two hundred years. ID has not. Creationism is not the way to expand minds. It is an anti science, political and religious agenda that does not honor evidence or truth. Get a clue.

W. H. Heydt · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry.
Some years ago, the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research is someone would send them a grant proposal. The ID folks never did so. The obvious inferences are that they either couldn't think of anything in ID they could research, or that they were afraid that any funded research would spectacularly and publicly fail to produce the results they wanted.
Consider the cell; all the information contained therein can't be accounted for by "random" events. It's just not possible.
That is expressing that you don't understand what happens and how it happens, not that it "can't" happen. Your inability to understand in no way interferes with evolutionary processes doing what is observed. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

raven · 11 November 2011

evergreen making stuff up: ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry.
This is an assertion without proof, data, or logic. Hitchens rule: It may be dismissed without proof, data, or logic. No its not. It is a religious dogma, creationism. Fundies have simply changed the name from creationism to ID to try to sneak their mythology into our children's science classes. It didn't work.

raven · 11 November 2011

Evergreen quotemining Hawkings: Hawking also says of the Big Bang in the Theory of Everything, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Hawkings is an atheist. He said that because he has another theory that explains the Big Bang without there being a god. Unbounded universe.
evergreen lying: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from? Evolution can’t tell us.
These are both lies. You have just proved why Intelligent Creationism fails as science and can't be taught in children's science classes. Intelligent Creationism is just a bunch of lies and logical fallacies strung together.

raven · 11 November 2011

Hawking: Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going. The Grand Design Hawking and Mlodinow 2010
Evergreen just flat out quote mined and lied about what Hawking said. And everything else. And that is why nonIntelligent Creationism fails. It's just lies from religious kooks. We scientists would rather find out and know than lie.

Paul Burnett · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: ...a balanced approach between ID and evolution...
Would you similarly advocate a "balanced approach" between astrology and astronomy? The demonic possession theory of disease versus the germ theory of disease? The angry gods theory of earthquakes versus plate tectonics?

Paul Burnett · 11 November 2011

evergreenrain said: ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry.
Which scientific journal did you read that ridiculous claim in? Because we are not aware of any scientific entity that agrees with your absurd statement. In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics and essentially every other actual science organization in the US have condemned intelligent design creationism as a pseudoscience - not a valid line of scientific inquiry at all. What exactly is the source of your claim that ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry? Please cite your literature source. Oh, and in case you're in one of Professor Dembski's classes and you're trolling here for extra credit, tell Billy we said hi.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

Paul Burnett said:
evergreenrain said: ...a balanced approach between ID and evolution...
Would you similarly advocate a "balanced approach" between astrology and astronomy?
Better yet, would he similarly advocate a "balanced approach" that seriously presented the various religious alternatives and their relative merits versus the judeo-christian model? After all, some of the eastern creations myths involve deities getting it on and mankind rising from their... um... issue. Seeing as this at least involves some Biology, if your're going to provide "alternatives", shouldn't you present this one as a better creation story than Genesis?

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: This is a flawed argument. Often in evolutionary adaptation, the "variation that works best" involves a loss of function and physical loss of genetic material. The literature is replete with examples of mutational degradation proving to be beneficial in a particular environment. For example, white skin, blue eyes and blond hair are are the result of mutations that inhibit the production and expression of the dark pigment of eumelanin in varying degrees.
Nice try, but, as usual, carefully worded crap designed to have some slight technical truth, but primarily mislead by indirection. Let's fix it, shall we...
Often Sometimes in evolutionary adaptation, the "variation that works best" involves a loss of function and physical loss of genetic material. The literature is replete with examples of mutational degradation proving to be beneficial in a particular environment. For example, white skin, blue eyes and blond hair are are the result of mutations that inhibit the production and expression of the dark pigment of eumelanin in varying degrees. On the other hand, the world is replete with examples of novel functions evolving de-novo, like the "nylonbug", Fungi which actually benefit from the ionizing radiation in the wastes of Chernobyl, and, of course, the citrate-digesting e-coli of lenski's well-documented long-term evolution experiments
See, it's simple to be accurate and complete when you actually try.

stevaroni · 11 November 2011

fnxtr said: (in reference to Evergreenrain) Translation: "I'm getting creamed by people who actually know what they're talking about. Didn't expect that, I'm outta here."
That reminds me, isn't this about the time of year when Dembski's "blog to the infidels" extra-credit projects usually kick in? This troll might be one of those. It's suitably concerned but obviously it's new and didn't expect to be contested with actual data.

nasty.brutish.tall · 12 November 2011

evergreenrain said: In a free and open society, people (including students) have the right to make decisions based on the information presented in the market place of ideas. Phil Johnson has an excellent synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy with regards to these ideas in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Mill, it is always correct to consider alternate viewpoints in depth so that one understands why one’s beliefs are correct. Evolutionists and Intelligent Designers should welcome the chance to demonstrate to each young mind why that mind should be for their version of events.
If you want to understand Mill's take on scientific inquiry, you should read Mill himself, not Johnson. In his "Philosophy of Scientific Method" he writes
JS Mill said: If we suppose that the subject matter of any generalization to be so widely diffused that there is no time, no place, and no combination of circumstances but must afford an example either of its truth or of its falsity, and if it be never found otherwise than true, its truth cannot be contingent on any collocations, unless as exist at all times and places; nor can it be frustrated by any counteracting agencies, unless by such as never actually occur. It is, therefore, an empirical law co-extensive with all human experience; at which point the distinction between empirical laws and laws of nature vanishes, and the proposition takes its place among the most firmly established as well as largest truths accessible to science.
Over the course of the several hundred pages of that book, Mill makes clear that what it takes to confirm, verify, and establish a scientific proposition beyond reasonable doubt is experimental observation, testing, and consilience between different lines of evidence, as has occurred in biology in the last 150 years. But he also writes
JS Mill said: There is a property common to almost all the moral sciences, and by which they are distinguished from many of the physical; that is, it is seldom in our power to make experiments in them. In chemistry and natural philosophy we cannot only observe what happens under all the combinations of circumstances which nature brings together, but we may also try an indefinite number of new combinations. This we can seldom do in ethical, and scarcely ever in political, science.
Because of this difference in the natural and moral sciences, he goes on to say, with respect to forming conclusions in the moral sciences,
JS Mill said: A person may be warranted in feeling confident that whatever he has carefully contemplated with his mind’s eye he has seen correctly; but no one can be sure that there is not something in existence which he has not seen at all. He can do no more than satisfy himself that he has seen all that is visible to any other persons who have concerned themselves with the subject. For this purpose he must endeavor to place himself at their point of view and strive earnestly to see the object as they see it, nor give up the attempt until he has either added the appearance which is floating before them to his own stock of realities or made out clearly that it is an optical deception.
You are correct, therefore, that Mill is a proponent of considering alternative viewpoints, but that applies most appropriately to the moral sciences for which we cannot easily conduct definitive experiments to test our opinions. In the natural sciences, on the other hand, we should trust ideas that have established themselves solidly on the basis of extensive and diverse experimental evidence, and we would be foolish to give equal hearing to ideas that present themselves to us without having done such due diligence.
evergreenrain said: Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren’t at a state of entropy
By the way, and with all due respect, anyone who has any understanding of thermodynamics, the second law, and the concept of entropy at even the most basic level, would never use the phrase "we aren't at a state of entropy". That statement is completely nonsensical.

DS · 12 November 2011

evergreenrain said:

"Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren’t at a state of entropy"

RIght. But that is a temporary condition, soon to be remedied.

Frank J · 12 November 2011

Some years ago, the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research is someone would send them a grant proposal. The ID folks never did so. The obvious inferences are that they either couldn’t think of anything in ID they could research, or that they were afraid that any funded research would spectacularly and publicly fail to produce the results they wanted.

— W. H. Heydt
In case any new readers are unaware of the intense irony, the Templeton Foundation has a very pro-religion bias. They wanted ID to succeed, but it failed. In fact it did worse than fail, in that it did not even meet the standards of "scientific" creationism (the "classic" YEC and OEC) by stating basic testable hypotheses of what the designer(s) did when. ID is a "big tent" scam promoted by people who know that there is no scientific alternative to evolution, and that YEC and OEC "what happened when" hypotheses not only fail the tests, but contradict each other to boot. Like "evergreenrain," I too fell for the "fairness" line briefly in the 90s. And in a way I still do. I fully encourage that students learn all the ID arguments, as well as the mutually contradictory claims of YEC and OEC variants (including geocentrism, day-age, gap, etc.) and all the refutations that "fairness" advocates conveniently omit. Another irony is that students are already free to learn all that on their own time and their parents' dime. They are even free to learn the anti-evolution arguments and ignore the refutations if they, or their parents, so desire. Even disregarding church-state issues that's the fairest option by any measure. Science class, publicly funded or not, must include only that which has earned the right to be taught. Evolution should be taught, and yes, critically analyzed. But there's a right way and a wrong way. And anti-evolution activists have repeatedly demonstrated that they advocate the wrong way, and would likely censor any attempt to do it the right way.

Paul Burnett · 12 November 2011

Frank J said: ...anti-evolution activists have repeatedly demonstrated that they advocate the wrong way, and would likely censor any attempt to do it the right way.
That's a good point to emphasize: The fundagelicals don't want creationism (including, of course, "intelligent design" creationism) subjected to the same "critical analysis" that they want to apply to evolution - which has about as much chance of happening as Rick Warren letting Neil Shubin or Kevin Padian give a talk about evolution at Saddleback Church.

raven · 12 November 2011

“Given the second law of thermodynamics, if the cosmos has always existed, then we should already be at a state of entropy, but we aren’t at a state of entropy”
As this is written, it is just gibberish. I assume they meant maximum entropy. It's also wrong. If the universe is expanding, the allowable maximum entropy keeps going up. Fover, if the universe expands forever. The universe is expanding and has been for 13.7 billion years. Even if the universe doesn't expand forever, it is just getting started. A baby. It will take trillions of years for the universe to even get within shouting distance of maximum entropy.

Frank J · 12 November 2011

The fundagelicals don’t want creationism (including, of course, “intelligent design” creationism) subjected to the same “critical analysis” that they want to apply to evolution...

— Paul Burnett
Which as you know is not a true critical analysis, but a misrepresentation strategy "designed" specifically to promote unreasonable doubt. Of course they would also not allow a real critical analysis, as is applied to evolution education at the college level, and of course conducted daily by those who have the most to gain by finding a better theory. BTW, I found it interesting that "evergreenrain" would not have wanted the creationist BOE candidates to win either. Was it because he/she had been honestly misled about ID, but knew that YEC and OEC were as discredited as astrology, and thus just as inappropriate for science class? Or because BOE creationists would reveal their motivations, risking another Dover? Or becsuse they might successfully hide their motivations, but nevertheless allow students to learn weaknesses of YEC/OEC that he/she would rather keep from students?

xubist · 12 November 2011

evergreenrain said: ID is a valid line of scientific inquiry.
It is? Cool! Please tell me: What is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?
Consider the cell; all the information contained therein...
Hold it. What 'information'? If you're referring to 'genetic information', I say there's no such thing. IMAO, information-in-the-DNA is just a metaphor, and this metaphor is only worth bothering with if it helps people understand stuff. If you think 'genetic information' is something real that has empirically observable effects, cool! Here are two nucleotide sequences:
Nucleotide sequence 1: aca acg gaa ttc agc acc acc cca cca tga ctg cag gtc gcg atg acc ccc tgt cgt ttg tcg atc cgt tat tgg Nucleotide sequence 2: cga act gtc cgg tca acg ccg gga gca aac ggt taa cac tag aca gaa gca gac att cgt tgt tat tca tca tag
Which of these two nucleotide sequences has more 'genetic information' in it? Please show your work.
...cellular technology ... goes beyond the bounds of Darwin. We need something to take us to the next level, and ID goes there.
So what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?

Richard B. Hoppe · 12 November 2011

xubist said: So what is the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, and how can we use the scientific method to test this theory?
Simple. In its entirety, and with all the details provided by ID theorists filled in, the scientific theory of intelligent design is:
Sometime or other, some entity(ies) or other designed something(s) or other, and then somehow or other those designs were manufactured in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, no independent evidence of the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence, or even the existence, of the designing and manufacturing entity(ies).
See how well that explains the phenomena?

eric · 14 November 2011

evergreenrain said: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from?
Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
Evolution can't tell us.
Yes, the modern synthesis does. Now granted, Darwin couldn't explain the source of variation 150 years ago. But that was 150 years ago.
I don't know, but we as a scientific community must have the courage to go there and find out.
Go there! Find out! Do ID experiments and report the results...please! Mainstream science is not opposed to scientists studying ID. What the scientific community asks, and what we have always asked, is that you not teach it in HS science classes until you go out and do this work, report the results, and thus have something substantiated by evidence to teach.
Again, back to my original point, making political slogans and hiring lawyers doesn't solve anything.
I completely agree. For that reason, I hope we can count on you to join with us and demand that the DI stop trying to perform "wedge projects" 2 and 3 until they are successful at wedge project 1. Its been 13 years and they haven't actually done any scientific research. Just political and legal manouvers. You disagree with what they're doing, correct?

harold · 14 November 2011

evergreenrain said -
On the contrary, I have been paying attention. This is about more than some teacher’s job. However, going back to the article, if the tables had been turned and the alleged “creationists” had won, it still would not be good.
Agreed, it is about more than one teacher's job, ultimately, and it would not have been good if the creationists had won.
Politics and science are a bad mix. That combination has hampered and/or retarded scientific inquiry for centuries.
I disagree with the over-generalization. Democratic political policies that respect human rights can encourage and fund good science. Of course, I agree that political positions grounded in biased denial of science impede human progress.
Thankfully where I went to public high school teachers were/are allowed to teach both and students are encouraged to question all scientific theories. We had some great debates in those classes and I think everyone came out of Biology I and II with a better appreciation for all the possibilities.
If this is true, you were cheated out of a basic high school education. Due the foolish policy of allowing teachers to present pseudo-science as equal to science, to ignorant and naive students, you ended up falling for the absurd claims of "intelligent design". Of course, this may not be true. Maybe you had made up your mind to be a creationist, due to passive acceptance of religious dogma, or because you feel that parroting creationist claims will advance you personally no matter what the real truth is, or for some other non-rational reason. If so, it is possible that nothing your teachers' taught could have impacted on you.
In a free and open society, people (including students) have the right to make decisions based on the information presented in the market placea of ideas.
Absolutely true, and this is true of the United States. This is not a reason to either violate the constitution by teaching narrow sectarian dogma as "science" in public schools, nor even to confuse students by teaching false, illogical nonsense in place of, or as if it were equal to, science, for any reason. There is an infinite supply of wrong ideas in the world; your particular post-modern right wing mythology is only one small example. It would be absurd to waste school time and confuse students by teaching the views of all the crackpots who deny sound science, and it would be unfair to teach only the irrational science denial favored by some, but not others. The ideal solution is to teach sound, consensus science in schools. Students can seek religious and spiritual counsel as they see fit on their own time. Crackpot ideas are not censored and are widely available to everyone.
Phil Johnson has an excellent synopsis of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy with regards to these ideas in his book, Reason in the Balance. According to Mill, it is always correct to consider alternate viewpoints in depth so that one understands why one’s beliefs are correct.
I don't agree that Phillip Johnson produces "excellent" books, nor that he fairly represents the views of others. I DO agree that it is an excellent idea to consider alternate viewpoints in depth. I do this and you don't. I am keenly aware of the claims of YEC, ID/creationism, and a number of other prominent science denial positions. Your comments show an ignorance of basic science. I urge you to take your own advice.
Evolutionists and Intelligent Designers should welcome the chance to demonstrate to each young mind why that mind should be for their version of events.
Agreed. High school science class is not the place for sectarian science denial. However, the theory of evolution should always be taught in a manner that is grounded in understanding the evidence. I strongly support your right to push your ideas on any mind that will listen, and I very, very strongly urge those minds to evaluate your sectarian dogma with a high degree of critical rigor. However, as I noted above, it isn't legal or feasible to include all possible mythology-based science denial in high school science class.
Everyone’s ideas are forced to grow and strengthen. Force feeding information to children in a one-sided fashion reeks of Hitler’s fascist Germany and Stalin’s communist Russia. Nobody should want that.
I oppose authoritarian government, and you apparently support it. You want the special authoritarian privilege of deceptively pushing your own sectarian dogma as "science", in public schools, at taxpayer expense. I support the freedom of religion that this nation was founded on. Families and students will choose their own beliefs, and you do not have, and never will have, the right to use government power to coerce them into involuntarily kowtowing to your particular sect.

SWT · 14 November 2011

eric said:
evergreenrain said: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from?
Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
Funny I should come across this now. I was just walking down the hall and noticed a poster describing a successful project to use genetic algorithms to design passive analog filters. If random variation followed by non-random selection can't generate "new information" I wonder where the information came from the resulted in the successful designs ...

eric · 14 November 2011

SWT said: If random variation followed by non-random selection can't generate "new information" I wonder where the information came from the resulted in the successful designs ...
Real answer: the process itself creates the novel structures and software, of course. ID answer: well, an intelligent designer programmed the GA, so that must be where it came from. (And speaking as an IDer, I will ignore the fact that the programmer had no idea what those filter designs would be. Or if there would be any. I will also ignore the fact that my "answer" is really a defense of theistic evolution, not intelligent design. But whatever.)

Atheistoclast · 14 November 2011

SWT said:
eric said:
evergreenrain said: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from?
Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
Funny I should come across this now. I was just walking down the hall and noticed a poster describing a successful project to use genetic algorithms to design passive analog filters. If random variation followed by non-random selection can't generate "new information" I wonder where the information came from the resulted in the successful designs ...
All a genetic/evolutionary algorithm can do is optimize. In any case, the "evolution" is directed towards a target or end result. It is not a blind and open search. Moreover, genetic algorithms are not even the commonly used optimizers in the industry. Seems like you work at a university where people aren't that advanced.

Atheistoclast · 14 November 2011

eric said: Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
LOL. Yeah, a random mutation is bound to create new information! It may produce a different character in the sequence, but that doesn't mean new information, maestro. You really need to read a paper on the subject. Let me recommend this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract OK?

Mike Elzinga · 14 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
eric said: Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
LOL. Yeah, a random mutation is bound to create new information! It may produce a different character in the sequence, but that doesn't mean new information, maestro. You really need to read a paper on the subject. Let me recommend this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract OK?
See? We don’t even have to read your “papers” to know that they are wrong. You ID/creationists always screw up the second law of thermodynamics. All you are doing essentially is parroting John Sanford’s crap on “genetic entropy.”

DS · 14 November 2011

Clean up on aisle three.

Mike Elzinga · 14 November 2011

DS said: Clean up on aisle three.
Agreed. This Bozo taunt belongs on the Bathroom Wall.

Atheistoclast · 14 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Atheistoclast said:
eric said: Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
LOL. Yeah, a random mutation is bound to create new information! It may produce a different character in the sequence, but that doesn't mean new information, maestro. You really need to read a paper on the subject. Let me recommend this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract OK?
See? We don’t even have to read your “papers” to know that they are wrong. You ID/creationists always screw up the second law of thermodynamics. All you are doing essentially is parroting John Sanford’s crap on “genetic entropy.”
Except I don't even mention the second law of thermodynamics, jackass.

mplavcan · 14 November 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
DS said: Clean up on aisle three.
Agreed. This Bozo taunt belongs on the Bathroom Wall.
Suddenly a noxious cloud of narcissistic stupidity blows through the conversation.

Science Avenger · 14 November 2011

Atheistoclast said: All a genetic/evolutionary algorithm can do is optimize. In any case, the "evolution" is directed towards a target or end result.
Bullshit, you guys already tried this game with the Steiner trees, and you lost. The IDers couldn't come up with the optimal design they claimed was hidden in the code. Evolitionary algorithms make selections via certain parameter scores, there is no target. Aside from the usual arguments debunking this silly "target" argument, there is one very obvious common-sense one: if the final target were known ahead of time, there would be no point in running the algorithm in the first place. The whole point is to see what the parameter variation/selection process produces. You really are just parroting nonsense.

Science Avenger · 14 November 2011

Here's the Steiner link, a brilliant piece of work.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/take-the-design.html

bigdakine · 15 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
SWT said:
eric said:
evergreenrain said: Natural selection by definition reduces cellular technology. So where does new genetic information come from?
Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
Funny I should come across this now. I was just walking down the hall and noticed a poster describing a successful project to use genetic algorithms to design passive analog filters. If random variation followed by non-random selection can't generate "new information" I wonder where the information came from the resulted in the successful designs ...
All a genetic/evolutionary algorithm can do is optimize. In any case, the "evolution" is directed towards a target or end result. It is not a blind and open search. Moreover, genetic algorithms are not even the commonly used optimizers in the industry. Seems like you work at a university where people aren't that advanced.
This is complete bullshit. And I pointed this out before using the example of a cubic signal generator created by a GA which outperformed patented designs, and further, how it works was not well understood. Should I repost that Joe? You ran away from it the first time. And to claim in a public forum, there is no target in biological evolution, is stupid. Of course there is. Maximize reproductive propensity.

harold · 15 November 2011

And to claim in a public forum, there is no target in biological evolution, is stupid.
Actually, it's semantic. The alleles associated with greater reproductive efficiency are selected for. Thus, one could say that evolution "targets" this feature. On the other hand, there is no specific pre-set lineage which evolution "tries" to achieve. When early birds/bird-like dinosaurs evolved, evolution was not consciously "targetting" the eventual existence of the bald eagle (nor of some future "ultimate bird" which hasn't evolved yet). A hypothetical alien scientist observing life on earth at that time might have predicted, on a probabilistic basis, that homeothermic, flying, feathered lineages were likely to be selected for, expand, and diversify into more specialized lineages, under certain environmental conditions. However, a precise prediction of some future lineage would be impossible, arguably even to a theoretical observer with total knowledge of conditions at one given time. In this sense, evolution is not targeted, in that it is not a search for a specific future outcome, but rather, an incremental process. This is a fairly important point. Mischaracterizing evolution as a targeted process that "tries" to generate specific future lineages is both a common intuitive mistake on the part of honest students, and a common straw man component of creationist arguments.

marion.delgado · 15 November 2011

Thanks for all your hard work over the YEARS! It has been years, hasn't it.

I like the idea that it's a "meal ticket" for Richard, though. Wow. Haha. I transcribed a couple things related to this and it's not exactly scintillating, though what you find out is amazing sometimes.

So how much will this kamikaze creationist have taken out of the Mt. Vernon School District, when the smoke has cleared? A million dollars is my take. It only takes a few to further the goal of getting rid of free "secular" education for the masses. Especially the poor.

taterzz · 16 November 2011

I have just read so much "stuff" that my head is spinning... A win or a loss should not be based on one's religious beliefs. If all officials in every political arena were selected based on religious or non-religious viewpoints then, ethically speaking, our society would be disciminating against a very large part of itself. What is the point? I thought the point in the whole process was to appoint, or elect, officials based on qualities like integrity, not belief. Is there really only one answer to any question? Who really won here?

cmb · 17 November 2011

taterzz said: I have just read so much "stuff" that my head is spinning... A win or a loss should not be based on one's religious beliefs. If all officials in every political arena were selected based on religious or non-religious viewpoints then, ethically speaking, our society would be disciminating against a very large part of itself. What is the point? I thought the point in the whole process was to appoint, or elect, officials based on qualities like integrity, not belief. Is there really only one answer to any question? Who really won here?
The point is that Freshwater has cost this school district (and the district's insurance company) more than $900,000 in his attempts to subvert the rights of his students and the Constitution of the United States. Jeff Cline has previously stated that he wanted to have "alternatives" to evolution taught in science class. These clowns can believe whatever they want to believe but they do not have the right to use our public schools as a forum for their beliefs. These ID missionaries need to realize that they should do their proseletyzing on their own property and leave the rest of us (and our kids) alone.

DS · 17 November 2011

taterzz said: I have just read so much "stuff" that my head is spinning... A win or a loss should not be based on one's religious beliefs. If all officials in every political arena were selected based on religious or non-religious viewpoints then, ethically speaking, our society would be disciminating against a very large part of itself. What is the point? I thought the point in the whole process was to appoint, or elect, officials based on qualities like integrity, not belief. Is there really only one answer to any question? Who really won here?
Exactly. These people were running on a religious agenda and planned to impose their religious prejudices on others. They are the ones who would try to subvert the system. These people have no integrity, that is why it was a victory that they were defeated. The people who were elected were no elected because of their religious beliefs. That is why this is a victory for the school district.

co · 17 November 2011

Atheistoclast said:
Mike Elzinga said:
Atheistoclast said:
eric said: Mutation creates novel genetic sequences. Whether you want to call that information or not is up to you.
LOL. Yeah, a random mutation is bound to create new information! It may produce a different character in the sequence, but that doesn't mean new information, maestro. You really need to read a paper on the subject. Let me recommend this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract OK?
See? We don’t even have to read your “papers” to know that they are wrong. You ID/creationists always screw up the second law of thermodynamics. All you are doing essentially is parroting John Sanford’s crap on “genetic entropy.”
Except I don't even mention the second law of thermodynamics, jackass.
And Mike Elzinga has once again made a simple comment that Atheistoclast doesn't understand enough to even make a cogent remark about, let alone refute.

raven · 18 November 2011

I thought the point in the whole process was to appoint, or elect, officials based on qualities like integrity, not belief. Is there really only one answer to any question? Who really won here?
This is really stupid. Often an answer to a question is just wrong. Freshwater and his supporters are just wrong. Creationism is a lie. 1. Creationism is a religious cult doctrine. It's factually wrong. 2. It is illegal to try to sneak religious cult doctrines into our kid's science classes. It's been illegal for 200 years.
Who really won here?
The good people. Because reason, logic, integrity, and the law were on their side. The taxpayers, students, and most of the citizens of Mt. Vernon. Who lost was the usual. Theocratic christofascist idiots. Xian death cultists.
If all officials in every political arena were selected based on religious or non-religious viewpoints then, ethically speaking, our society would be disciminating against a very large part of itself.
Tell that to the fundie xians. Their whole program is xian theocratic Dominionism. They exist to attempt to persecute and oppress anyone not of their cults. Not going to happen as long as we have a democracy. They hate democracy for that reason.

ben · 10 December 2011

raven said: Creationism is a lie. 1. Creationism is a religious cult doctrine. It's factually wrong. 2. It is illegal to try to sneak religious cult doctrines into our kid's science classes. It's been illegal for 200 years.
Who really won here?
The good people. Because reason, logic, integrity, and the law were on their side. The taxpayers, students, and most of the citizens of Mt. Vernon. Who lost was the usual. Theocratic christofascist idiots. Xian death cultists.
If all officials in every political arena were selected based on religious or non-religious viewpoints then, ethically speaking, our society would be disciminating against a very large part of itself.
Tell that to the fundie xians. Their whole program is xian theocratic Dominionism. They exist to attempt to persecute and oppress anyone not of their cults. Not going to happen as long as we have a democracy. They hate democracy for that reason.

Sometimes I begin to hope in the playground of ideas. With cloudy eyes I imagine a field of thinkers dealing rationally in the currency of thought, ideas, competing worldviews. And on happy occasion I begin to believe that real work will be done here. I begin to hope that participating individuals would walk level-headed into this playing field without pretentious conceptions about the lordship of their own worldview over all others. Real discussion may be had here, real rational dialogue yielding real answers. Objective truth seems within earshot. And then some bully walks onto the play ground and steals the football

Dave Luckett · 10 December 2011

ben, what emptyheaded, vapid twaddle. "Objective truth" is that which is attested by objective evidence, that is, evidence that any person who cares to investigate can verify by observation, given an honesty that you aren't displaying. It is not reachable by attempts at a pseud postmodernist relativism that you don't really accept anyway. There is no football. There is no bully. There is no "competing worldview". There is only the evidence and what it must imply. "Real rational dialogue" concerns the evidence, and real answers emerge from the evidence, not from silly rhetorical flim-flam like yours.