Scopes II, Here We Come?

No guess - LSEA's been non-litigious far longer than I would've ever expected. It seems Louisiana's local/parish elected officials are a bit smarter than their state-level equivalents. Maybe the same is true in TN, or maybe not...but I'm not putting any bets on it one way or the other. :)

I am somewhat more interested in how long it might take a for a teacher to get in trouble/in the news far answering creationist student questions...by raking creationism over the coals. No doubt all these Legislators will complain that that was not the intent of the bill.

My thoughts too Eric. What happens when some kid brings up creationism and some other kids say it's stupid or false? Who's going to complain then?

Like a true politician, Gov. Haslam took the cowardly way out. From what he said, he apparently considers the bill useless at best. But was that from listening to scientists or to Todd Wood (see the recent PT thread)?

I hope (but fear otherwise) that any ridicule of Gov. Haslam does not refer to "monkeys" or "sneaking in God", but rather how, by not enthusiastically vetoing it, he's thumbing his nose at the scientists who do the actual work to determine what gets taught, and offering an unearned handout to snake-oil peddlers. Though if Eric's observation turns out to be a long term, nation-wide trend, teachers who have been fooled by the snake-oil peddlers (or in on the scam), mostly know better than to risk another Dover.

Austin Peay After a careful examination, I can find nothing of consequence in the books now being taught in our schools with which this bill will interfere in the slightest manner. Therefore, it will not put our teachers in jeopardy. Probably the law will never be applied. It may not be sufficiently definite to permit of any specific application . . . .

Bill Haslam I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools.

Frank J said: Like a true politician, Gov. Haslam took the cowardly way out. From what he said, he apparently considers the bill useless at best. But was that from listening to scientists or to Todd Wood (see the recent PT thread)?

Well it's already been mentioned by the comedians at the DI blog evolutionnews.

I suppose you meant advertent comics, though...

Glen Davidson

"The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life."

Actually, the bill as written specifically forbids this (wink, wink). It is only if the bill is blatantly misinterpreted and misapplied that this will be a problem, just as it already was.

"The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class."

Once again, this is completely wrong. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that prevents teachers from discussing scientific hypothesis in science class. Teachers are allowed to raise any scientific alternatives they want. There aren't any, so it isn't an issue, never was, probably never will be. The bill does not permit discussion of creationism, that has been expressly forbidden by the Supreme Court. The bill isn't going to do anything to change that. Now if you try to use the bill that way you will be taken to court and you will lose, just like you would have before.

“I don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.”

Now that's the point. If you take the bill at face value, it's worthless. If you assume nefarious intent, then it's a giant step backwards. Why not veto it, even if you get overturned? At least you stood up for the truth. That's what politicians do right?

eric said: LSEA's been non-litigious far longer than I would've ever expected. It seems Louisiana's local/parish elected officials are a bit smarter than their state-level equivalents.

Maybe the same is true in TN, or maybe not...but I'm not putting any bets on it one way or the other. :)

It's okay to discuss creationism...just explain why it doesn't belong in the science classroom, and then quickly move on to real science.

Karen S. said: It's okay to discuss creationism...just explain why it doesn't belong in the science classroom, and then quickly move on to real science.

This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

The shtoopid, it burnssss.....

eric said: In the TN state system, only a simple majority is required to override a governor's veto, and 3/4 of the legislature voted for this bill.

It's something to scare misbehaving children with: "If you don't learn to tell the difference between what's true, and what you wish were true, you will grow up to be a young earth creationist!"

Any guesses as to how long before this gets litigious?

W. H. Heydt said: In that case, why even have a veto provision since *every* bill will have had a majority voting for it, making 8every* bill "veto proof" (at least in theory)?

Wow. That is some wonderful news, well worth popping in one more time. The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said.

One of the reasons why I stay with PandasThumb over the years, is simply to keep up on the breaking news in the evolution/creation/ID world. You guys actually do a commendable and noteworthy job of that, and you deserve sincere compliments for it.

That's all I really wanted to say at this time. Just wanted to thank you for helping busy people to keep up with current news.

As I depart, please permit me to leave my new PandasThumb calling card with you, until next time we meet:

http://www.piratemerch.com/images/jolly_roger_bbq_sauce.jpg

FL

FL said: Wow. That is some wonderful news, well worth popping in one more time. The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said. FL

raven said: 1. IIRC, there was a similar bill in Louisiana and so far there have been no lawsuits.

2. Most likely, a lot of schools in Tennessee just don't teach evolution period or outright teach creationism. Unless someone complains, there won't be any lawsuits In my entire pre-college school, I never got much evolution in science classes. The only teacher who really taught it was ironically, a former Mormon missionary who taught straight evolutionary biology and also injected a lot of completely unrelated religion into his classes.

Unless someone wants to be a martyr, either to science or fundie religion, there might not be any lawsuits for a long time. Few people want to do a Jessica Alquist or Dennis family and get death threats for years and have to move or do a John Freshwater and lose their house and job.

Make no mistake: a veto would’ve been purely symbolic.

— eric

FL said: The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said.

FL said: Wow. That is some wonderful news, well worth popping in one more time. The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said. One of the reasons why I stay with PandasThumb over the years, is simply to keep up on the breaking news in the evolution/creation/ID world. You guys actually do a commendable and noteworthy job of that, and you deserve sincere compliments for it. That's all I really wanted to say at this time. Just wanted to thank you for helping busy people to keep up with current news. As I depart, please permit me to leave my new PandasThumb calling card with you, until next time we meet: http://www.piratemerch.com/images/jolly_roger_bbq_sauce.jpg FL

Tenncrain said: I wrote one TN lawmaker (from Chattanooga, near where I spent my teen years) opposing the 'monkey' bills, even explaining I'm an ex-YEC. He replied back politely but very openly and proudly that he has no doubts about the book of Genesis and that he very much wants to have students see "Truth" and put Tennessee and the USA 'back on the right track' by supporting the bills.

Whai is Letterman, leno, and Kermit the frog agree with this law?
Will you guys cease and desist to oppose it!?

This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions.
I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws.
It was never moral or legal anyways.
This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass.
He's trying to preserve his position.

this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids.
A great lesson in civics.

Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues.
This is good publicity for the good guys.

The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said.

Robert Byers the Moron For Jesus said: this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues.

Karen S. said:

The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said.

Train wreck ahead, we're saying.

Carl Drews said:

Tenncrain said: I wrote one TN lawmaker (from Chattanooga, near where I spent my teen years) opposing the 'monkey' bills, even explaining I'm an ex-YEC. He replied back politely but very openly and proudly that he has no doubts about the book of Genesis and that he very much wants to have students see "Truth" and put Tennessee and the USA 'back on the right track' by supporting the bills.

Keep that letter in a safe place. It might be important someday.

In our church's youth group, I make sure that my daughter learns that Jesus is risen from the dead. In our public high school, I make sure that my daughter learns about biological evolution (from Ken Miller and Joe Levine's textbook!). That's what parent-teacher conferences are for.

Robert Byers said: This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions. I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws. It was never moral or legal anyways. This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass. He's trying to preserve his position. this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

In our church’s youth group, I make sure that my daughter learns that Jesus is risen from the dead. In our public high school, I make sure that my daughter learns about biological evolution (from Ken Miller and Joe Levine’s textbook!). That’s what parent-teacher conferences are for.

Here's the problem for SteveP, Robert Byers, FL, and the like. You guys need to get your story straight. What was the purpose of this law to begin with? The DI has flat out stated that this law has nothing to do with "creationism" or "ID". Now, anyone who follows these things knows thats a load of... you know... but apparently you guys can't keep that in mind. Byers has already come out and said he hopes this will "lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws". FL said he likes to keep abreast of developments in the "evolution/creation/ID" world. Except this isn't supposed to be about creationism or ID. Or is it?
Tell you what. You guys go away, talk and discuss amongst yourselves (Heck, get Luskin and whomever else at the DI involved, since they wrote the law to begin with), get your stories straight, and come back when you have a solid position on... well, anything.
(goes back to lurking)

Robert Byers said: Whai is Letterman, leno, and Kermit the frog agree with this law? Will you guys cease and desist to oppose it!? This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions. I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws. It was never moral or legal anyways. This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass. He's trying to preserve his position. this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

Tenncrain said: I wrote one TN lawmaker (from Chattanooga, near where I spent my teen years) opposing the 'monkey' bills, even explaining I'm an ex-YEC. He replied back politely but very openly and proudly that he has no doubts about the book of Genesis and that he very much wants to have students see "Truth" and put Tennessee and the USA 'back on the right track' by supporting the bills. If his mentality wins out in Tennessee, there may be a constitutional legal challenge sooner than later.

Best way to indoctrinate atheists is to discuss the Bible in science class. Worked for me when I was in Catholic school.

DS said: Why not veto it, even if you get overturned? At least you stood up for the truth. That's what politicians do right?

Ah, you gotta love these creationists - so adept at turning pretty much nothing into a magical miracle which spells the (still) imminent demise of Darwinism.

So, how's that working out, guys? The demise of Darwinism has been "imminent" since, I dunno, about 1859, yet here evolution still is - still providing great explanatory power and still being built on and expanded and revised and refined and still being shored up by new piece of evidence after new piece of evidence ... oh yeah, and still being taught in classrooms - at least the ones that haven't been intimidated into silence on the topic by braying cretins and brain-dead cultists.

Come on, your side has had since 1859 to present something that actually contradicts the theory of evolution, but all you've got to show for it is failed court case after failed court case and a couple of hollow, meaningless "victories" in Confederate states.

But what about the rest of the developed world? Except perhaps for places like Islamic theocracies, the theory of evolution doesn't attract nearly so many cultists attempting to deny it in place of either their openly-admitted magic dogma or their unnamed "designer" and his unknown and completely invisible (but completely obvious to those without Darwin Goggles) materials and processes. Why have you guys failed so dismally around the globe and achieved practically bugger-all in the US? Conspiracy? Darwinist fascism and oppression? Or could it be that science doesn't work like your fundamentalist religion, with its orthodoxy and authoritarianism and inquisitions and damnation, and instead seeks as best it can the truth of a matter and lets the implications of that truth fall where they may, regardless of anyone's cherished wizardry?

Seriously, how long are you guys going to crow about your great victory being just around the corner? You've had some minor wins in US states renowned for their high fundie whacko proportion and you're already buying paper plates for the victory barbecue. Look at the rest of the world. Apart from your enemies in the desert, nobody gives a red raw rat's rump about this stuff. They've dismissed it as mythology or ludicrous cult behaviour and are instead concentrating on making real discoveries.

I hope you live to see what a goddamn waste of time this all is, because you'll certainly never see the right-wing fundamentalist theocracy of your dreams.

FL said he likes to keep abreast of developments in the “evolution/creation/ID” world.

What was the purpose of this law to begin with?

"First, unfortunately many science teachers around the country are harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for simply presenting scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it." "Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. This legislation makes it clear what Tennessee teachers may be allowed to do."

...you’re already buying paper plates for the victory barbecue.

Luskin lies, as always. Teachers are not harassed, intimidated or fired for presenting scientific evidence critical of the theory of evolution. If they are teaching in a public school, they are constitutionally restrained from presenting religious dogma as fact, as the courts have repeatedly found.

They will so find again, as soon as some goober in Tennessee tries it again and parents object. In fact, it won't get as far as the courts, most likely. In the wake of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, not even the mouthbreathers can ignore the advice of their lawyers that if they don't pull their heads in, they're going down, and going down hard.

There is no "scientific evidence critical of" the theory of evolution. Luskin confuses terms in a painfully maladroit attempt to bamboozle. Sure, there are people who are critical of the theory of evolution, out of religiously fostered malice and ignorance. But there is no scientific evidence against it, and mountains of scientific evidence in its favour.

The Tennessee science education law is folly - if it is invoked, it will be found to be unConstitutional and of no force. More importantly, the hapless goons who thought it allowed the teaching of religious dogma in science class will find, to their very great cost, that it doesn't allow that. All that has happened is that malicious idiots in the State legislature have set up some local school board for a catastrophic fall. But when that day comes, the said idiots will be far, far away, in perfect safety and comfort. "Who, us?" they will ask, eyes wide with innocence.

It is to be hoped that the voters of Tennessee have the basic smarts to answer, "Yes, you!"

mandrellian said: Ah, you gotta love these creationists - so adept at turning pretty much nothing into a magical miracle which spells the (still) imminent demise of Darwinism. So, how's that working out, guys? The demise of Darwinism has been "imminent" since, I dunno, about 1859, yet here evolution still is - still providing great explanatory power and still being built on and expanded and revised and refined and still being shored up by new piece of evidence after new piece of evidence ... oh yeah, and still being taught in classrooms - at least the ones that haven't been intimidated into silence on the topic by braying cretins and brain-dead cultists. Come on, your side has had since 1859 to present something that actually contradicts the theory of evolution, but all you've got to show for it is failed court case after failed court case and a couple of hollow, meaningless "victories" in Confederate states. But what about the rest of the developed world? Except perhaps for places like Islamic theocracies, the theory of evolution doesn't attract nearly so many cultists attempting to deny it in place of either their openly-admitted magic dogma or their unnamed "designer" and his unknown and completely invisible (but completely obvious to those without Darwin Goggles) materials and processes. Why have you guys failed so dismally around the globe and achieved practically bugger-all in the US? Conspiracy? Darwinist fascism and oppression? Or could it be that science doesn't work like your fundamentalist religion, with its orthodoxy and authoritarianism and inquisitions and damnation, and instead seeks as best it can the truth of a matter and lets the implications of that truth fall where they may, regardless of anyone's cherished wizardry? Seriously, how long are you guys going to crow about your great victory being just around the corner? You've had some minor wins in US states renowned for their high fundie whacko proportion and you're already buying paper plates for the victory barbecue. Look at the rest of the world. Apart from your enemies in the desert, nobody gives a red raw rat's rump about this stuff. They've dismissed it as mythology or ludicrous cult behaviour and are instead concentrating on making real discoveries. I hope you live to see what a goddamn waste of time this all is, because you'll certainly never see the right-wing fundamentalist theocracy of your dreams.

Dave Luckett said: Luskin lies, as always. Teachers are not harassed, intimidated or fired for presenting scientific evidence critical of the theory of evolution. If they are teaching in a public school, they are constitutionally restrained from presenting religious dogma as fact, as the courts have repeatedly found. They will so find again, as soon as some goober in Tennessee tries it again and parents object. In fact, it won't get as far as the courts, most likely. In the wake of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, not even the mouthbreathers can ignore the advice of their lawyers that if they don't pull their heads in, they're going down, and going down hard. There is no "scientific evidence critical of" the theory of evolution. Luskin confuses terms in a painfully maladroit attempt to bamboozle. Sure, there are people who are critical of the theory of evolution, out of religiously fostered malice and ignorance. But there is no scientific evidence against it, and mountains of scientific evidence in its favour. The Tennessee science education law is folly - if it is invoked, it will be found to be unConstitutional and of no force. More importantly, the hapless goons who thought it allowed the teaching of religious dogma in science class will find, to their very great cost, that it doesn't allow that. All that has happened is that malicious idiots in the State legislature have set up some local school board for a catastrophic fall. But when that day comes, the said idiots will be far, far away, in perfect safety and comfort. "Who, us?" they will ask, eyes wide with innocence. It is to be hoped that the voters of Tennessee have the basic smarts to answer, "Yes, you!"

OK, Stevie, if you want:

THEY LIE. YOU LIE.

Feel better now?

That's just to get your attention, though. The actual argument, as opposed to your wretchedly imbecilic attempt to mischaracterise it, is this:

There is no scientific evidence against the theory of evolution. There are mountains of evidence for it. Therefore, it is the only scientific explanation of the origin of species and the diversity of life.

If you can refute this by producing actual, you know, scientific evidence against the theory, go ahead, Steve. You, too, can win the Nobel. But scientific evidence, right? - not yet another semiliterate recital of your silly prejudices, laced with falsehood, vagueness and ignorance.

SteveP.,

The point is that ID is dead, and always was dead. There has not been a single useful scientific insight or discovery made by the ID crowd. So why do we get worked up? Because instead of doing research, the Discovery Institute tries to manipulate the legal system to teach their dead philosophy to children. It's not hard to understand, but I'm sure you will find a way.

mandrellian said: Ah, you gotta love these creationists - so adept at turning pretty much nothing into a magical miracle which spells the (still) imminent demise of Darwinism. So, how's that working out, guys? The demise of Darwinism has been "imminent" since, I dunno, about 1859, yet here evolution still is - still providing great explanatory power and still being built on and expanded and revised and refined and still being shored up by new piece of evidence after new piece of evidence ... oh yeah, and still being taught in classrooms - at least the ones that haven't been intimidated into silence on the topic by braying cretins and brain-dead cultists. Come on, your side has had since 1859 to present something that actually contradicts the theory of evolution, but all you've got to show for it is failed court case after failed court case and a couple of hollow, meaningless "victories" in Confederate states. But what about the rest of the developed world? Except perhaps for places like Islamic theocracies, the theory of evolution doesn't attract nearly so many cultists attempting to deny it in place of either their openly-admitted magic dogma or their unnamed "designer" and his unknown and completely invisible (but completely obvious to those without Darwin Goggles) materials and processes. Why have you guys failed so dismally around the globe and achieved practically bugger-all in the US? Conspiracy? Darwinist fascism and oppression? Or could it be that science doesn't work like your fundamentalist religion, with its orthodoxy and authoritarianism and inquisitions and damnation, and instead seeks as best it can the truth of a matter and lets the implications of that truth fall where they may, regardless of anyone's cherished wizardry? Seriously, how long are you guys going to crow about your great victory being just around the corner? You've had some minor wins in US states renowned for their high fundie whacko proportion and you're already buying paper plates for the victory barbecue. Look at the rest of the world. Apart from your enemies in the desert, nobody gives a red raw rat's rump about this stuff. They've dismissed it as mythology or ludicrous cult behaviour and are instead concentrating on making real discoveries. I hope you live to see what a goddamn waste of time this all is, because you'll certainly never see the right-wing fundamentalist theocracy of your dreams.

SteveP. said: Yep. Just like the "ID is dead" meme you (pl) toke and pass around. ID is dead, so what are u getting all worked up about? The death of education? The death of US techology leadership? The death of society as we know it? ID is dead, remember?

mandrellian said: Yes, ID is dead. It's a corpse. It's not even twitching. It's stone goddamned cold. The PROBLEM, you wise-arsed cave-troll, is that people like you are carting ID around like it's still worth talking or thinking about, like it's "science", like there's still a "controversy" about evolution. But really you're carting around a corpse - just like that film "Weekend at Bernie's", except stupider. ID is dead. In fact, ID was stillborn and should have been aborted. The only people who haven't realised that yet are fundamentalists and people who are idiots/ignorant/uninformed. I'll take bets as to which you are.

John said:

Tenncrain said: I wrote one TN lawmaker (from Chattanooga, near where I spent my teen years) opposing the 'monkey' bills, even explaining I'm an ex-YEC. He replied back politely but very openly and proudly that he has no doubts about the book of Genesis and that he very much wants to have students see "Truth" and put Tennessee and the USA 'back on the right track' by supporting the bills. If his mentality wins out in Tennessee, there may be a constitutional legal challenge sooner than later.

Good for you Tennecrain. A pity you didn't remind that moronic Republican that fellow Conservatives and Republicans like John Batchelor (nationally syndicated radio talk show host who frequently has reputable scientists on his program), David Brooks (New York Times), John Derbyshire (National Review), Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post), P. J. O'Rourke (The Weekly Standard, Rolling Stone), Timothy Sandefur (Panda's Thumb and Pacific Legal Foundation), and George Will (The Washington Post) recognize the overwhelming fact of biological evolution. So too these Republican politicians: Gingrich, Huntsman and Romney. But I appreciate his honesty and with a sentiment like his, I am willing to bet that Scopes III will be heard challenging this ridiculous so-called "Academic Freedom" bill (With apologies to RBH, I regard this as a potential Scopes III, since the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial is widely viewed as "Scopes II".).

Interestingly, I got no further emails from this TN lawmaker despite several more enquiries.

— Tenncrain

@Tenncrain:

Darn, I just did what I have been accusing others of! I reread your comment, and I see that nowhere do you say that the lawmaker was a YEC, but only a Genesis-literalist. So this might be someone who has already started a retreat into Omphalos or "don't ask, don't tell." But still do try to find out. And remember that evasion is data.

Frank J said: @Tenncrain: And remember that evasion is data.

Frank J said: @Tenncrain: Darn, I just did what I have been accusing others of! I reread your comment, and I see that nowhere do you say that the lawmaker was a YEC, but only a Genesis-literalist. So this might be someone who has already started a retreat into Omphalos or "don't ask, don't tell." But still do try to find out. And remember that evasion is data.

Interesting piece at Todd's Blog:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/now-about-that-evolution-bill.html

Elizabeth Liddle said: Interesting piece at Todd's Blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/now-about-that-evolution-bill.html

Elizabeth Liddle said: Interesting piece at Todd's Blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/now-about-that-evolution-bill.html

Not to mention, over the last 150 years while those seeking alternatives to evolution weren't paying enough attention, those who HAVE been paying attention have fleshed out the theory with a truly astounding degree of depth, breadth, sophistication, analysis, enormous bodies of consistent evidence, etc. And all of this backed by the full rigor of peer review, replication, resolved disputes and interpretation differences, building of predictive models that work surprisingly well, and everything else the scientific enterprise can bring to bear.

By now, a "compelling alternative to evolution" is a lost battle. I sympathize with Wood here. How irritating it must be that creationists haven't put forth a single suggestion for an experimental approach that might either demonstrate or refute their various images of their gods. And without a scientific, intersubjectively verifiable empirical examination of their god(s), they will never have a serious alternative to trot out in science classes. All this foot-dragging! Hey, fellow creationists, get out those test tubes and get to work!

Flint said: By now, a "compelling alternative to evolution" is a lost battle. I sympathize with Wood here...

DS said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Interesting piece at Todd's Blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/now-about-that-evolution-bill.html

Thanks for the link Elizabeth. From the blog: "What we need more than anything, then, is to develop the alternative to evolution that will become compelling, widely-accepted, and ultimately (and perhaps inevitably) part of a responsible science curriculum. Skipping to the end of that process is bad. Skipping to the end by running around the process and trying to legislate (or sue) your way into the classroom is extremely bad. We're just not ready for that. We could have been if we had given more attention to developing a serious response to evolution 150 years ago, but here we are. Still disagreeing about the basic parameters of what an alternative to evolution will even look like." Now that folks is an honest creationist. And he makes other creationists look just plain silly simply by his honesty. He's absolutely right. Trying to cram ill conceived and factually wrong nonsense down young throats is not going to get you anywhere. Get in the lab, do some research, get a scientific alternative, or at least address some of the real problems with the theory of evolution, then maybe someone will take you seriously. If all you can do is muddle around and try to legally force your unscientific views on others, you have already lost. Deal with it.

eric said:

Flint said: By now, a "compelling alternative to evolution" is a lost battle. I sympathize with Wood here...

I agree, but think of all the other interesting things they might have discovered if they'd spent their time doing real science instead of politics and church lectures! I like to analogize it to the Mormon's funding and obsession with new world anthropology. Do I think the Mormons will find a first century Jewish settlement? Absolutely not. Do I value all the Aztec, Mayan, Incan, etc... discoveries they've made over the past 100+ years while looking for it? Yes! Its entirely possible for strongly religious people with a specific religious goal in mind to do good science.

What's stopping fundies from doing good work is not their faith beliefs, it's their lack of faith that following proper scientific methodology will eventually lead to their vindication. Deep down inside, they don't believe science will vindicate their faith beliefs. Unwilling to trust in the process, they seek to change it or avoid it altogether.

Flint said: I see a lot of idiocy in creationism, but very little doubt.

terenzioiltroll said:

Frank J said: @Tenncrain: And remember that evasion is data.

Pardon?

By now, a “compelling alternative to evolution” is a lost battle.

— Flint

FL vomits: Wow. That is some wonderful news, well worth popping in one more time. The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said. One of the reasons why I stay with PandasThumb over the years, is simply to keep up on the breaking news in the evolution/creation/ID world. You guys actually do a commendable and noteworthy job of that, and you deserve sincere compliments for it. That's all I really wanted to say at this time. Just wanted to thank you for helping busy people to keep up with current news. As I depart, please permit me to leave my new PandasThumb calling card with you, until next time we meet: http://www.piratemerch.com/images/jolly_roger_bbq_sauce.jpg FL

Then Robert Byers craps out with: Whai is Letterman, leno, and Kermit the frog agree with this law? Will you guys cease and desist to oppose it!? This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions. I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws. It was never moral or legal anyways. This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass. He's trying to preserve his position. this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

eric said:

Flint said: By now, a "compelling alternative to evolution" is a lost battle. I sympathize with Wood here...

I agree, but think of all the other interesting things they might have discovered if they'd spent their time doing real science instead of politics and church lectures! I like to analogize it to the Mormon's funding and obsession with new world anthropology. Do I think the Mormons will find a first century Jewish settlement? Absolutely not. Do I value all the Aztec, Mayan, Incan, etc... discoveries they've made over the past 100+ years while looking for it? Yes! Its entirely possible for strongly religious people with a specific religious goal in mind to do good science. What's stopping fundies from doing good work is not their faith beliefs, it's their lack of faith that following proper scientific methodology will eventually lead to their vindication. Deep down inside, they don't believe science will vindicate their faith beliefs. Unwilling to trust in the process, they seek to change it or avoid it altogether.

John said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Interesting piece at Todd's Blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/now-about-that-evolution-bill.html

I think he's rather naive, but at least he's more "honest" than Luskin, West and their fellow Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers. I will concur with his assessment of the Dishonesty Institute, especially since it wastes no time going after someone like Stephen Matheson who threw down the rhetorical gauntlet at Stephen Meyer, advising Meyer to disassociate himself from the Dishonesty Institute and instead, attempt REAL science for once.

As I understand it, Meyer’s degree is in philosophy so he has no competence to attempt real science.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. http://www.discovery.org/p/11

Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. http://www.discovery.org/p/11

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest wages for geoscientists, such as geophysicists, were in oil and gas extraction. The mean salary in this sector of the industry was listed as $132,210 per year. Petroleum and coal products manufacturing had a mean of $118,910, while positions within support activities for mining paid a mean of $106,380 per annum. Geophysicists working in architectural, engineering and related services were paid a mean salary of $80,460, less than those employed by the federal executive branch, which had a mean of $95,580. --Dick Huds, eHow

So, FL, when Meyer worked for the Atlantic Richfield Company as a geophysicist, did he find oil for them using the presupposition that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, or that there was a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago?

Or, did he use the evil, soul-destroying dogma that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, and that all the world's geological formations were not formed by a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago?

FL said: My understanding is that geophysicists who work for oil companies take home some VERY good money in exchange for displaying no competence to attempt real science.

So, FL, when Meyer worked for the Atlantic Richfield Company as a geophysicist, did he find oil for them using the presupposition that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, or that there was a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago? Or, did he use the evil, soul-destroying dogma that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, and that all the world’s geological formations were not formed by a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago?

FL said:

As I understand it, Meyer’s degree is in philosophy so he has no competence to attempt real science.

Well, let's check out that statement.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. http://www.discovery.org/p/11

So indeed Meyer has a "degree in philosophy". Given that particular degree and how he earned it, that's not too shabby in terms of acquiring professional competence to explain what is science and what is not. But what about "real science"?

Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. http://www.discovery.org/p/11

Emphases mine. My understanding is that geophysicists who work for oil companies take home some VERY good money in exchange for displaying no competence to attempt real science.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the highest wages for geoscientists, such as geophysicists, were in oil and gas extraction. The mean salary in this sector of the industry was listed as $132,210 per year. Petroleum and coal products manufacturing had a mean of $118,910, while positions within support activities for mining paid a mean of $106,380 per annum. Geophysicists working in architectural, engineering and related services were paid a mean salary of $80,460, less than those employed by the federal executive branch, which had a mean of $95,580. --Dick Huds, eHow

FL

Sounds like Prongs is very convinced that geophysicists actually do real science, the real science "that modern civilization runs on."

I agree. I'm sure geophysicist Meyer would agree as well.

FL

FL said: Sounds like Prongs is very convinced that geophysicists actually do real science, the real science "that modern civilization runs on." I agree. I'm sure geophysicist Meyer would agree as well. FL

FL said: Sounds like Prongs is very convinced that geophysicists actually do real science, the real science "that modern civilization runs on." I agree. I'm sure geophysicist Meyer would agree as well. FL

Elizabeth Liddle said: Exactly. As I've said before about Todd, he's the only creationist I know that actually has faith! That's why he has the courage to be honest. I think his endeavour is a waste of a good scientist, but it'll be interesting to see if he ends up taking the same route as Glenn Morton (another honest creationist, whose honesty eventually took him out of YEC).

FL said: As I depart, please permit me to leave my new PandasThumb calling card with you, until next time we meet: http://www.piratemerch.com/images/jolly_roger_bbq_sauce.jpg FL

John said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Exactly. As I've said before about Todd, he's the only creationist I know that actually has faith! That's why he has the courage to be honest. I think his endeavour is a waste of a good scientist, but it'll be interesting to see if he ends up taking the same route as Glenn Morton (another honest creationist, whose honesty eventually took him out of YEC).

SInce Wood understands that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution and yet refuses to accept that now, I strongly doubt he will change his views in the future (The same holds true for fellow "honest creationist" Kurt Wise, who, as an undergraduate, studied with Thomas J. M. Schopf, and, as a graduate student, studied with Stephen Jay Gould.).

apokryltaros said: So, FL, when Meyer worked for the Atlantic Richfield Company as a geophysicist, did he find oil for them using the presupposition that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago, or that there was a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago? Or, did he use the evil, soul-destroying dogma that the world is around 4.5 billion years old, and that all the world's geological formations were not formed by a magical Flood that killed everything 4,000 years ago?

It is interesting to speculate what alternative he actually hopes to discover evidence for. Does he hope to prove that the earth is only thousands of years old? That hypothesis has been falsified. Does he hope to find evidence of a world wide flood thousands of years ago? That hypothesis has been falsified. Does he hope to find that all species were created fixed and perfect only a few thousands years ago? That hypothesis has been falsified. About the only thing left is finding some novel mechanisms by which evolution can occur. That probably isn't what he is hoping for.

Oh well, at least he is right. If you don't go out into nature and start looking, you are never going to find anything, period. Creationists should take a lesson.

FL said:

Previously he [Stephen Meyer] worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology. http://www.discovery.org/p/11

Emphases mine. My understanding is that geophysicists who work for oil companies take home some VERY good money in exchange for displaying no competence to attempt real science.

Tenncrain said:

FL said: The opening battle for TN has been won. The train is rolling. Slow train coming, somebody once said.

Well FL, will this Tennessee 'victory' be any better than the 2008 'victory' in Louisiana? So far, Louisiana is looking more like a hollow victory if not a Pyrrhic victory. Even after four long years, anti-evolutionists have seemingly been reluctant to use the LSEA law in Louisiana. What's your explanation for this, FL?

DS said: Does he hope to prove that the earth is only thousands of years old? That hypothesis has been falsified. Does he hope to find evidence of a world wide flood thousands of years ago? That hypothesis has been falsified. Does he hope to find that all species were created fixed and perfect only a few thousands years ago? That hypothesis has been falsified. About the only thing left is finding some novel mechanisms by which evolution can occur. That probably isn't what he is hoping for.

Robert Byers said: Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

FL said: Academic freedom boosts science education. Wouldn't you agree?

Again FL, what are your feelings?

Funny how this slow train is only coming in a few small parts of the US - mostly Confederate states heavily populated by politicians, school boards, judiciary and legislature friendly to Protestant fundamentalist creationism, the faith of most of their public. Many of these representatives also happen to be starkly ignorant of (or utterly disinterested in) both their own nation's Constitution and the nature and practice of science.

The rest of the developed world seems to have ignored the impending ID/Creationist Express and are teaching and doing science as best they can - and seem no worse off for it. Out here in the Rest Of The World, this train of FL's stopped in 1859 and recedes further into the distance the more discoveries are made.

Sure, the LSEA hasn't turned out to be a Dover-esque lawsuit magnet. Maybe that's precisely because those in Louisiana have learned from the example of Dover to tone down the creationism to a below-Constitutional-breach threshold; in other words to a point where it's functionally non-existent. That is more or less the definition of a hollow victory: sure, the record reflects you "won", but you can't use your prize. You won a NASCAR racer, but you can't drive it in public as fast as you'd like without getting into trouble. I guess you could always sit in it, in your driveway, going "Brummm, brummmm".

As an aside, I've yet to hear why creationist lobbyists even bother. They have private schools, Bible colleges, churches, public events, the Pledge, the money, Bible camps, Sunday schools, homes, homeschools, the National Prayer Breakfast (wtf?) and the freaking President himself invoking and glorifying God at every other opportunity. You can't get away from Christianity in America - yet somehow there's just not enough God, so they have to stick him in anywhere he'll fit, even when his presence or necessity is contradicted by facts or countermanded by the law of the nation.

Is it really so troubling to you people that your cousins with monkeys?

Is it really so troubling that your fellow Americans don't believe as you do?

Get over yourselves.

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions. I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws. It was never moral or legal anyways. This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass. He's trying to preserve his position. this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

As we have explained countless times to you, the scientific process is not a democracy. It's more like a meritocracy. Science paradigms only tend to get promoted when these paradigms have withstood the rigors of testing by scientists with training and experience in their fields. With this in mind, it's of little surprise that most of the scientists on the Discovery Institute 'Dissent from Darwin' page are not even biologists or paleontologists/geologists. But science is always considered to be tentative. Thus Byers, if 'scientists' at AIG, ICR, the Discovery Institute, perhaps the Big Valley Creation Science Museum in Alberta can produce real evidence and sway the scientific consensus, your views could rather automatically supplement or even replace evolution in public school science classrooms. No need to fall back on the political process in legislatures and school boards to inject 'stealth creationism' via the backdoor. No need to use politics to bypass the science peer-review process. But unless your 'scientists' and their paradigms someday earn acceptance from the scientific consensus, forget it.

garystar1 said: Here's the problem for SteveP, Robert Byers, FL, and the like. You guys need to get your story straight. What was the purpose of this law to begin with? The DI has flat out stated that this law has nothing to do with "creationism" or "ID". Now, anyone who follows these things knows thats a load of... you know... but apparently you guys can't keep that in mind. Byers has already come out and said he hopes this will "lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws". FL said he likes to keep abreast of developments in the "evolution/creation/ID" world. Except this isn't supposed to be about creationism or ID. Or is it? Tell you what. You guys go away, talk and discuss amongst yourselves (Heck, get Luskin and whomever else at the DI involved, since they wrote the law to begin with), get your stories straight, and come back when you have a solid position on... well, anything. (goes back to lurking)

Robert Byers said:

Tenncrain said:

Robert Byers said: This is a solid progressive victory for freedom and truth in public institutions. I'm quite pleased at its potential to lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws. It was never moral or legal anyways. This Governor did show lack of moral integrity since he clearly didn't want this new law to pass. He's trying to preserve his position. this law shows the efforts of the public to determine what is teachable to their kids. A great lesson in civics. Now for these schools its up to the kids to introduce creationism or anything and make science class matter relative to origin issues. This is good publicity for the good guys.

As we have explained countless times to you, the scientific process is not a democracy. It's more like a meritocracy. Science paradigms only tend to get promoted when these paradigms have withstood the rigors of testing by scientists with training and experience in their fields. With this in mind, it's of little surprise that most of the scientists on the Discovery Institute 'Dissent from Darwin' page are not even biologists or paleontologists/geologists. But science is always considered to be tentative. Thus Byers, if 'scientists' at AIG, ICR, the Discovery Institute, perhaps the Big Valley Creation Science Museum in Alberta can produce real evidence and sway the scientific consensus, your views could rather automatically supplement or even replace evolution in public school science classrooms. No need to fall back on the political process in legislatures and school boards to inject 'stealth creationism' via the backdoor. No need to use politics to bypass the science peer-review process. But unless your 'scientists' and their paradigms someday earn acceptance from the scientific consensus, forget it.

With the fight for freedom in public schools there will be more rigor in these obscure subjects.

The kids can weigh the evidence and this is all creationism needs.

Its for everybody to decide and not just some elite panels.

Its about evidence for unobserved matters and not about authority.

I say error will fall before truth and evolutionism will be hurt by discussion in schools.

Just discussing criticisms of it is a public statement to the kids that there is something wrong with it.

Robert Byers said:

garystar1 said: Here's the problem for SteveP, Robert Byers, FL, and the like. You guys need to get your story straight. What was the purpose of this law to begin with? The DI has flat out stated that this law has nothing to do with "creationism" or "ID". Now, anyone who follows these things knows thats a load of... you know... but apparently you guys can't keep that in mind. Byers has already come out and said he hopes this will "lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws". FL said he likes to keep abreast of developments in the "evolution/creation/ID" world. Except this isn't supposed to be about creationism or ID. Or is it? Tell you what. You guys go away, talk and discuss amongst yourselves (Heck, get Luskin and whomever else at the DI involved, since they wrote the law to begin with), get your stories straight, and come back when you have a solid position on... well, anything. (goes back to lurking)

The ID commentators are wrong. The law is understood, received, and criticized entirely based on its allowing creationist criticisms in origin issues. thats what the spirit of this is all about. Panda Thumb rightly saw it as a threat to the usual censorship of creationism. Laws to allow school discussions are never business as usual. ID folk simply want criticisms to be allowed and not creationist doctrines taught. This is fine with their agenda. They will win in this freedom they believe. Yet all creationisms are affected by this. Its all about state censorship being attacked. These steps are leading to a natural relationship in a free society to be free in discussing and arguing about common contentions in same society. This is not the 1940's under the radar laws taking over traditional Anglo-American freedoms. it just takes a while to drum up interest in these matters most people are not interested in. Cases like this move things along nicely. Publicity is the objective at this stage.

Why is it necessary to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law that dishonestly promotes, if not deliberately forces the alleged discussion of Creationism/Intelligent Design, which is religiously inspired, politically motivated anti-science propaganda in science classrooms?

Why is it necessary for such wasteful, dishonest, if not outright illegal means to force the discussion of alleged scientific controversies that literally do not exist in Science?

Even many of Creationism/Intelligent Design's most ardent supporters are aware that Creationism/Intelligent Design has absolutely no explanatory power, has absolutely no scientific value, has absolutely no realworld, industrial applications beyond swindling especially gullible people out of their intellects, souls and money, and has been documented to turn children into idiots who hate and mistrust science. There is literally not a single creationist on God's Blue Earth that can physically use Creationism/Intelligent Design to do/explain science, breed living organisms, find oil or even do medicine. They either hypocritically use some permutation of the very science they hate and despise for Jesus, or they sit on their fat asses For Jesus, and often get fired for not doing their jobs as a result (if they aren't tenured or own the business).

Yet, here we have these very same Idiots For Jesus trying their damnedest to get science not taught in classrooms for the sake of Jesus. Do they not care that this would turn the United States into a Christian version of Taliban Afghanistan, or do they think that their ardent fervor for Jesus will make up for a complete and total inability to generate technology or agriculture?

- how they portray evolution not as a description of observed reality and the bedrock of biological science which informs everything from genetics to medicine to epidemiology to pharmacology, etc (a place it has earned through repeated confirmation, not by authoritative declaration or popular vote) but as a crucial part of some "godless" lefty philosophy out to harm the country or lead their kids away from Jesus - how they routinely lie and conceal their true motives in order to circumvent the law and have creationism inserted into science (the very label "Intelligent Design" itself, the entirety of the DI's public actions, Dover) - how they purposely misquote, quote out of context or partially quote scientists up to and including Darwin himself (and anyone, really, as long as they're perceived to have some kind of authority) in order to cast doubt on evolutionary theory - how they manufacture a controversy about evolutionary theory's validity by magnifying small differences in scientific opinion over currently uncertain, highly specific evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the overwhelming consensus among scientists that evolutionary theory is true - how they jump on any misleading or just poorly-written science article in the mainstream media in order to claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis" or "on its last legs" - how they inevitably misread and misrepresent actual scientific research in any way they can in order to cast what they see as doubt on evolution - how they constantly conflate Darwinian evolution with "social Darwinism", a eugenicist philosophy that would have appalled Darwin and which is, in any event, the antithesis of Darwinian natural selection - how they portray acceptance of evolution as "dogmatic" and admiration of Darwin as "worship"; more than likely projecting their own authoritarian and irrational methods of thought onto others - how they constantly claim "conspiracy" or "oppression" or "inhibition of free speech" every time a creationist or creationist group is called on their unconstitutional or inappropriate behaviour or their lack of judgement (Coppedge, Freshwater, Ahlquist) - how they constantly refuse (both ID'ers and YES creationists) to perform a whit of actual scientific work in order to produce a single datum in support of their theory; how they seem to think that saying "that's too complex to have evolved" counts as a legitimate critique - how they say things like "microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution", perhaps not realising that that's equivalent to saying a lit match can light a cigarette but not start a bushfire - how they bray and crow and squawk about either the "imminent demise" of Darwinism or the "slow train" of creationist progress, even though the only progress that matters in this debate - scientific - is being made by only one side of the argument - how they concentrate on PR and legal and legislative "victories" without performing - or even attempting to perform - any actual science to back up their claims (which suggests that they may know, at some level, that science does not and will not provide that backup) - how they almost universally perform the false equation of evolution with atheism - "atheism" of course being a creationist/Far Right dog-whistle that can mean anything up to and including (and any combination of): Hitler, Stalin, Nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, promiscuity, amorality, moral nihilism, pacifism, hedonism, masturbation, paganism, pre-marital or non-procreative sex, homosexuality, video games and probably electric guitars, carbonated drinks and open sandwiches

FL said: How many years now have you guys said that the Louisiana Science Education Act would be a surefire big-money Dover Trap? Yet year after year, you get nothing. In nearly four years, it's No lawsuits, No ACLU, No NCSE, no Dover, no Trap, just flat nothing.

Think about it. Y'all got all excited over that Boy Wonder Zack Kopplin persuading some half-baked evolutionist politician to attempt a Repeal of the LSEA, only to watch the entire Repeal Effort git run over like a dead dog on the train tracks. Didn't even qualify for Speed Bump status.

So now the LSEA is a "hollow victory" because no teacher has yet needed to make use of its provisions?

There's nothing wrong with teachers being careful, especially in today's polarized media and political climate.

Its all about state censorship being attacked.

Panda Thumb rightly saw it as a threat to the usual censorship of creationism.

— Robert Byers

mandrellian said: As an aside, I've yet to hear why creationist lobbyists even bother. They have private schools, Bible colleges, churches, public events, the Pledge, the money, Bible camps, Sunday schools, homes, homeschools, the National Prayer Breakfast (wtf?) and the freaking President himself invoking and glorifying God at every other opportunity. You can't get away from Christianity in America - yet somehow there's just not enough God, so they have to stick him in anywhere he'll fit, even when his presence or necessity is contradicted by facts or countermanded by the law of the nation.

Is it really so troubling to you people that your cousins with monkeys?

Is it really so troubling that your fellow Americans don't believe as you do?

There are more than enough examples of all the behaviour listed above (and more I haven’t thought of) to make a very interesting Creationism: History and Tactics syllabus.

— mandrellian"

Tenncrain said: At least Stephen Meyer learned enough geology and physics that he accepts an earth that is billions (not thousands) of years old. Meyer also rejects a literal six-day creation. IIRC, Meyer even accepts some evolutionary common decent among species (if true, that would make Meyer somewhat similar to Michael Behe and Scott Minnich). Despite the apparent Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule by the IDers at the DI regarding some issues like the age of the Earth, such honesty does come out from anti-evolutionists from time to time. Some in my old YEC congregation were even more frank; they believed the ID movement was an unacceptable compromise with the Scriptures (like Glenn Morton, Gordon Glover and numerous others on this Panda's Thumb forum, I'm an ex-YEC).

DS said:

John said:

Elizabeth Liddle said: Exactly. As I've said before about Todd, he's the only creationist I know that actually has faith! That's why he has the courage to be honest. I think his endeavour is a waste of a good scientist, but it'll be interesting to see if he ends up taking the same route as Glenn Morton (another honest creationist, whose honesty eventually took him out of YEC).

SInce Wood understands that there is overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution and yet refuses to accept that now, I strongly doubt he will change his views in the future (The same holds true for fellow "honest creationist" Kurt Wise, who, as an undergraduate, studied with Thomas J. M. Schopf, and, as a graduate student, studied with Stephen Jay Gould.).

Of course he doesn't believe whatever he believes because of the evidence and so will never be convinced by the evidence. He can always claim that a better theory will come along some day. He can always hold out hope that evolution will someday be superseded. The fact that it could only be superseded by a better SCIENTIFIC theory doesn't seem to concern him. He knows that the evidence is overwhelming and is honest enough to admit it. He just isn't honest enough to accept a provisional answer he doesn't seem to like. That's fine, as long as he honestly admits that the evidence is quite conclusive, regardless of his unwillingness to accept it.

Frank J said: In keeping with my belief that some minimal feeding is better than no feeding:

Panda Thumb rightly saw it as a threat to the usual censorship of creationism.

— Robert Byers

You have it backwards and you know it. Last I checked, bearing false witness was a sin.

I don’t think Meyer accepts common descent...

— John

A) Robert Byers is so truly stupid that he does not know/can not realize he has it backwards. B) According to fundamentalists...

— apokryltaros

xubist said:

mandrellian said: Is it really so troubling to you people that your cousins with monkeys?

Yes, it is. Because their God tells them that they aren't cousins with monkeys.

apokryltaros said: According to fundamentalists, you can commit whatever goddamned sin you like, be it lying, cheating, murder, stealing, oppressing other people, setting your ego, or your bank account up on a high pedestal and forcing other people to worship it as God, so long as you claim you're committing sin for Jesus, it's okay.

Frank J said:

I don’t think Meyer accepts common descent...

— John

Has he challenged Behe directly and publicly? Has he specifically ruled out saltation or front loading? Unless the answer to both is yes, he can reasonably be suspected of privately accepting it. He certainly has a compelling incentive to not admit it.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Frank J said: Or C) He could be faking it too.

I happen to be skeptical about the theory of universal common descent...

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here is where Meyer admits to being a creationist, an old-earth creationist. He states:

I happen to be skeptical about the theory of universal common descent...

In among a whole lot of idiotic blather, of course. It's around 6:25 or so on "Part 2" of that interview. He really goes out of his way to avoid saying this in Signature in the Cell, sometimes carefully avoiding any claims for design during evolution, although later quite deliberately conflating his claims for the design of first life with claims for design of life since then. Yet even when doing that he avoids denial of universal common descent, changing his story in front of (typically) more "friendly" audiences, such as those targeted by this interview. And this is the head of the DI, pretty clearly a creationist, just not YEC. Glen Davidson

Tenncrain said: As it is, even Behe has waffled a little on common decent. To be sure, Behe has said several times he has no problem with common decent, including between humans and the other apes. One such occasion he said this was during a 1990s debate with Ken Miller at an American Scientific Affiliation conference. According to Miller, YECs in the audience were stunned by Behe's comments. But at least one other time (can't find the source at the moment) Behe said he accepts 'limited' common decent. As suggested elsewhere, the audience type may be at least one influence on which side of their mouths IDers/creationists talk out of.

PS: Floyd, IIRC you are in the central plains. If so, you likely know your area is forecast to have a massive tornado outbreak Saturday. You and others stay safe. My area went through the same thing last spring (April 27 2011).

But at least one other time (can’t find the source at the moment) Behe said he accepts ‘limited’ common decent.

In Edge of Evolution you indicate that some of the evidence supporting common ancestry is pretty persuasive. Yet a number of scientists have questioned some of the evidence for common ancestry. Do you think it is beyond the pale for them to do so? In your mind is it scientific to question common ancestry?

In my view it is certainly not “beyond the pale” for a scientist to question anything. Questioning and skepticism are healthy for science. I have no solutions to the difficult problems pointed to by scientists who are skeptical of universal common descent: ORFan genes, nonstandard genetic codes, different routes of embryogenesis by similar organisms, and so on. Nonetheless, as I see it, if, rather than Darwinian evolution, one is talking about "intelligently designed" descent, then those problems, while still there, seem much less insuperable. I certainly agree that random, unintelligent processes could not account for them, but an intelligent agent may have ways around apparent difficulties. So in judging the likelihood of common descent, I discount problems that could be classified as "how did that get here?" Instead, I give much more weight to the "mistakes" or "useless features" arguments. If some peculiar feature is shared between two species which, as far as we can tell, has no particular function, and which in other contexts we would likely call a genetic accident, then I count that as rather strong evidence for common descent. So, if one looks at the data in the way that I do, then one can say simultaneously that: 1) CD is very well supported; 2) grand Darwinian claims are falsified; 3) ID is confirmed; 4) design extends very deeply into biology. http://www.discovery.org/a/4097

I have Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” and when I have a chance, I’ll check again BUT I AM CERTAIN that he does not refer at all to common descent.

— John

But at least one other time (can’t find the source at the moment) Behe said he accepts ‘limited’ common decent.

— Tenncrain

That’s worth exploring for a moment. Behe’s “common descent” is actually NOT the same as the evolutionist “common descent.” They are two different things, two irreconcilable things...The ONLY common descent that he accepts is intelligently designed common descent...

— FL

Frank J said: Meanwhile, Schwabe and Senapathy do reject CD, but propose "naturalistic" alternatives. If your objection was truly about the science, you'd be defending them, not Behe. And spending as much time "challenging" Behe as you do "Darwinists."

More importantly, why is it important to bring up Behe and Meyer to justify an unconstitutional bill that permits the alleged "discussion" of Creationism and alleged "scientific controversies" that don't actually exist in science?

Neither Behe nor Meyer have ever used Intelligent Design, nor Creationism to do any sort of science in their entire careers, nor, in their lavish promotion of Intelligent Design/Creationism, have they even hinted why it is supposed to be such a wondrous and superior alternative.

If Intelligent Design/Creationism is such a wondrous, superior alternative to "Darwinism" (sic) as its supporters claim, then why is it necessary to circumvent the scientific community and use dishonest, possibly illegal means to insert it directly into the classroom in order to force children, who are otherwise ignorant of science, to determine what is or isn't science? If it is so wondrously superior, wouldn't there already be scientific and industrial applications?

The only possible use for Intelligent Design/Creationism is constantly and unsubtly hinted at by FL, in that, worshiping it with all one's heart and soul is the sole thing keeping God from murdering literally everyone with fire, then sodomizing them in Hell for all eternity with barbeque sauce.

There are only two situations where FL would dare contemplate speaking against his beloved Behe.

— apokryltaros

I happen to be skeptical about the theory of universal common descent…

Frank J said: Those who continue to peddle YEC or OEC directly probably genuinely wish that all evolution-deniers can come to some agreement on what the "evidences" conclude (other than that "Darwinism" is dead, dying, falsified and unfalsifiable), but they know that such convergence will never occur, even with grotesque force-fitting of the "evidences." Whether they truly believe their mutually-contradictory allegories or just desperately want the "masses" to do so, they know that it's really not about the "evidences," and all about the implications of acceptance.

Frank J said:

That’s worth exploring for a moment. Behe’s “common descent” is actually NOT the same as the evolutionist “common descent.” They are two different things, two irreconcilable things...The ONLY common descent that he accepts is intelligently designed common descent...

— FL

Ken Miller, Behe's chief critic, also accepts "intelligently designed common descent." He just doesn't pretend that the ID part is testable. Besides baiting-and-switching proximate and ultimate causes, Behe's big difference from mainsteam science on CD is that he seems to think that some front loading, and possibly saltation, was involved beyond the "edge" of his "RM + NS" caricature. Meanwhile, Schwabe and Senapathy do reject CD, but propose "naturalistic" alternatives. If your objection was truly about the science, you'd be defending them, not Behe. And spending as much time "challenging" Behe as you do "Darwinists."

Frank J said: Ken Miller, Behe's chief critic

@John:

Picky, picky. You can also add H. Allen Orr and Russell Doolittle. And of course self-described "creationist" (actually a theistic evolutionist) Terry Gray. But I think you get the point.

But remember here Frank J, that the “intelligently designed common descent” that Ken Miller accepts is one due to natural processes such as Natural Selection and genetic drift, not one due to the acts of an omniscient, omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

Meyer makes essentially anti-common descent "arguments" in various places, from Darwin's Dilemma to his infamous "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." That at least the Cambrian "Explosion" was a creation event (not the drip drip of endless intervention a la Behe) is something that he regularly presents.

That is what actually matters.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Meyer makes essentially anti-common descent "arguments" in various places, from Darwin's Dilemma to his infamous "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." That at least the Cambrian "Explosion" was a creation event (not the drip drip of endless intervention a la Behe) is something that he regularly presents. That is what actually matters. Glen Davidson

If we're moving (out of context) to the most basic questions, what matters most is why making stuff up is considered by IDiots to be superior to finding the evidence of really existing causes.

Glen Davidson

John said:

Tenncrain said: At least Stephen Meyer learned enough geology and physics that he accepts an earth that is billions (not thousands) of years old. Meyer also rejects a literal six-day creation. IIRC, Meyer even accepts some evolutionary common decent among species (if true, that would make Meyer somewhat similar to Michael Behe and Scott Minnich). Despite the apparent Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule by the IDers at the DI regarding some issues like the age of the Earth, such honesty does come out from anti-evolutionists from time to time. Some in my old YEC congregation were even more frank; they believed the ID movement was an unacceptable compromise with the Scriptures (like Glenn Morton, Gordon Glover and numerous others on this Panda's Thumb forum, I'm an ex-YEC).

I don't think Meyer accepts common descent, if my interpretation of his proposed "tests" of "design" within the fossil record is correct, as I have described at some length in my own negative one starred Amazon review of his "Signature in the Cell" (The test itself is ludicrously what is to be expected from someone who has no knowledge or appreciation for both comparative anatomy and paleobiology.).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Meyer makes essentially anti-common descent "arguments" in various places, from Darwin's Dilemma to his infamous "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." That at least the Cambrian "Explosion" was a creation event (not the drip drip of endless intervention a la Behe) is something that he regularly presents. That is what actually matters. Glen Davidson

Frank J said: @ Dave: Feel free to move this to the BW if you think it's getting OT, but I have another comment to John:

But remember here Frank J, that the “intelligently designed common descent” that Ken Miller accepts is one due to natural processes such as Natural Selection and genetic drift, not one due to the acts of an omniscient, omnipotent Intelligent Designer.

Which only means that Miller refuses to conflate proximate and ultimate causes like Behe does. Miller even speculates at length at how what we observe as natural causes could be ultimately the workings of an intelligent designer (his "quantum indeterminacy" discussion in "Finding Darwin's God). I should also add that, to my knowledge, Behe never insisted that the designer be omniscient or omnipotent. IIRC Behe even admitted somewhere, that what he claims that "RM + NS" can't do could still be the result of some yet-unknown natural law. But like any pseudoscience peddler he tries to have it both ways.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

garystar1 said: Here's the problem for SteveP, Robert Byers, FL, and the like. You guys need to get your story straight. What was the purpose of this law to begin with? The DI has flat out stated that this law has nothing to do with "creationism" or "ID". Now, anyone who follows these things knows thats a load of... you know... but apparently you guys can't keep that in mind. Byers has already come out and said he hopes this will "lead other states to aggressively overthrow anti-creationist laws". FL said he likes to keep abreast of developments in the "evolution/creation/ID" world. Except this isn't supposed to be about creationism or ID. Or is it? Tell you what. You guys go away, talk and discuss amongst yourselves (Heck, get Luskin and whomever else at the DI involved, since they wrote the law to begin with), get your stories straight, and come back when you have a solid position on... well, anything. (goes back to lurking)

The ID commentators are wrong. The law is understood, received, and criticized entirely based on its allowing creationist criticisms in origin issues. thats what the spirit of this is all about. Panda Thumb rightly saw it as a threat to the usual censorship of creationism. Laws to allow school discussions are never business as usual. ID folk simply want criticisms to be allowed and not creationist doctrines taught. This is fine with their agenda. They will win in this freedom they believe. Yet all creationisms are affected by this. Its all about state censorship being attacked. These steps are leading to a natural relationship in a free society to be free in discussing and arguing about common contentions in same society. This is not the 1940's under the radar laws taking over traditional Anglo-American freedoms. it just takes a while to drum up interest in these matters most people are not interested in. Cases like this move things along nicely. Publicity is the objective at this stage.

Really Mr. Byers? You want discussion of Creationism in high school science class? You want it to be legal to discuss religious topics in science class? You want to discuss the pros and cons of both sides? How about in California? How about in Boston? How would you feel about it if a publicly funded teacher stood in front of the classroom and told students that the Biblical story was a myth, a fantasy, a lie? (BTW, they are not allowed to do that today, by law, thanks to the Constitution which you want to over turn.) That there is no evidence outside the Bible (and precious little inside the Bible) for Creationism? Should it be legal for a teacher to tell a student that their personal beliefs are wrong? How would you feel about that? How would you feel if a teacher told her students that the Koran was the literal word of Allah? That the students would burn in Hell if they didn't believe in Allah? How would you feel if a teacher told her students that the Hindu scriptures were the literal truth? Shall we discuss all 2,000(+) of the "literal true" origins stories available in the world? Shall we allow every teacher the "academic freedom" to prosthelytize any religion that they want to their children? Do you really want that? The reason we have "Freedom of Religion" in this country is because the Catholics could not agree with the Quakers about what to teach in school. The Baptists couldn't agree with the Lutherans, who couldn't agree with the Episcopalians, who couldn't agree with any other sect. The reason "Freedom of Religion" works, is because *no* religion can use the power of the State to tell the other religions what the "right" religion is; what the "truth" is. But no. You want to eliminate that "Freedom". Instead you want "Academic Freedom". You want the "Freedom" to use the State to tell other people what to believe. You want people to be able to vote on what religion the state will require everyone to believe. Don't you realize that that very thing is what our Founding Fathers came to this continent to get away from?

mandrellian said: Teach both sides? Let the kids "decide"? Sure. In history class, in civics, in philosophy - let's do just that. Let's teach kids how creationists operate and let them "decide" what to do with that information. We can teach:

- how they portray evolution not as a description of observed reality and the bedrock of biological science which informs everything from genetics to medicine to epidemiology to pharmacology, etc (a place it has earned through repeated confirmation, not by authoritative declaration or popular vote) but as a crucial part of some "godless" lefty philosophy out to harm the country or lead their kids away from Jesus - how they routinely lie and conceal their true motives in order to circumvent the law and have creationism inserted into science (the very label "Intelligent Design" itself, the entirety of the DI's public actions, Dover) - how they purposely misquote, quote out of context or partially quote scientists up to and including Darwin himself (and anyone, really, as long as they're perceived to have some kind of authority) in order to cast doubt on evolutionary theory - how they manufacture a controversy about evolutionary theory's validity by magnifying small differences in scientific opinion over currently uncertain, highly specific evolutionary mechanisms while ignoring the overwhelming consensus among scientists that evolutionary theory is true - how they jump on any misleading or just poorly-written science article in the mainstream media in order to claim that evolution is a "theory in crisis" or "on its last legs" - how they inevitably misread and misrepresent actual scientific research in any way they can in order to cast what they see as doubt on evolution - how they constantly conflate Darwinian evolution with "social Darwinism", a eugenicist philosophy that would have appalled Darwin and which is, in any event, the antithesis of Darwinian natural selection - how they portray acceptance of evolution as "dogmatic" and admiration of Darwin as "worship"; more than likely projecting their own authoritarian and irrational methods of thought onto others - how they constantly claim "conspiracy" or "oppression" or "inhibition of free speech" every time a creationist or creationist group is called on their unconstitutional or inappropriate behaviour or their lack of judgement (Coppedge, Freshwater, Ahlquist) - how they constantly refuse (both ID'ers and YES creationists) to perform a whit of actual scientific work in order to produce a single datum in support of their theory; how they seem to think that saying "that's too complex to have evolved" counts as a legitimate critique - how they say things like "microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution", perhaps not realising that that's equivalent to saying a lit match can light a cigarette but not start a bushfire - how they bray and crow and squawk about either the "imminent demise" of Darwinism or the "slow train" of creationist progress, even though the only progress that matters in this debate - scientific - is being made by only one side of the argument - how they concentrate on PR and legal and legislative "victories" without performing - or even attempting to perform - any actual science to back up their claims (which suggests that they may know, at some level, that science does not and will not provide that backup) - how they almost universally perform the false equation of evolution with atheism - "atheism" of course being a creationist/Far Right dog-whistle that can mean anything up to and including (and any combination of): Hitler, Stalin, Nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, promiscuity, amorality, moral nihilism, pacifism, hedonism, masturbation, paganism, pre-marital or non-procreative sex, homosexuality, video games and probably electric guitars, carbonated drinks and open sandwiches

And that's just what I've noticed on PT in the short amount of time I've been visiting. There are more than enough examples of all the behaviour listed above (and more I haven't thought of) to make a very interesting Creationism: History and Tactics syllabus. So let's do it: let's teach both sides. Let's teach science, then we can balance that and teach creationism - with all the detail we can muster.

Byers: Of coarse teaching God or genesis is not true or banning it as a option for truth is not hands off but fingerprintsamindo.

Robert Byers said: They do attack the truth of the bible in many classes. Certainly teaching evolution is saying the bible is false.

Robert Byers said: Yes they do teach different sides in history or civics etc classes. There is no or very little censorship in these classes. Origin subjects are more important as they touch on historical truths of Christianity which is the origin for modern civilization. The long intellectual and cultural history of believing God and genesis is the truth of the universe is today censorsed because it was so important. Its dangerous even. They censor things that matter. Truths touching on religion are serious truths and so in origin subjects it can't be helped but there is crossover.

There is plenty of “censorship” in history class. They never ever discuss auto mechanics or how to bake cookies.

When you think of it, Expelled totally censored David Irving and other advocates of critical analysis of the Holocaust in their own demonization of the dissenters.

It's almost as if they think that facts should be taught in history, rather than facts poisoned by intransigent denial of said facts. To do so in science, however, is unconscionable.

Glen Davidson

The long intellectual and cultural history of believing God and genesis is the truth of the universe is today censorsed because it was so important. Its dangerous even. They censor things that matter.

Robert Byers said: Yes they do teach different sides in history or civics etc classes. There is no or very little censorship in these classes. Origin subjects are more important as they touch on historical truths of Christianity which is the origin for modern civilization. The long intellectual and cultural history of believing God and genesis is the truth of the universe is today censorsed [sic] because it was so important. Its dangerous even. They censor things that matter. Truths touching on religion are serious truths and so in origin subjects it can't be helped but there is crossover.

Paul Burnett said:

apokryltaros said: According to fundamentalists, you can commit whatever goddamned sin you like, be it lying, cheating, murder, stealing, oppressing other people, setting your ego, or your bank account up on a high pedestal and forcing other people to worship it as God, so long as you claim you're committing sin for Jesus, it's okay.

To quote Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (contained in a letter to Philip of Hesse in 1540)

Robert Byers said: Yes Americans (and Canadians ) by majority's want both sides taught. in fact in any contention of interest they accept full discussion in public schools. They do attack the truth of the bible in many classes. Certainly teaching evolution is saying the bible is false. Denying Genesis equal time is a further statement its false since the class is about teaching the truth on origin matters. Wiggle all you want but trying to enforce censorship is very difficult once the people are aware of it. By the way the Puritans came to America to establish a religious society and not a neutral one. Only at the revolution in order to get along was a hands off agreement made. Of coarse teaching God or genesis is not true or banning it as a option for truth is not hands off but fingerprintsamindo. Yes they do teach different sides in history or civics etc classes. There is no or very little censorship in these classes. Origin subjects are more important as they touch on historical truths of Christianity which is the origin for modern civilization. The long intellectual and cultural history of believing God and genesis is the truth of the universe is today censorsed because it was so important. Its dangerous even. They censor things that matter. Truths touching on religion are serious truths and so in origin subjects it can’t be helped but there is crossover.

dalehusband said:

Paul Burnett said:

apokryltaros said: According to fundamentalists, you can commit whatever goddamned sin you like, be it lying, cheating, murder, stealing, oppressing other people, setting your ego, or your bank account up on a high pedestal and forcing other people to worship it as God, so long as you claim you're committing sin for Jesus, it's okay.

To quote Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (contained in a letter to Philip of Hesse in 1540)

And that, assuming Luther really said that, is reason enough to reject any claims he might have made. Did you know Luther was a rabid anti-Semite too? You could argue that he was a forerunner of the Nazis, being German as well.

dalehusband said: Support all your statements in bold or retract them

dalehusband said:

Paul Burnett said: To quote Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (contained in a letter to Philip of Hesse in 1540)

And that, assuming Luther really said that, is reason enough to reject any claims he might have made.

Did you know Luther was a rabid anti-Semite too? You could argue that he was a forerunner of the Nazis, being German as well.

Certainly, German anti-semitism didn't start with Hitler and didn't spring out of a vacuum. Luther was a vital component of Hitler's anti-Semitism, but he himself was building on extant hatred that stemmed back to the origination of the faith. It wasn't as though millions of Germans suddenly realised they didn't like Jews thanks to Hitler's inspiring hate-filled orations; anti-Semitism in Europe had existed for centuries, overtly or covertly, and it grew from both Catholicism and Protestantism - possibly the one thing the Vatican shared with Protestants was their mutual loathing of the Jew. Even if Hitler had been an atheist, as if often falsely charged, he wasn't talking to a nation of atheists - he was talking to a nation of Christians and he awoke in them an evil noone knew was present. Granted, many saw the dark meaning of Hitler's words early on; the majority, however, did not.

What Hitler did was make it okay to be overtly anti-Semitic - he even made it a virtue, then a necessity. Say what you will about liberal, Bohemian Weimar culture - in the depressed and chaotic economic and political environment of 1930s Germany, still smarting from the restrictions on economy and industry imposed by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, people were more than happy to blame a long-mistrusted and despised ethnic group for their woes. Add to that the nationalistic fervour whipped up by Hitler (again, there was an all-too ready market for re-instilling German people with their national pride) and his popularity is no longer some dark mystery.

--

As an aside, even if Hitler was a "7" on the Dawkins Belief Scale, his own beliefs in his vision, in the greatness of Germany, in the untermenschen status of Jews and in his deserved place as a German Caesar were as dogmatic, absolute, fundamentalist, extreme and unevidenced as anything exhibited by any religious extremist in history. It's not necessary to be a religious fanatic to be unreasonable, irrational, disconnected from reality or morality and unable or unwilling to allow even the possibility of a mistake or fault in your guiding wisdom. Indeed, as we know, Hitler stuck to his own vision of his own infallibility until the very end, when he took his own life rather than face the justice of the World - or of an overzealous Russian soldier.

Atheist or not, what Hitler showed the world was the danger of irrational beliefs and the danger of absolute faith in dogma - even, or especially, if you just make your own up and cast yourself as Saviour.