Introduction to Genetics and Evolution

Posted 3 October 2012 by Richard B. Hoppe

Mohamed Noor, who got his Ph.D. under Jerry Coyne, is teaching an online introduction to genetics and evolution. It starts Oct 10 and is free. Strongly recommended for FL and Byers. Hat tip to Florida Citizens for Science

86 Comments

DS · 3 October 2012

I suggest that we ask every troll who infests these boards questions from this series every time they show up. If they are not here to learn science they should be ignored.

harold · 3 October 2012

DS said: I suggest that we ask every troll who infests these boards questions from this series every time they show up. If they are not here to learn science they should be ignored.

I strongly concur. (I've regretfully decided not to sign up for Oct. 10, because it looks like material I'm already familiar with, and although review is always a good thing, I'm very, very busy these days.) Back in 1999, when I first learned about creationists, my instinctive response was to ask them if they actually knew anything about the subject they were denying. It's been thirteen years now, and I have literally never seen an ID/creationist express a fair understanding of the theory of evolution at the most basic level.

ogremk5 · 3 October 2012

Yep. They can't accurately describe evolution for sure.

Of course, they will assume that they already know everything about what is in the class. Most of them would assume that they could teach it. They would all be wrong, but they can't understand that. Self reflection is not a skill they have.

Karen S. · 4 October 2012

I love coursera.org! It's such a great idea and totally free. I think I'll sign up for this one.

John · 4 October 2012

harold said:
DS said: I suggest that we ask every troll who infests these boards questions from this series every time they show up. If they are not here to learn science they should be ignored.
I strongly concur. (I've regretfully decided not to sign up for Oct. 10, because it looks like material I'm already familiar with, and although review is always a good thing, I'm very, very busy these days.) Back in 1999, when I first learned about creationists, my instinctive response was to ask them if they actually knew anything about the subject they were denying. It's been thirteen years now, and I have literally never seen an ID/creationist express a fair understanding of the theory of evolution at the most basic level.

Yup, I strongly second. However, I doubt RBH's sound advice will be heeded by Booby Byers and FL. I think I can bet a bank on that.

Karen S. · 4 October 2012

I wonder if a lot of creationists (all varieties) will sign up just so they can flood the discussion area with stupid anti-evolution comments?

Kevin B · 4 October 2012

John said: Yup, I strongly second. However, I doubt RBH's sound advice will be heeded by Booby Byers and FL. I think I can bet a bank on that.

As long as it isn't the "tangled bank" from the closing paragraph of Origin of Species because they'll just fixate on the reference to "the Creator".

DS · 4 October 2012

The intro video looks great. I am pleased that the course will concentrate on genetics. Now I wonder what objection the trolls could possibly have to that. What excuse could they possibly come up with for not wanting to understand basic genetic mechanisms? The only thing I can think of is that is won't allow them to keep making the same ignorant arguments that they have been parroting without comprehension for many years.

SLC · 4 October 2012

Booby Byers and Fatuous Floyd have no interest in learning anything about evolution. Their minds are made up, the facts are irrelevant.

John said:
harold said:
DS said: I suggest that we ask every troll who infests these boards questions from this series every time they show up. If they are not here to learn science they should be ignored.
I strongly concur. (I've regretfully decided not to sign up for Oct. 10, because it looks like material I'm already familiar with, and although review is always a good thing, I'm very, very busy these days.) Back in 1999, when I first learned about creationists, my instinctive response was to ask them if they actually knew anything about the subject they were denying. It's been thirteen years now, and I have literally never seen an ID/creationist express a fair understanding of the theory of evolution at the most basic level.
Yup, I strongly second. However, I doubt RBH's sound advice will be heeded by Booby Byers and FL. I think I can bet a bank on that.

John · 4 October 2012

SLC said: Booby Byers and Fatuous Floyd have no interest in learning anything about evolution. Their minds are made up, the facts are irrelevant.

Of course. C'est vrai! Why would anyone who is reasonably intelligent think otherwise?

timothy.brannan · 4 October 2012

It sounds great.

My issues though are with the nature of the course; videos and quizzes?
I suppose I should not complain, the course is free. But there are better ways to do a course.

Tim

Jonathan Smith · 4 October 2012

D.S said "Now I wonder what objection the trolls could possibly have to that.
" Well look on the Florida Citizens for Science web site and the exchange between Chris and Ivorygirl. Ivorygirl to Chris(who is a creationist) "I’m sure you have genetics all figured out. Just place a few colored sticks in front of some mating goats and bingo! the offspring come out striped. Who needs science when you have a three thousand year old book written by a bunch of Bronze Age goat herders, right?"

Karen S. · 4 October 2012

Well, I'm signed up. I'm betting lots of creationists will sign up solely to post creo-crap on the course forum. I'm sure it's going to require a lot of moderation to separate the sincere questions from the creationist trick questions.

John · 4 October 2012

Kevin B said:
John said: Yup, I strongly second. However, I doubt RBH's sound advice will be heeded by Booby Byers and FL. I think I can bet a bank on that.
As long as it isn't the "tangled bank" from the closing paragraph of Origin of Species because they'll just fixate on the reference to "the Creator".

Given the intellectual poverty of their minds, I was thinking of any bank in Athens, Greece.

Karen S. · 4 October 2012

My issues though are with the nature of the course; videos and quizzes? I suppose I should not complain, the course is free. But there are better ways to do a course.

Yes, but it is an online course--what do you want? For their programming/database courses they have programming environments where you can run your queries or whatever and get your results evaluated for correctness. It's very well done. Wish we could sign the IDM up for this evo course.

harold · 4 October 2012

Karen S. said: Well, I'm signed up. I'm betting lots of creationists will sign up solely to post creo-crap on the course forum. I'm sure it's going to require a lot of moderation to separate the sincere questions from the creationist trick questions.

It's actually an interesting question. On one hand, any serious discussion of science is a creationist repellent. They literally almost never comment on the threads here that discuss something technical, for example. On the other hand, I suppose they could avoid the actual content, and jump straight to sabotaging a discussion forum.

Robert Byers · 4 October 2012

Genetics is not my thing.
In fact it's to me a very off-broadway subject in origin issues.
The big problem with it is that they can't imagine genetics has within it the power to genetically change itself.
As long as its a fixed thing then error slips in.

for example i'm sure marsupials are just placentals with pouches. so the common genetic points all marsupials share are just from a common generic change that happened to them all upon migrating to certain areas.
The genetics is not a sign of being of one tribe as evolution now teaches.
Genetics are not a trail of biological heritage.

likewise I'm sure that people leaving Babel and entering Africa instantly or within years had become black etc. not their kids byt themselves in order for their skin to deal with the sun/heat/humidity etc.
likewise people entering Europe lost instantly pigmentation .
It was a genetic change, from some trigger, and everyone now has these genetic markers.
Genetic studies are still new and can't rule out genetics has hidden abilities to change itself based on deeper biological laws.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 4 October 2012

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing. In fact it's to me a very off-broadway subject in origin issues.

** Jazz~Hands!! ** But seriously, I haven't seen Cats or Blue Man Group. I need to get out more.

Genetics are not a trail of biological heritage.

Which is why DNA tests are not permitted to be used as evidence in a court of law. Thank you, Robert.

robert van bakel · 4 October 2012

The power of DNA sidelined with, 'Genetics is not my thing'. It is life you twit! It is the chemical code which makes stupid you, you! What is, your 'thing'? No toilet humour please:)

I've signed up for the course. Not being sciency it will be a no pressure, interesting, useful, use of my time.

'Genetics is not my thing.'! Perhaps the stupidest internet posting since the beginning of the inter-net; and by a christian who prances about naked claiming he has clothes; delicious!

SLC · 5 October 2012

Ignorance really is bliss, isn't it?

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing. In fact it's to me a very off-broadway subject in origin issues. The big problem with it is that they can't imagine genetics has within it the power to genetically change itself. As long as its a fixed thing then error slips in. for example i'm sure marsupials are just placentals with pouches. so the common genetic points all marsupials share are just from a common generic change that happened to them all upon migrating to certain areas. The genetics is not a sign of being of one tribe as evolution now teaches. Genetics are not a trail of biological heritage. likewise I'm sure that people leaving Babel and entering Africa instantly or within years had become black etc. not their kids byt themselves in order for their skin to deal with the sun/heat/humidity etc. likewise people entering Europe lost instantly pigmentation . It was a genetic change, from some trigger, and everyone now has these genetic markers. Genetic studies are still new and can't rule out genetics has hidden abilities to change itself based on deeper biological laws.

Dave Luckett · 5 October 2012

It's like heroin addiction. For those experiencing the high, it's bliss. For those observing the effects, it's something else again.

Paul Burnett · 5 October 2012

Robert Byers said: ...i’m sure marsupials are just placentals with pouches.

Actually placentals are just marsupials with better/bigger placentas and uterii. So, tell us, Robert - how many different species of marsupials were on Noah's Ark - and how did they store all the fresh eucalyptus leaves?

Jason Mitchell · 5 October 2012

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing.

there - fixed that comment for you - now it is factual

Matt G · 5 October 2012

I just signed up. Hope to see some of you there, especially those of you whose understanding of biology (science in general) is, how shall I say, lacking. Just behave better than you did in high school, please....

DS · 5 October 2012

Well here is your chance Bobby boy. Sign up for the course and learn something. Either that or be revealed as the willfully ignorant fool that you are. No one cares about your ignorant opinions. If you want to disrespect everyone here, just keep spouting off without a clue what you are talking about. If you refuse to even try to learn anything then you will condemn yourself to a life of ignorance. Do you really want everyone to know that a YEC isn't even interested in learn anything about reality? Don't get me wrong, we all know it already. But now you will give everyone the opportunity to point at you an laugh because you were offered the opportunity to learn and you declined. How do you think you are going to convince anyone who actually took the course and now knows more than you that you are right about anything? And by the way Bobby, there are people posting here who has extensive backgrounds in genetics. There are people posting here who could teach such courses. You don't come off very well to them either. Get a clue or hit the road, your comedic value has ended.

Jason Mitchell · 5 October 2012

This particular comment I am not directing towards Mr. Byers, but can be instructional as to the mindset of a creationist. Actually a microcosmic summary of the entire ID/Creationist 'argument'

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing.

ok we knew this part- ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don't use/value the scientific method.

In fact it's to me a very off-broadway subject in origin issues. The big problem with it is that they can't imagine genetics has within it the power to genetically change itself. As long as its a fixed thing then error slips in.

after admitting ignorance and lack of interest in how genetics actually works the creationist then makes several assertions as if he were an expert in the subject.

for example i'm sure marsupials are just placentals with pouches. so the common genetic points all marsupials share are just from a common generic change that happened to them all upon migrating to certain areas. The genetics is not a sign of being of one tribe as evolution now teaches. Genetics are not a trail of biological heritage.

more assertions as if from authority, in reality evidence that the creationist knows nothing about genetics (yet still believes he is justified in critiquing it)

likewise I'm sure that people leaving Babel and entering Africa instantly or within years had become black etc. not their kids by themselves in order for their skin to deal with the sun/heat/humidity etc. likewise people entering Europe lost instantly pigmentation . It was a genetic change, from some trigger, and everyone now has these genetic markers.

here we see a particular type of creationist assertion, the young earth creationist flavor of argument or YEC. The assumption that events in the Bible are factual and historically accurate and spinning tales around them (how Africans became black) here we also see invocation of long dismissed/disproven scientific-type claims (inheiritance of aquiried traits as Lararck described adaptation)

Genetic studies are still new and can't rule out genetics has hidden abilities to change itself based on deeper biological laws.

and finally the critisism of science as somehow inferior and not to be trusted. Genetics is "new" and "incomplete". These assertions are particularly ironic as the creationsist began with an admission of and subsequently demonstrated ignorance of the subject. Not only lack of knowlege, but an admission of NOT WANTING TO KNOW- willful ignorance - in summary creationists: don't "DO" science don't value the scientific method make assertions from fabricated authority believe interpretations of Bible stories are more "true" then verified observations of reality are willfully ignorant that should be enough to convince anyone that creationism/ID has no place in the classroom as science.

FL · 5 October 2012

Thanks for the shout-out, Dr. Hoppe. As for me, my own favorite introductory resources for understanding "genetics and evolution", are

Volpe and Rosenbaum, Understanding Evolution 6th ed.

Freeman and Herron, Evolutionary Analysis 4th ed.

And also Pearson's "The Biology Place", particularly its "Lab Bench" on population genetics.

http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/labbench/lab8/intro.html

Those are my chosen favorites week in and week out, thanks.

But, since you mention it, I will also glance at Dr. Noor's thingie just to see what it is about.

FL · 5 October 2012

Oh, btw, I probably should mention that I've already taken Biology 150, "Evolution", in-person in-class, at my hometown secular university. The professor was a professional tenured evolutionist.

(He was a nice atheist PhD geneticist who worked us hard but graciously gave me a "B" for the semester. It's still on the transcript).

So I'll probably just do like Harold and respectfully decline actually signing up fo Noor's course.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 · 5 October 2012

WATCH OUT FOLKS WE GOT A BADASS

He took him a BIO 150 course at the local community college. SCIENTISTS TREMBLE IN FEAR WHEN FLAWED STARTS DISPROVING TEH EVILUTION

bplurt · 5 October 2012

likewise I’m sure that people leaving Babel and entering Africa instantly or within years had become black etc. not their kids by themselves in order for their skin to deal with the sun/heat/humidity etc.

Robert, these guys descend from white Europeans who moved to Africa in the 17th Century. Will you break the bad news to them or shall I?

Rolf · 5 October 2012

404

FL · 5 October 2012

ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.

Hi Jason! Just happened to see that one item of yours. Therefore please take a look at Young-Earth Creationist Dr. John Sanford's double-digit patents and publications during his 25+ years at Cornell: http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/hort/people/sanford.cfm And notice that, as the primary inventor of the biolistic "gene gun", he even gave a public shout-out to Jesus Christ near the end of his peer-review-published science journal article: http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/Gene%20Gun%20Review.pdf Just something to think about! FL

apokryltaros · 5 October 2012

FL said: Oh, btw, I probably should mention that I've already taken Biology 150, "Evolution", in-person in-class, at my hometown secular university. The professor was a professional tenured evolutionist. (He was a nice atheist PhD geneticist who worked us hard but graciously gave me a "B" for the semester. It's still on the transcript). So I'll probably just do like Harold and respectfully decline actually signing up fo Noor's course.

Yet, you talk like you never took a science class since Kindergarten. Did you threaten your alleged professor that God would rape him in Hell if he didn't give you an A?

DS · 5 October 2012

FL said: Oh, btw, I probably should mention that I've already taken Biology 150, "Evolution", in-person in-class, at my hometown secular university. The professor was a professional tenured evolutionist. (He was a nice atheist PhD geneticist who worked us hard but graciously gave me a "B" for the semester. It's still on the transcript). So I'll probably just do like Harold and respectfully decline actually signing up fo Noor's course.

So then, I guess you already know why "common design" is NOT an explanation for the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates and other organisms. So you have no excuse at all and no intention of ever learning anything ever again. Got it. Bye bye.

TomS · 5 October 2012

DS said: So then, I guess you already know why "common design" is NOT an explanation for the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates and other organisms.

There are lots of things about the world of life that "common design" is not an explanation for. Maybe there is something that it is an explanation for, but there is nothing that occurs to me. Maybe, if we add to "common design" something about the constraints on the design process, or something about the material being used, or something about the intentions of the designer(s) might tell us something. For example, if the reason that humans are so similar to other primates, more similar to other primates than to other mammals, more similar than to other tetrapods, and so on - if the designers had similar purposes for designing humans to be just another primate - then I guess that would tell us that the meaning for human life is rather similar to the meaning for chimpanzee life. Should we be telling our kids that, in order to follow the purposes that our designers had in mind when designing us, our kids should behave like monkeys? That seems to be one of the consequences of belief in "common design". If "common design" did work as an explanation.

Matt G · 5 October 2012

Appeal to Consequences and Appeal to Emotion in a nice neat package! Remember that science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Richard B. Hoppe · 5 October 2012

Hm? The link is still good for me.

Rolf said: 404

Jason Mitchell · 5 October 2012

FL said:
ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.
Hi Jason! Just happened to see that one item of yours. Therefore please take a look at Young-Earth Creationist Dr. John Sanford's double-digit patents and publications during his 25+ years at Cornell: http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/hort/people/sanford.cfm And notice that, as the primary inventor of the biolistic "gene gun", he even gave a public shout-out to Jesus Christ near the end of his peer-review-published science journal article: http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/Gene%20Gun%20Review.pdf Just something to think about! FL

looking at the links you provided - I don't see how he is a creationist (in the sense that he denies evolution and/or promotes the teaching of "creation science" or ID in science class in public schools or promotes the censorship of MET) where in his work does he invoke a 6000 year old Earth? where in his work does he USE or Demonstrate creationism? there is nothing wrong with being a devout Christian and still doing good scientific work - his personal religious beliefs are not my concern/ none of my business. why are you trying to conflate personal religious beliefs and professional secular pursuits?

Jason Mitchell · 5 October 2012

as a side note - I used a gene gun (developed by Dr. Sanford) back in the day when I was a tech. at a lab at DeKalb Plant Genetics (now part of Monsanto). Today there is Roundup Resistant corn all over the place...

FL · 5 October 2012

why are you trying to conflate personal religious beliefs and professional secular pursuits?

Because somebody stated that....

ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.

So it was necessary to provide a counterexample, to provide a Creationist scientist who uses and values the scientific method. If you don't "see how Sanford is a creationist", take a close look at the mission statement of the group he's a very visible and active part of (Logos Research Associates):

What is our goal? As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Bible – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.

"Superior to evolutionary theory." That has such a nice delicious ring to it, along with the other statements. And Dr. Sanford is part of that huge creationist goal and mission. He's young earth creationist all the way, and a true scientist all the way, and looking the change the world for Christ. ****

as a side note - I used a gene gun (developed by Dr. Sanford) back in the day when I was a tech. at a lab at DeKalb Plant Genetics (now part of Monsanto). Today there is Roundup Resistant corn all over the place…

Hey, that IS an interesting side note. It's certainly a long shot, but maybe getting to use an actual gene gun and knowing who it originated from, might accidentally move you a couple pegs towards actually becoming a creationist yourself someday. (Imagine that, yes? Not a bad possibility!) FL :)

apokryltaros · 5 October 2012

Jason Mitchell asked: where in (Dr Sanford's) work does he invoke a 6000 year old Earth? where in (Dr Sanford's) work does he USE or Demonstrate creationism?

I wonder why FL totally ignored these two questions?

apokryltaros · 5 October 2012

FL said:
why are you trying to conflate personal religious beliefs and professional secular pursuits?
Because somebody stated that....
ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.
So it was necessary to provide a counterexample, to provide a Creationist scientist who uses and values the scientific method. If you don't "see how Sanford is a creationist", take a close look at the mission statement of the group he's a very visible and active part of (Logos Research Associates):
What is our goal? As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Bible – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
"Superior to evolutionary theory." That has such a nice delicious ring to it, along with the other statements. And Dr. Sanford is part of that huge creationist goal and mission. He's young earth creationist all the way, and a true scientist all the way, and looking the change the world for Christ. ****
as a side note - I used a gene gun (developed by Dr. Sanford) back in the day when I was a tech. at a lab at DeKalb Plant Genetics (now part of Monsanto). Today there is Roundup Resistant corn all over the place…
Hey, that IS an interesting side note. It's certainly a long shot, but maybe getting to use an actual gene gun and knowing who it originated from, might accidentally move you a couple pegs towards actually becoming a creationist yourself someday. (Imagine that, yes? Not a bad possibility!) FL :)

So what scientific breakthroughs for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has Dr Sanford accomplished since he became a Young Earth Creationist? I noticed that you failed to list any of Dr Sanford's accomplishments for Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design. Why was that? Is it because he has not done any research or searched for evidence for Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design?

dalehusband · 5 October 2012

FL said: If you don't "see how Sanford is a creationist", take a close look at the mission statement of the group he's a very visible and active part of (Logos Research Associates):
What is our goal? As Ambassadors for Christ we seek to encourage others to believe in Jesus, to faithfully and deliberately believe what Jesus taught, and to believe God’s revealed Word – the Bible – which is the power of God to salvation. We use scholarship, logic, and the scientific method to show that the historical claims of the Bible are not only credible, but are superior to evolutionary theory to explain the origin of the world we see. We freely acknowledge our own fallibility, the inherent limits of “historical science”, and the need for “faith” by adherents of any view about ultimate origins. We urge all people to NOT put their faith in us, or any other form of human authority, but ultimately to put their faith in Jesus Christ.
"Superior to evolutionary theory." That has such a nice delicious ring to it, along with the other statements. And Dr. Sanford is part of that huge creationist goal and mission. He's young earth creationist all the way, and a true scientist all the way, and looking the change the world for Christ.

Link to the website for this organization, please? And is there a membership list for it with Dr. John Sanford's name on it?

****
as a side note - I used a gene gun (developed by Dr. Sanford) back in the day when I was a tech. at a lab at DeKalb Plant Genetics (now part of Monsanto). Today there is Roundup Resistant corn all over the place…
Hey, that IS an interesting side note. It's certainly a long shot, but maybe getting to use an actual gene gun and knowing who it originated from, might accidentally move you a couple pegs towards actually becoming a creationist yourself someday. (Imagine that, yes? Not a bad possibility!) FL :)

No, because you have to stop using the scientific method and following its results consistently to become a Creationist, even if you pretend to use scientific terminology. In short, to be Creationist and also to be a scientist is to practice fraud.

FL said: Thanks for the shout-out, Dr. Hoppe. As for me, my own favorite introductory resources for understanding "genetics and evolution", are Volpe and Rosenbaum, Understanding Evolution 6th ed. Freeman and Herron, Evolutionary Analysis 4th ed. And also Pearson's "The Biology Place", particularly its "Lab Bench" on population genetics. http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/labbench/lab8/intro.html Those are my chosen favorites week in and week out, thanks. But, since you mention it, I will also glance at Dr. Noor's thingie just to see what it is about. Oh, btw, I probably should mention that I’ve already taken Biology 150, “Evolution”, in-person in-class, at my hometown secular university. The professor was a professional tenured evolutionist. (He was a nice atheist PhD geneticist who worked us hard but graciously gave me a “B” for the semester. It’s still on the transcript). So I’ll probably just do like Harold and respectfully decline actually signing up fo Noor’s course. FL

So you admit you know plenty about evolution yet reject and argue against it anyway? Why? How can written words from thousands of years ago trump empirical evidence that can be discovered and analyzed by people today? That is simply madness.

dalehusband · 5 October 2012

Sigh! FL failed to do so, therefore I have to. And when I do: http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/john-sanford/

John Sanford B.S. (Horticulture), M.S. (Plant Breeding/Genetics), Ph.D. (Plant Breeding/Genetics) Geneticist, President and Senior Research Associate As a Cornell University professor for over 25 years, John conducted plant genetics research that resulted in new crop varieties, more than 80 scientific publications, and 30 patents. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today utilize the biolistic “gene gun” process of which John was the primary inventor. John feels his most significant contribution to science was his leadership in the development of Mendel’s Accountant, the world’s first biologically realistic genetic accounting program. Second in significance to this was his authoring of the book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. John continues to hold the position of Courtesy Associate Professor at Cornell.

It is incredible that a scientist can do experiments to cause evolution, yet also be a Creationist. This guy is as inconsistent in his logic and methodology as FL, obviously.

ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.

That statement should have said:

ID/Creationists are sometimes scientists, but they don’t use/value the scientific method with any consistency if the results contradict their chosen religious dogmas.

Which is indeed more accurate. John Sanford may be respected for any actual science he does, but his Creationist prejudices cannot be taken seriously, because they are NOT supported by his own research! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

AltairIV · 6 October 2012

Hmm. All it takes is pulling up his Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

It says he identified either as an atheist or as a theistic evolutionist until the "late 1990's", then after briefly dabbling in OEC, finally became a YEC in 2000.

It also says he retired in 1998.

So the vast bulk of his scientific achievements, if not all of them, came well before he turned creationist.

Karen S. · 6 October 2012

Actually, Coursera offers quite a number of courses on biology and related topics:

Coursera Biology Courses

And new courses are added all the time!

harold · 6 October 2012

ID/Creationists are not scientists, they don’t use/value the scientific method.
So it was necessary to provide a counterexample, to provide a Creationist scientist who uses and values the scientific method.

All ID/creationists do not use or value the scientific method when dealing with ID/creationism. They ignore the obvious scientific evidence against ID/creationism, and don't attempt to do any scientific work to support ID/creationism. (And no, Douglas Axe et al don't do work that supports creationism. They engage in the typical "attack evolution and creationism wins by default" fallacy, and then attack a straw man version of evolution. Which is why nobody in the world but a few dozen internet trolls cares about them, not even other creationists.) A very tiny fraction of ID/creationists do obtain some professional/doctoral level training in basic or applied science. In some cases, they even do this while creationists, with the freakish plan of saying "I spent years getting a PhD just so I could announce that I think it was all bullshit as soon as I graduated". (E.g. Jonathon Wells; this rare type seems to be motivated to prove to themselves that they can "learn about it and still contradict it", but these types are literally much rare than hen's teeth). In other cases they become creationist later and begin contradicting the basics of their own former work and training (Sanford). In some very rare cases, they correctly practice a science based discipline while bizarrely denying the science (e.g. Michael Egnor, who, for example, almost certainly agrees with using antibiotics that pathogenic bacteria have not evolved resistance to, etc, even while denying evolution). This makes a bit more sense than the Jonathon Wells strategy - at least Egnor didn't go through college, medical school, and a neurosurgery residency with a dadaist plan of "renouncing evolutionary medicine" the minute he finished his residency - but is still odd. The commonality even these share with all creationists is refusal to use/value the scientific method when dealing with creationism.

TomS · 6 October 2012

AltairIV said: It also says he retired in 1998.

It also says that he was born in 1950. It is possible that someone would retire at age 48, but this leads me to have reservations about the article.

Just Bob · 6 October 2012

harold said: All ID/creationists do not use or value the scientific method when dealing with ID/creationism.... They ignore the obvious scientific evidence against ID/creationism, and don't attempt to do any scientific work to support ID/creationism. snip A very tiny fraction of ID/creationists do obtain some professional/doctoral level training in basic or applied science. In some cases, they even do this while creationists, with the freakish plan of saying "I spent years getting a PhD just so I could announce that I think it was all bullshit as soon as I graduated". snip In other cases they become creationist later and begin contradicting the basics of their own former work and training (Sanford). In some very rare cases, they correctly practice a science based discipline while bizarrely denying the science snip The commonality even these share with all creationists is refusal to use/value the scientific method when dealing with creationism.

And what never happens is that a non-theist, or even a non-creationist Christian scientist discovers, through his work, so much evidence for a recent creation ex nihilo that he just has to accept a YEC position, and only then decides fundamentalist protestantism got it right and joins a YEC denomination. It always happens in the reverse order.

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2012

harold said: In some cases, they even do this while creationists, with the freakish plan of saying "I spent years getting a PhD just so I could announce that I think it was all bullshit as soon as I graduated". (E.g. Jonathon Wells; this rare type seems to be motivated to prove to themselves that they can "learn about it and still contradict it", but these types are literally much rare than hen's teeth).

Two of the most recent ones that come to mind are Georgia Purdom at AiG and Jason Lisle, formerly of AiG, now at the ICR. If anyone doubts just how bizarre people like Lisle can get, all they need to do is look at Lisle’s “solution” to the “distant starlight problem” or his series of videos on Nuclear Strength Apologetics over at AiG. The stuff is so bizarre that one has to wonder if he actually took any courses in physics or mathematics. Both Lisle and Purdom have videos over at AiG that tell how they kept their heads down while at secular institutions getting their degrees. But the second they got them, they simply used the letters after their names to give gravitas to their goofy apologetics. They might be heroes in their subculture, but neither of them has any idea of how to go about writing and submitting a research proposal or carrying out any research. Of course, none of the people who look at them in awe have any clue about what real science or real research is all about. A PhD is no guarantee of anything; but, as is the case with just about anything, there are unscrupulous people who will use it to bamboozle others wherever they can get away with it.

Tenncrain · 6 October 2012

Just Bob said: And what never happens is that a non-theist, or even a non-creationist Christian scientist discovers, through his work, so much evidence for a recent creation ex nihilo that he just has to accept a YEC position, and only then decides fundamentalist protestantism got it right and joins a YEC denomination. It always happens in the reverse order.

Not to mention that more than a few anti-evolutionists seeking more advanced degrees ended up abandoning their anti-evolution views, to the dismay of leading anti-evolutionists. Examples include Davis Young (geologist at Calvin College), Ronald Numbers (science historian), Gordon Glover, Karl Giberson (physicist at Eastern Nazerine College), Molleurus Couperus, Nicolaas Rupke, etc.

harold · 6 October 2012

A PhD is no guarantee of anything; but, as is the case with just about anything, there are unscrupulous people who will use it to bamboozle others wherever they can get away with it.

While this is clearly true, there is something especially odd about that tiny class of people who struggle through advanced degrees that they "don't really believe in", and sneer at their mentors once the degree is granted. For bamboozling people, a diploma mill degree is just as effective, or a PhD in something less directly related to the distressing subject. I'm guessing that those rare molecular biology PhD students who are secretly seething creationists, just waiting to get the degree so that they can out themselves, must have very severe psychological problems.

dalehusband · 6 October 2012

AltairIV said: Hmm. All it takes is pulling up his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford It says he identified either as an atheist or as a theistic evolutionist until the "late 1990's", then after briefly dabbling in OEC, finally became a YEC in 2000. It also says he retired in 1998. So the vast bulk of his scientific achievements, if not all of them, came well before he turned creationist.

And even his argument recorded on Wikipedia:

An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."[11]

...is one of ignorance, not understanding or caring how natural selection works. It seems Sanford was misled by his own work. "I do selective breeding and genetic engineering, I am an intelligent designer, therefore all life must have been made by an Intelligent Designer." Uh, no. The only way to prove Intelligent Design is to actually produce the Designer. Even Sanford has never done this. His converting to the YEC point of view was a classic example of selling out his scientific work for religious dogmatism.

Just Bob · 6 October 2012

Heading OT, but I wonder if this congressman will register for this course: Huff Post:

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell." "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says." According to NBC News, Broun's comments were part of a larger speech given at the 2012 Sportsman's Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia on September 27th. A clip of the video was distributed by the The Bridge Project, a liberal watchdog group. Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee, of which Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is also a member. Akin made headlines last month for suggesting that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down." As Gawker points out, Broun made headlines in 2009 for trying to make 2010 "the year of the Bible." Broun is running for reelection unopposed, the AP reports. [emphasis added]

Think the Republican Party, or prominent individuals (say, Romney) will publicly disparage such remarks? Will the Party caucus remove him from the Science Committee? What do you think, JK?

DS · 6 October 2012

Well another candidate for the course. Clearly, this guy is just telling lies straight from the pit of hell. If this is the kind of mentality that is represented on the House Science Committee, it's no wonder we are in the mess we are in. I vote for immediate impeachment on the grounds of incompetence.

AltairIV · 7 October 2012

TomS said: It also says that he was born in 1950. It is possible that someone would retire at age 48, but this leads me to have reservations about the article.

Well, the Wikipedia article says that:

In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

It's not unusual for a person to retire early if he has a solid source of income to support him, and it wasn't a complete retirement, anyway. If we follow the link at the bottom going to his Cornell bio page, we see that since 1998 he appears to have been involved in only two papers actually related to biology. Other than that it lists three publications related to his analysis software, two patents granted (both filed for before 1998), and his mass-market book. It appears to me that Sanford has followed the well-known pattern of scientists who turn creationist; their scientific output diminishes, in both quantity and quality, as they become more religious. I imagine that he decided to retire from active professorship so he could spend more time in his religious pursuits. (PS: Completely off topic, but I thought I'd mention it... Google's logo doodle today commemorates Neils Bohr's 127th birthday.)

John · 7 October 2012

DS said:
FL said: Oh, btw, I probably should mention that I've already taken Biology 150, "Evolution", in-person in-class, at my hometown secular university. The professor was a professional tenured evolutionist. (He was a nice atheist PhD geneticist who worked us hard but graciously gave me a "B" for the semester. It's still on the transcript). So I'll probably just do like Harold and respectfully decline actually signing up fo Noor's course.
So then, I guess you already know why "common design" is NOT an explanation for the nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates and other organisms. So you have no excuse at all and no intention of ever learning anything ever again. Got it. Bye bye.

Agreed. He's as bad as Stevie Pee, who opted to take a break from harassing us here at PT and drive by HuffPo with this: "If you are so eminently qualified to judge Woese, put your money where yiur mouth is and cough up your publication record." "Btw, let me know if you need this translated into klingonese. If so, I'll call Nimoy or Shatner for assistance." This was in response to my comments that Carl Woese is as clueless as James A. Shapiro with regards to the history of science as it pertains to Darwin's life and career and in understanding the current state of evolutionary biology. Shapiro was kind enough to point me to this "interview" of Woese by "science journalist" Suzan Mazur: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1210/S00021/carl-woese-evolutions-golden-revolutionary.htm

John · 7 October 2012

Just Bob said: Heading OT, but I wonder if this congressman will register for this course: Huff Post:
Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell." "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says." According to NBC News, Broun's comments were part of a larger speech given at the 2012 Sportsman's Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Georgia on September 27th. A clip of the video was distributed by the The Bridge Project, a liberal watchdog group. Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee, of which Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is also a member. Akin made headlines last month for suggesting that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down." As Gawker points out, Broun made headlines in 2009 for trying to make 2010 "the year of the Bible." Broun is running for reelection unopposed, the AP reports. [emphasis added]
Think the Republican Party, or prominent individuals (say, Romney) will publicly disparage such remarks? Will the Party caucus remove him from the Science Committee? What do you think, JK?

Just Bob, the guy is a jackass. He shouldn't be on the House Senate Committee. He needs to take a refresher course from the likes of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman, all of who recognize the overwhelming scientific fact of biological evolution and that current evolutionary theory is still the best scientific explanation for it. I tried to post a comment over at the HuffPo article yesterday reporting Broun's stupidity, but they didn't like me referring to him as a jackass. I may be a Republican, but that doesn't mean I can't - or won't - repudiate such breathtaking inanity as the kinds being mouthed by Broun and Aiken.

Just Bob · 7 October 2012

John said: I may be a Republican, but that doesn't mean I can't - or won't - repudiate such breathtaking inanity as the kinds being mouthed by Broun and Aiken.

Excellent. Good for you. Now, see if you can get Romney to do that. See if you can convince the congressional leadership to pull him from the SCIENCE committee. Seriously, how can a devoted science supporter, such as you, continue to support a party that places that kind of person in that kind of position? Don't like the alternative major party? There are other choices. There's Independent. There's No Party Affiliation.

TomS · 7 October 2012

Thanks. I missed that explanation for early retirement. I withdraw my comment.

TomS · 7 October 2012

Just Bob said: Huff Post:
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.

embyrology???????

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2012

He's referring to the drawings of embryos of different species by Ernst Haeckel that exaggerated similar features. This puts his scientific training in perspective, since they date, from memory, from the 1870's. It also indicates that he's been receiving further instruction from creationist websites. They're all over them.

FL · 7 October 2012

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

Regarding the topic of evolution, Broun's statement is NOT valid, unless Evolution happens to be incompatible with Christianity. Oh wait a minute... http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL :)

FL · 7 October 2012

So what scientific breakthroughs for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has Dr Sanford accomplished since he became a Young Earth Creationist?

Not necessary to list any. The statement on the table was "I don't see how" Sanford was a creationist. That question can be answered from ANY direction, and so it was. Remember, the original statement was that Creationists don't even use or value the scientific method. Heh. You're welocme to shift the subject, it's a normal evo tactic, but it's rational to at least acknowledge that the original concerns got answered. FL

Paul Burnett · 7 October 2012

HuffPo quoted another ignorant Rethuglican:

Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”

Then there are the Rethuglican morons from Arkansas:

Republican state representative Jon Hubbard: "...the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise." He also wrote that African-Americans were better off than they would have been had they not been captured and shipped to the United States.

House candidate Charlie Fuqua, who served in the Arkansas House from 1996 to 1998, wrote there is "no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States," in his 2012 book, titled "God's Law."

FL · 7 October 2012

See if you can convince the congressional leadership to pull him from the SCIENCE committee.

Yes, let's have some evo-censorship, let's have some evo-punishment. Even though nobody is questioning the quality of Rep. Broun's work already done in connection with that congressional committee. Let's face it, somebody voiced a private opinion that you don't personally like, and now you want to do the Stalin thing on him, purge him from a governmental group where his work-quality is unquestioned. Why? Merely to punish him for voicing his own private opinion, a belief which you don't like. Good job Bob. You clearly don't live in the USA, do you comrade? FL

csadams · 7 October 2012

Speaking of candidates (and I've been out of the loop, so forgive me if y'all have already asked this question of Floyd) -

Floyd, do you support the candidacy of Topekan and aspiring-Westboro-Baptist-Church-member Jack Wu for the Kansas State Board of Education?

No need to dance around the answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Mike Elzinga · 7 October 2012

FL said: Oh wait a minute... http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL :)

What better proof that FL’s sectarian “religion” never converges to anything. Every place FL shows up, including his letter-to-the editor in that Topeka-Capital Journal, there is constant mud wrestling over the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of meanings. That is the essence of FL’s sectarianism. It is nothing but endless word-gaming; no knowledge ever comes from it. Its only purpose is to stir up rancor even as he sings praises to his own self-righteousness. FL needs to be reminded yet again of the quantitative evidence (i.e., his cocky comments over on pages 132 to 142 of the Bathroom Wall) that he ALWAYS fakes knowledge he doesn’t have. All he has are snarky opinions and taunts.

FL · 7 October 2012

Floyd, do you support the candidacy of Topekan and aspiring-Westboro-Baptist-Church-member Jack Wu for the Kansas State Board of Education?

Nope. I do not support Jack Wu's candidacy, and see no chance of him winning anyway. Instead, I have publicly called on pro-science-education Kansans to adopt new, rational, up-to-date science-standards such as those of Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee (for example, the Louisiana Science Education Act). See the article:

"What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?", June 12, 2012 http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-06-12/what-are-evolutionists-afraid

dalehusband · 7 October 2012

FL said:
Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”
Regarding the topic of evolution, Broun's statement is NOT valid, unless Evolution happens to be incompatible with Christianity. Oh wait a minute... http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL :)

How do you and Paul Broun know that Christianity is not the actual lie from the pit of hell?

FL said:
So what scientific breakthroughs for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has Dr Sanford accomplished since he became a Young Earth Creationist?
Not necessary to list any. The statement on the table was "I don't see how" Sanford was a creationist. That question can be answered from ANY direction, and so it was. Remember, the original statement was that Creationists don't even use or value the scientific method. Heh. You're welocme to shift the subject, it's a normal evo tactic, but it's rational to at least acknowledge that the original concerns got answered. FL

Creationists are willing to use the scientific method, up to a point, as long as the results do not contradict whatever religious dogmas they happen to follow. The moment they stop using that method and start twisting the facts to fit their preconceptions, they commit fraud. There was no reason for Sanford to become a Creationist other than his religious bigotry.

FL said: Yes, let's have some evo-censorship, let's have some evo-punishment. Even though nobody is questioning the quality of Rep. Broun's work already done in connection with that congressional committee. Let's face it, somebody voiced a private opinion that you don't personally like, and now you want to do the Stalin thing on him, purge him from a governmental group where his work-quality is unquestioned. Why? Merely to punish him for voicing his own private opinion, a belief which you don't like. Good job Bob. You clearly don't live in the USA, do you comrade? FL

Since Broun is a liar and a fraud, his removal from the Science Committee is only a matter of integrity. Oh, you also have none, FL. You can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts....not in science, anyway.

FL said:
Floyd, do you support the candidacy of Topekan and aspiring-Westboro-Baptist-Church-member Jack Wu for the Kansas State Board of Education?
Nope. I do not support Jack Wu's candidacy, and see no chance of him winning anyway. Instead, I have publicly called on pro-science-education Kansans to adopt new, rational, up-to-date science-standards such as those of Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee (for example, the Louisiana Science Education Act). See the article:
"What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?", June 12, 2012 http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-06-12/what-are-evolutionists-afraid
FL

We are afraid of nothing. If you have any evidence for Creationism, present it. But you never have; you merely misrepresent evolution and lie about the supposed "evidence" you have. What a nice bit of phony-baloney rhetoric you present. LOL!

Tenncrain · 7 October 2012

FL said: ...I have publicly called on pro-science-education Kansans to adopt new, rational, up-to-date science-standards such as those of Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee (for example, the Louisiana Science Education Act). See the article:
"What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?", June 12, 2012 http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-06-12/what-are-evolutionists-afraid

A far better question: Why do anti-evolutionists try to short-circuit the science process by instead appealing to politics, public relations, state legislatures/city counsels/school boards? (link here) Also, why do anti-evolutionists remain afraid to even use the Louisiana Science Education Act since it was passed way back in 2008? (link here)

apokryltaros · 7 October 2012

FL The Lying Hypocrite said:
So what scientific breakthroughs for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has Dr Sanford accomplished since he became a Young Earth Creationist?
Not necessary to list any.

In other words, FL, you can not list any scientific breakthroughs for Creationism or Intelligent Design because there is not a single such breakthrough to list, and you are too cowardly to admit it.

The statement on the table was "I don't see how" Sanford was a creationist. That question can be answered from ANY direction, and so it was.

And it was discovered that Sanford stopped being a scientist when he became a creationist.

Remember, the original statement was that Creationists don't even use or value the scientific method. Heh.

Then how come Sanford never applied the scientific method to Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design? Hmmmm?

You're welocme to shift the subject, it's a normal evo tactic,

You are hypocritically accusing us of your own dishonest tactics. And yet you complain whenever I point out that you are a Lying Asshole For Jesus.

but it's rational to at least acknowledge that the original concerns got answered.

The original concern was never answered, hypocrite.

apokryltaros · 7 October 2012

Tenncrain said:
FL said: ...I have publicly called on pro-science-education Kansans to adopt new, rational, up-to-date science-standards such as those of Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee (for example, the Louisiana Science Education Act). See the article:
"What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?", June 12, 2012 http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-06-12/what-are-evolutionists-afraid

A far better question: Why do anti-evolutionists try to short-circuit the science process by instead appealing to politics, public relations, state legislatures/city counsels/school boards? (link here)

Because they have no science to use, and using the scientific method is anathema to them in the exact same way garlic and crosses are anathema to vampires.

Also, why do anti-evolutionists remain afraid to even use the Louisiana Science Education Act since it was passed way back in 2008? (link here)

Then they would be sued by the ACLU and concerned parents and teachers and create more Dover-style courtroom circuses that will focus more unwanted attention on how creationists and their political cronies are trying to destroy science education For Jesus.

apokryltaros · 7 October 2012

FL said:
Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the big bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of Hell.”
Regarding the topic of evolution, Broun's statement is NOT valid, unless Evolution happens to be incompatible with Christianity. Oh wait a minute... http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/contra_mundum/2010-05-22/two_religions_part_two FL :)

So are you saying that the Pope and the vast majority of Christians are really devil-worshipers who hate God and Jesus?

apokryltaros · 7 October 2012

Mike Elzinga said: That is the essence of FL’s sectarianism. It is nothing but endless word-gaming; no knowledge ever comes from it. Its only purpose is to stir up rancor even as he sings praises to his own self-righteousness. FL needs to be reminded yet again of the quantitative evidence (i.e., his cocky comments over on pages 132 to 142 of the Bathroom Wall) that he ALWAYS fakes knowledge he doesn’t have. All he has are snarky opinions and taunts.

Like how FL lies through his teeth about allegedly having taken a "sectarian community college science class" and somehow with the magical grace of God got a "B" in it? And then believing that this lie magically makes him smarter than all of the evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God and Jesus-hating scientists in the whole wide world?

Jason Mitchell · 7 October 2012

FL said:
So what scientific breakthroughs for Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has Dr Sanford accomplished since he became a Young Earth Creationist?
Not necessary to list any. The statement on the table was "I don't see how" Sanford was a creationist. That question can be answered from ANY direction, and so it was. Remember, the original statement was that Creationists don't even use or value the scientific method. Heh. You're welocme to shift the subject, it's a normal evo tactic, but it's rational to at least acknowledge that the original concerns got answered. FL

context is your friend in the contects of science (i.e DOING science) or science education etc - my statemnt is valid (if not elegantly phrased) howver considering the context of where/when I made those statements the contect is clear. Your counter example actually supports my thesis - as pointed out by otheres here, Dr. Sanford STOPPED DOING SCIENCE AROUND THE TIME HE BECAME A CREATIONIST - t is reasonable to conclude that the two facts might be linked in some way. Q.E.D.

Jason Mitchell · 7 October 2012

FL said:
Floyd, do you support the candidacy of Topekan and aspiring-Westboro-Baptist-Church-member Jack Wu for the Kansas State Board of Education?
Nope. I do not support Jack Wu's candidacy, and see no chance of him winning anyway. Instead, I have publicly called on pro-science-education Kansans to adopt new, rational, up-to-date science-standards such as those of Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee (for example, the Louisiana Science Education Act). See the article:
"What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?", June 12, 2012 http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-06-12/what-are-evolutionists-afraid
FL

new rational up to date science stardards in Texas? Tennessee? Louisiana? your model example is LSEA? what kind of Bizzaro world are you from that you insist in saying the opposite of what is factual? LSEA would let a teacher teach whatever he/she wanted - it is the opposite of a STANDARD. It's a cloaked endorsement of religious indoctrination- it's one of the reasons that scientific organizations are changing locations of national meetings and conventions from New Orleans to someplace that isn't advocating that science education become bereft of science or education. Texas if anything is worse and TN. isn't much better - you want a model - how about Mass.? (where Gov. Rmoney is from? (not a typo))

FL · 8 October 2012

Acutally, the LSEA calls for science teachers to go up the chain of command--school admins, local school board, then state board -- and submit at each stage a request to present the critical-thinking-or-questioning new class materials. Each stage must give their permission.

THEN if all the stages say okay, the teacher can present the new material for their class for learning and discussion, without endangering their jobs. I'ts a pretty solid setup for all sides.

Remember all that evo talk about "Dover Trap"? Never happened. "Repeal"? HEH! Never happened. Even the Louisiana ACLU was forced to admit that they couldn't do a lawsuit on LSEA as currently written.

LSEA -- Never teach science without it!!!

FL :)

PA Poland · 8 October 2012

FL said: Acutally, the LSEA calls for science teachers to go up the chain of command--school admins, local school board, then state board -- and submit at each stage a request to present the critical-thinking-or-questioning new class materials. Each stage must give their permission.

This presumes that science teachers KNOW MORE ABOUT SCIENCE, BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION THAN RESEARCHERS THAT INVESTIGATE THOSE SUBJECTS FOR A LIVING DO.

THEN if all the stages say okay, the teacher can present the new material for their class for learning and discussion, without endangering their jobs. I'ts a pretty solid setup for all sides.

As if IDiots and creationuts could EVER present anything that would get very far. REAL subjects adequate for discussion would not need to go through all this rigamarole - it is just a flaccid attempt to insert Magical Skymanism into science classes.

Remember all that evo talk about "Dover Trap"? Never happened. "Repeal"? HEH! Never happened. Even the Louisiana ACLU was forced to admit that they couldn't do a lawsuit on LSEA as currently written.

The reason a 'Dover Trap' never happened is BECAUSE THE LSEA WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED. You'e kinda like a boxer that has never stepped into the ring bragging that he has never been knocked out or lost a fight. REAL science does not require legal shenanigans to get into science courses - IF the IDiots and creationuts HAVE something, they should present it. But all they've got (and all they've ever had) is willful ignorance and misrepresentations of reality. If REAL scientists didn't do research, the IDiots and creationuts would have next to nothing to lie about to support their 'ideas'.

LSEA -- Never teach science without it!!! FL :)

The reality-based community has been teaching science quite well for centuries without the LSEA, and has been doing quite well. The ignorance and fantasy-based communities, on the other hand, have suffered defeat after defeat after defeat. Which may explain why they are going the 'we shall use laws to force our idiocies and willful ignorance upon the children BEFORE they are smart enough to recognize our crap for what it truly is !' route.

DS · 8 October 2012

FL said:
Floyd, do you support the candidacy of Topekan and aspiring-Westboro-Baptist-Church-member Jack Wu for the Kansas State Board of Education?
Nope. I do not support Jack Wu's candidacy, and see no chance of him winning anyway.

So you are pitching Wu? Good to know.

Rolf · 8 October 2012

Creationist's critical thinking; a prime example of GIGO.

FL · 8 October 2012

“sectarian community college science class”

Stanton, I said secular hometown universtiy (not sectarian, not community college), in person in class for semester-long credits, Biology 150 "Evolution." I'm not trying to rehash that issue. I only mentioned it at all, to provide the specific reason why I was declining Noor's online intro class. Christian or otherwise, you must be full of anger for some reason, to so directly and blatantly misrepresent what I originally said. May I ask what that reason is? FL

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 · 8 October 2012

This idiot takes an introductory biology class, obviously doesn't learn shit, then spends the rest of his life inflicting others with his ignorance of biology in an attempt to destroy their faith.

What the hell is he doing off of the BW, again?

Mike Elzinga · 8 October 2012

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KirCgV93wJhLm65myiH0mSwTlWCQuwnMxlI4xKqx#26847 said: This idiot takes an introductory biology class, obviously doesn't learn shit, then spends the rest of his life inflicting others with his ignorance of biology in an attempt to destroy their faith. What the hell is he doing off of the BW, again?

Oh, and he learned all about thermodynamics too. Just go over to pages 132 through 142 over on the Bathroom Wall and look how he showed us, he did. He quoted a formula from a physics textbook and “proved” to us that he knows all about entropy. OOOOO!! That seems to be a common trait of people like FL; they just happen to be experts in everything at just the right time. Why FL even proved that faith healing is true because he saw in on the TV program Unsolved Mysteries. OOOOO!!!! With an education like that, why he can break all of us with his little pinky! Be afraid; be very, very afraid! He has to get his jollies over here on Panda’s Thumb because apparently his “church” isn’t serving his “needs.” Some “church” that must be.

apokryltaros · 8 October 2012

An Asshole For Jesus said:
“sectarian community college science class”
Stanton, I said secular hometown universtiy (not sectarian, not community college), in person in class for semester-long credits, Biology 150 "Evolution."

From the way you ~~talk of~~ slander science, either you are lying out of your ass when you claim to have taken any science class at all, or your science teacher was an incompetent, brain-damaged moron who catastrophically failed in teaching you any science at all. Did you learn that Evolution was an evil religion of evil perpetuated by evil, God-hating, devil-worshiping atheists in this alleged "university" class? Hmmmm?

I'm not trying to rehash that issue. I only mentioned it at all, to provide the specific reason why I was declining Noor's online intro class.

Bullshit. Or, maybe it's really because you're just trolling, and you're whipping out your obviously fraudulent credentials to try and boast about how magically smarter you are than all those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping atheist scientist morons.

Christian or otherwise, you must be full of anger for some reason, to so directly and blatantly misrepresent what I originally said. May I ask what that reason is?

Get off your high horse, Asshole For Jesus, the only idiots you're fooling with your fake innocence act is yourself and the other creationist trolls. From all the lies you constantly vomit about science, I'd suspect that the last time you took a science course was in kindergarten, and that you flunked so badly you were laughed out of the school. Seriously, that you agree with the moronic Broun, why do you think you can fool us into believing that you're even qualified to take a "university" course" in Evolution? Furthermore, Asshole, I always direct contempt and anger towards you because you are a pompous, self-righteous Lying Asshole For Jesus who always treats me like shit for never volunteering to kiss your ass and suck on your genitals For Jesus. And then there is the fact that you revel in your abominable behavior towards us just to further irritate everyone For Jesus. So, why shouldn't we direct contempt and anger towards you? Or, do you feel that we should reward your abuse of us, and your lies and slander with sucking on your genitals and kissing your ass For Jesus?

Richard B. Hoppe · 9 October 2012

We're degenerating, folks. Thanks for playing.