Kentucky science standards derided as fascist, socialist

Well, they have the right to send their kids to private schools that will brain wash them into whatever religion they choose. Of course, when the kids find out that evolution is true and they were lied to, the might be a bit perturbed. But what they don't have the right to do is substitute their religious beliefs for science in public schools. That would be wrong. If they disagree, then I get to pick the religion. I don't think they would like my choice.

I wanted to see the whole article. When I clicked on your link, I got a page saying the story was no longer available. Do you know where the article is archived? I am a teacher (K-8). It is so discouraging to read comments like these. On the other hand, I noticed last year, that there were no complaints or arguments from students when the subject of evolution came up, even when talking about the chemical origins of life. I don't know if I should interpret this as progress, or if it simply means the religious kids are going to Christian academies. I'll be interested in seeing if the lack of argument continues at my school when we start back in August.

Ironically, AIUI the standards were developed exactly the way conservatives want the government to be run. I.e., they were developed by a voluntary group of States. You want states rights with no top-down federal enforcement? This is it - this is what it looks like!

I suspect that much of this complaining has more to do with timing than anything else - its being supported and promoted by a Department of Ed. run by democrats. Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

When I clicked on your link, I got a page saying the story was no longer available. Do you know where the article is archived?

eric said: Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

It was quite the day. There was a lot of scientific illiteracy on display, but despite being outnumbered, we gave good testimony. The opposition won't stop, though. There is still the Interim Joint Committee on Education, which could be swayed to weaken the standards. Then we get to look forward to the countless series of lawsuits and moves by the state legislature to pull funding from their implementation.

Please like our facebook page to keep up with what we are doing to promote science. https://www.facebook.com/Ky4Sci

“Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.” …

Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton said: . . . the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution . . .

Carl Drews said:

Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton said: . . . the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution . . .

Rich man? Veterans of the Evolution Wars can go for long periods of time without seeing anything new come out of creationism. But this is the first time I've heard evolution associated with "rich men". Maybe people from Kentucky view themselves as poor compared to the rest of the U.S.? I don't get it.

diogeneslamp0 said:

Carl Drews said:

Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton said: . . . the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution . . .

Rich man? Veterans of the Evolution Wars can go for long periods of time without seeing anything new come out of creationism. But this is the first time I've heard evolution associated with "rich men". Maybe people from Kentucky view themselves as poor compared to the rest of the U.S.? I don't get it.

No, not new. It's encoded in a lot of their language about "elites." William Dembski once said that Intelligent Design was a middle class idea, while evolution was economically elitist.

Just Bob said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

Carl Drews said:

Baptist Pastor Matt Singleton said: . . . the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution . . .

Rich man? Veterans of the Evolution Wars can go for long periods of time without seeing anything new come out of creationism. But this is the first time I've heard evolution associated with "rich men". Maybe people from Kentucky view themselves as poor compared to the rest of the U.S.? I don't get it.

No, not new. It's encoded in a lot of their language about "elites." William Dembski once said that Intelligent Design was a middle class idea, while evolution was economically elitist.

Who's that guy who bankrolls the DI? Doesn't he count as rich?

Perhaps the angry Ken Ham is currently having a disproportionate influence in Kentucky. His followers and the AiG staff are getting dumber by the day (e.g., look at the latest solution to the distant starlight problem from Danny R. Faulkner, who replaced Jason Lisle at AiG).

This militant stupidity and hatred seem to be more prevalent these days since Obama was elected President. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that he is black. The sheer seething loathing from the Right Wing against this President has brought out racism, persecution of women, distain for education, hatred of Latinos and other immigrants, threats of secession from the US, gun fanaticism, and just about every form of jingoism and hatred typically associated with ignorant, white supremacist hate groups.

I haven’t seen this much vitriolic hatred and stupidity in the US Congress and in state legislatures since the battles over civil rights starting back in the 1960s and 70s. There is apparently some big money and nasty politics stirring up this kind of crap.

diogeneslamp0 said: No, not new. It's encoded in a lot of their language about "elites." William Dembski once said that Intelligent Design was a middle class idea, while evolution was economically elitist.

MaskedQuoll said: Does he believe that children are the property of their parents, who have complete freedom to raise them as they see fit?

No magic chemistry?

Those atheists, pretending that chemicals form themselves without any kind of magic, and that lightning strikes without Thor throwing his hammer.

Disgusting!

Glen Davidson

I reposted the Courier-Journal story on Kentucky School News and Commentary.
http://theprincipal.blogspot.com/2013/07/school-science-is-hotly-debated-in.html

I've read and been involved in the analysis of the NGSS, including two previous draft versions.

While I don't always agree with them and most people highly misunderstand them (including experts in the education, assessment, and curriculum), I am confident that "fascist", "atheism", "socialism", and "death camps" are NOT in the standards.

I look at this report as the best example of why these types of standards are needed. I'll also note that they didn't appear to freak out when the common core (which does pretty much the same things for ELA and math) came out... though I don't like in Kentucky and might not have seen the massive blow up... if one occurred.

Just Bob said:

eric said: Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

And and somewhere in the underlying strata is always "He's a negro."

www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/06/common_core_standards_funding.html

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said:

eric said: Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

And and somewhere in the underlying strata is always "He's a negro."

No. They very rarely call him negro. They call him "Radical", and we're all supposed to prefix that with "Black" in our minds. They want us to believe a centrist is Huey Newton in a beret with a machine gun just because he's black. "Radical" is the new "Negro."

The 'elitist' slur is not so much an observation (without, as usual, any hard evidence) as a Freudian yearning not to be ignored. A natural evolved human desire to be noticed, attract mates, reproduce etc. Dembski has a middling mind, and he's just smart enough to notice that, he yearns for more unattainable recognotion (Fart jokes mocking Judge Jones gets some attention, but leaves him oddly empty). The dregs who call up these radio stations with their thinly veiled, 'niggers is just dummer'n us' rhetoric, are also unknowingly in a state of yearning. They are just dim enough to be aware of something that they will never attain. This causes unreasoned fear, this causes an unreasoning backlash. Happily however, they will leave the phone unfulfilled, and unequivocally confused.

KlausH said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said:

eric said: Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

And and somewhere in the underlying strata is always "He's a negro."

No. They very rarely call him negro. They call him "Radical", and we're all supposed to prefix that with "Black" in our minds. They want us to believe a centrist is Huey Newton in a beret with a machine gun just because he's black. "Radical" is the new "Negro."

Yeah, right. Any criticism of Obama's and Holder's ACTIONS are due to their race, because that is all that liberals can see.

Can this troll dropping be moved to the bathroom wall?

I think KlausH should only go to the Bathroom Wall if he turns this into a thread derailment.

Herr Klaus said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

Just Bob said:

eric said: Obama is the devil, ergo anything he supports must be bad.

And and somewhere in the underlying strata is always "He's a negro."

No. They very rarely call him negro. They call him "Radical", and we're all supposed to prefix that with "Black" in our minds. They want us to believe a centrist is Huey Newton in a beret with a machine gun just because he's black. "Radical" is the new "Negro."

Yeah, right. Any criticism of Obama's and Holder's ACTIONS are due to their race, because that is all that liberals can see.

Getting back to the topic of the article, various rightwinged concerned Christian parents are deriding the new science education standards, claiming it's an evil socialist plot to promote atheism and evil because it does not specifically promote Creationism?

apokryltaros said: Getting back to the topic of the article, various rightwinged concerned Christian parents are deriding the new science education standards, claiming it's an evil socialist plot to promote atheism and evil because it does not specifically promote Creationism?

Stolen from someone else "Kentucky 10 million people 5 different gene pools"

Gods participation in this world, this planet, hasn't lived up to the standards that you would have thought a supreme God, who has boasted, should have produced, or you would believe as you would see what it is that you are not seeing as per the perfection you would expect from our Creator. But there are people who do see and understand where God is at, because some don't I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life because whether the evolutionist and scientist likes it or not or believes it or not there are objectives that people who believe associate with God, and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction. Because it is said it is science that has discovered for example how biology works it couldn't discover it if it wasn't there to be explained and discovered in the first place. Science is the conveyance of learning and discovering whether it is breakthroughs in evolution or biological wonders like the double helix. God is the person who helps you assemble all the discoveries into the right order so the perfection you want to see is achieved. If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

The litany of dangers is longer that the side-effects mentioned in an anti-arthritis product commercial. "'Darwinism' may cause socialism, fascism, insomnia, and narcolepsy."

Marilyn said: Gods participation in this world, this planet, hasn't lived up to the standards that you would have thought a supreme God, who has boasted, should have produced, or you would believe as you would see what it is that you are not seeing as per the perfection you would expect from our Creator. But there are people who do see and understand where God is at, because some don't I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life because whether the evolutionist and scientist likes it or not or believes it or not there are objectives that people who believe associate with God, and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction. Because it is said it is science that has discovered for example how biology works it couldn't discover it if it wasn't there to be explained and discovered in the first place. Science is the conveyance of learning and discovering whether it is breakthroughs in evolution or biological wonders like the double helix. God is the person who helps you assemble all the discoveries into the right order so the perfection you want to see is achieved. If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

Observation, rational critical reasoning, testable speculation, verification in the pursuit of knowledge, that which we know today as science - along with public education - were hallmarks of the Enlightenment and core values at the inception of this nation. This zealotry and war against Enlightenment precepts served similar authoritarian economic elites then as now. As for ‘fascism’ perhaps our bewildered language impaired compatriots should see Britt’s Characteristics Of Fascism*. There is nothing new here. As noted by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union (Kentucky)**: Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

*http://rense.com/general37/char.htm

**http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZC.html

Marilyn said: I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life

and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction.

If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

eric said: Go to it, young theistic scientist! Let us know when you have some results, and we'll change how we do science. But I hope you will agree that it would be premature for us to change our very successful ways until you show some evidence that your assumptions are, in fact, more accurate.

I certainly hope the good citizens of Kentucky are ever subjected to actual fascism. Imagine how embarrassed they'll be about their past narcissistic whining if that happens.

Even more so, I hope that they are never able to inflict fascism on others.

Marilyn, can you explain how teaching science to children in a science classroom is an evil sin, as opposed to brainwashing children into becoming Science-Hating Bigots For Jesus?

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: Gods participation in this world, this planet, hasn't lived up to the standards that you would have thought a supreme God, who has boasted, should have produced, or you would believe as you would see what it is that you are not seeing as per the perfection you would expect from our Creator. But there are people who do see and understand where God is at, because some don't I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life because whether the evolutionist and scientist likes it or not or believes it or not there are objectives that people who believe associate with God, and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction. Because it is said it is science that has discovered for example how biology works it couldn't discover it if it wasn't there to be explained and discovered in the first place. Science is the conveyance of learning and discovering whether it is breakthroughs in evolution or biological wonders like the double helix. God is the person who helps you assemble all the discoveries into the right order so the perfection you want to see is achieved. If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

Marilyn, I think you're saying that God did it, and science, including evolutionary biology, reveals how and when. ('How' meaning specifically what, not by what mechanism--e.g. gradually changing, or allowing to be changed, an apelike ancestral species, through various hominid species, into modern humans.) If that's what you're saying, you'll get no argument from me, and probably none from others here. Some of us don't believe a god was involved, or see it as an unnecessary hypothesis, but as long as you accept the (always tentative) findings of science, and don't insist that a strictly religious creation story be taught in public schools, we have no problem. Except for FL and trolls like him. He'll tell you you're going to hell for believing what the biologists say.

Just Bob said:

eric said: Go to it, young theistic scientist! Let us know when you have some results, and we'll change how we do science. But I hope you will agree that it would be premature for us to change our very successful ways until you show some evidence that your assumptions are, in fact, more accurate.

And that they actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE, and produce useful results that naturalistic science cannot, even in principle.

@ Marilyn. Trying to read that comment actually made my head hurt. If ever there was a good reason for higher science standards in schools, that post is it. Basic English wouldn't hurt either.

I have read that post several times and I still don't exactly get the gist of it. Granted I must admit, it could be me. It is late, been a long day, and my eyes are tired. I'll try again in the morning after I've had my coffee and see it it helps any. I'll give my old percolator a few extra minutes and make sure the coffee is good and stout...

Shelldigger said: @ Marilyn. Trying to read that comment actually made my head hurt. If ever there was a good reason for higher science standards in schools, that post is it. Basic English wouldn't hurt either. I have read that post several times and I still don't exactly get the gist of it. Granted I must admit, it could be me. It is late, been a long day, and my eyes are tired. I'll try again in the morning after I've had my coffee and see it it helps any. I'll give my old percolator a few extra minutes and make sure the coffee is good and stout...

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: Gods participation in this world, this planet, hasn't lived up to the standards that you would have thought a supreme God, who has boasted, should have produced, or you would believe as you would see what it is that you are not seeing as per the perfection you would expect from our Creator. But there are people who do see and understand where God is at, because some don't I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life because whether the evolutionist and scientist likes it or not or believes it or not there are objectives that people who believe associate with God, and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction. Because it is said it is science that has discovered for example how biology works it couldn't discover it if it wasn't there to be explained and discovered in the first place. Science is the conveyance of learning and discovering whether it is breakthroughs in evolution or biological wonders like the double helix. God is the person who helps you assemble all the discoveries into the right order so the perfection you want to see is achieved. If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

Marilyn, I think you're saying that God did it, and science, including evolutionary biology, reveals how and when. ('How' meaning specifically what, not by what mechanism--e.g. gradually changing, or allowing to be changed, an apelike ancestral species, through various hominid species, into modern humans.) If that's what you're saying, you'll get no argument from me, and probably none from others here. Some of us don't believe a god was involved, or see it as an unnecessary hypothesis, but as long as you accept the (always tentative) findings of science, and don't insist that a strictly religious creation story be taught in public schools, we have no problem. Except for FL and trolls like him. He'll tell you you're going to hell for believing what the biologists say.

Tenncrain said: But while avoiding the humiliating pitfall of the kind that Michael Behe fell into during the Kitzmiller court case (actually, Behe said multiple things during the trial that backfired badly on him, but that's another subject). Remember when advocates of ID-type creationism wanted to expand the definition of a science theory? Behe admitted under oath during the trial that if the definition of a scientific theory was expanded to include ID-type creationism, even astrology would qualify as science theory!

Marilyn said: I appreciate your extra consideration of what I said and I hope you were able to have a lovely currant bun with your coffee. Just Bob does seem to have grasped most of the meaning of what I said if science has indeed evaluated subjects surely and properly; although I think Humans are a species to themselves and not necessarily evolved from another but if so at least they are a species to themselves now. Apes and Chimps certainly have qualities in their own species. The animal kingdom does resemble each other in a lot of ways, for example simply flesh and blood. :-

Marilyn said: I appreciate your extra consideration of what I said and I hope you were able to have a lovely currant bun with your coffee. Just Bob does seem to have grasped most of the meaning of what I said if science has indeed evaluated subjects surely and properly; although I think Humans are a species to themselves and not necessarily evolved from another but if so at least they are a species to themselves now. Apes and Chimps certainly have qualities in their own species. The animal kingdom does resemble each other in a lot of ways, for example simply flesh and blood. :-

"the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution" hahaha

Marilyn,

Think of it this way: What a marvelous, miraculous, glorious thing God did when He arranged things so that the simplest living things could gradually evolve into sunflowers and butterflies and hummingbirds and humans capable of worshiping Him and understanding where they came from.

DS said:

Marilyn said: I appreciate your extra consideration of what I said and I hope you were able to have a lovely currant bun with your coffee. Just Bob does seem to have grasped most of the meaning of what I said if science has indeed evaluated subjects surely and properly; although I think Humans are a species to themselves and not necessarily evolved from another but if so at least they are a species to themselves now. Apes and Chimps certainly have qualities in their own species. The animal kingdom does resemble each other in a lot of ways, for example simply flesh and blood. :-

Sorry, no. Humans shared a common ancestor with chimps between 6 -8 million years ago. If you deny this you must come up with a better explanation for all of the evidence. Until then, wither face up to reality or live in a fairy tale world. Those are your only options. Have a nice honey bun.

apokryltaros said: Marilyn, can you explain how teaching science to children in a science classroom is an evil sin, as opposed to brainwashing children into becoming Science-Hating Bigots For Jesus?

Just Bob said: Marilyn, Think of it this way: What a marvelous, miraculous, glorious thing God did when He arranged things so that the simplest living things could gradually evolve into sunflowers and butterflies and hummingbirds and humans capable of worshiping Him and understanding where they came from.

W. H. Heydt said: There is a quite natural desire to believe that people are somehow special. That isn't what the evidence shows, though.

eric said:

Marilyn said: I don't think it is right that science should be the only explanation of life

I don't think its right that, when you shoot a single atom at a film with two parallel holes in it, the atom goes through both. But the universe is not under any obligation to work the way my intuitive common sense wants it to work. Don't you agree?

and not to allow the freedom to distinguish your believes from science or science from belief is still not a sound direction.

Nobody's doing that here. Everyone is free to believe what they will. The question is what should go in the science standards and curriculum. That should be the methods and conclusions of science, not merely what people believe. Biology is not any different from any other subject in this respect. I'd say the same thing about history or literature, too; people are free to believe non-mainsteam things about history or form their own judgements on what counts as good literature, but what should go in the standards and curricula are the mainstream conclusions.

If you don’t believe He has the right map then you could be missing a link and find yourself at fault and not God.

We could be missing links, yes. Fortunately science has a perfectly good way of dealing with that issue: you conduct your God-flavored research, we conduct our naturalistic research, and if we are missing some critical or profound point about the universe, you will discover things like cancer cures and the nature of dark matter before we will, because your more accurate hypotheses and assumptions will give you an edge. Go to it, young theistic scientist! Let us know when you have some results, and we'll change how we do science. But I hope you will agree that it would be premature for us to change our very successful ways until you show some evidence that your assumptions are, in fact, more accurate.

Tenncrain said: BTW Marilyn, have you per chance read popular level books by Ken Miller, Frances Collins and other theists that accept evolution?

W. H. Heydt said: The idea that we are just another animal species that evolved like every other species on the planet is religiously offensive. There is a quite natural desire to believe that people are somehow special. That isn't what the evidence shows, though.

W. H. Heydt said: There is a quite natural desire to believe that people are somehow special. That isn't what the evidence shows, though.

The Evolution of Throwing: How Humans Gained Accuracy and Power The ability to throw an object with great speed and accuracy is a talent held by one member of the animal kingdom alone: humans. From Nature World News, June 26, 2013. Citation: Elastic energy storage in the shoulder and the evolution of high-speed throwing in Homo, by Neil T. Roach, Madhusudhan Venkadesan, Michael J. Rainbow, Daniel E. Lieberman doi:10.1038/nature12267 27 June 2013 | Vol 498 | Nature | 483

The spitting cobra can spit better! So there!

I ain't related to no dust!

DS said: I ain't related to no dust!

Just Bob said:

DS said: I ain't related to no dust!

To make dust stick together so that you can form it into a man, you need moisture. Now what wetness would God have immediately available, so he wouldn't have to make an extra trip with a bucket?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/g_jqEg0ksIAZZ5mg15fwOz7qqbbg#0eec2 said: "the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution" hahaha

ksplawn said:

"the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution" hahaha

Wasn't it the USSR that considered Darwinism a bourgeoisie institution?

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

Tenncrain said: But while avoiding the humiliating pitfall of the kind that Michael Behe fell into during the Kitzmiller court case (actually, Behe said multiple things during the trial that backfired badly on him, but that's another subject). Remember when advocates of ID-type creationism wanted to expand the definition of a science theory? Behe admitted under oath during the trial that if the definition of a scientific theory was expanded to include ID-type creationism, even astrology would qualify as science theory!

Actually, astrology is far more of a scientific hypothesis than intelligent design creationism. Astrology makes something resembling actual testable predictions. Those have been found not to support the hypothesis, but that makes astrology wrong, not non-scientific. Intelligent design creationism, on the other hand, has no scientific hypothesis and makes no testable predictions. It is exclusively a political and cultural movement.

To make dust stick together so that you can form it into a man, you need moisture. Now what wetness would God have immediately available, so he wouldn’t have to make an extra trip with a bucket?

Intelligent Design creationism is nothing more than a verbose appeal to ignorance that claims that evolution is totally impossible specifically because Intelligent Design creationists refuse to understand how biological phenomena can/could evolve. Therefore, what looks like evidence for evolution is actually evidence of an unknowable, imperceptible, invisible Intelligent Designer, hamhandedly implied to be God as described in the Holy Bible, magically putzing around in the inner machinery of cells whenever the stupid scientists aren’t looking.

I cannot disagree with harold's comments, but there are a few ways that I have a somewhat different approach.

I would point out that the ID strategy of not making any substantive claims arose not only out of legal difficulties in the USA, but also because the most prominent evolution-denial was getting itself in deep problems with things that were so easily seen to be wrong - perhaps most egregiously with respect to Noah's Flood (things like the "vapor canopy"), but it is clearly absurd to argue for a history of life on Earth of less than millions of years.

The central concept of "design" has not been well defined, so any attempt to treat it seriously is met with the response that that's not what they're talking about. One might point out that design alone is not enough to account for the existence of something. One can design a "Penrose triangle" or an interstellar rocket, but actually building one is something else. If that isn't what you mean by "design", then please tell us what you do mean.

And then I'd point out that there is more than a passing resemblance with "theories" about extra-terrestrial pilots for flying saucers and such; also I'd mention conspiracy theories. It's easy to say that some mysterious agency with no known limits is behind a puzzling event.

TomS said: I cannot disagree with harold's comments, but there are a few ways that I have a somewhat different approach. I would point out that the ID strategy of not making any substantive claims arose not only out of legal difficulties in the USA, but also because the most prominent evolution-denial was getting itself in deep problems with things that were so easily seen to be wrong - perhaps most egregiously with respect to Noah's Flood (things like the "vapor canopy"), but it is clearly absurd to argue for a history of life on Earth of less than millions of years. The central concept of "design" has not been well defined, so any attempt to treat it seriously is met with the response that that's not what they're talking about. One might point out that design alone is not enough to account for the existence of something. One can design a "Penrose triangle" or an interstellar rocket, but actually building one is something else. If that isn't what you mean by "design", then please tell us what you do mean. And then I'd point out that there is more than a passing resemblance with "theories" about extra-terrestrial pilots for flying saucers and such; also I'd mention conspiracy theories. It's easy to say that some mysterious agency with no known limits is behind a puzzling event.

Chris Lawson said: I think KlausH should only go to the Bathroom Wall if he turns this into a thread derailment.

Re Harold's comment.

Indeed.

"Cdesign Proponentsists" (1) and such as the DIID’s “Wedge” (2) document pretty much sums up this power grab by authoritarian / creationist / YEC. This alliance of “conservative” interests, economic elites (and their doppelgänger corporate identities), with historical (previously increasingly disenfranchised) religious zealots and their power interests is hardly new …

As for the ’Purity” crowd propensities, the current über radicalized state of the Republican Party and their offshoot the TP’ers (“Tea”, though “Theocratic” Party would seem to be a more accurate appellation) - res ipse loquitur.

Attempting to return to subject: we can not separate the propaganda from the interests served in Kentucky and elsewhere which foments such absurdities as basic science standards being egregiously associated as ’fascism’ or ‘socialism’ - nor from the projection exhibited by those using such terms - and those authoritarians / economic elite plutocrats whom they would willingly serve in lieu of “We the People” and our 'Grand Experiment' our government. Perhaps one should ask what does the “Next Generation Science Standard” offer (see Matt‘s link), what is its purpose with respect to societal competitiveness and an established educated workforce as compared against those predictable outcomes offered by its opponents as demonstrated by history and the world around us?

(1)
http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

(2)
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/wedge-at-work

Teh problem with arguments like Marilyn uses is that they refer to a god that doesn't exist. God is not a "he" (or "she"), God is not an entity. One might say "God is love", and that wouldn't be wrong. Whatever, God is not concerned with the material world, the observable universe. God is spirit, God's domain is the world of spirit - and the world of spirit is in the human sphere. The kingdom of heaven is within.

Most of the gods of old are stone dead because now we know what brings rain, winds, thunder and lightning, earthquakes, the eruption of Thera (Santorini) 3600 years ago - the source of all the mysterious events associated with Exodus, all attributed to God while in reality entirely natural occurences.

But people have a formidable ability to believe whatever they are taught as children. Our problem is not religion, our problem is the ancient myths and fairytales that are being used to indoctrinate, brainwash our kids.

True religion is spiritual, not something you find in ancient scriptures. When all the nonsense is removed from the 'sacred' texts, what eternal truth remains still is so cryptic you don't recognize it unless you already know.

Rolf said: ... the source of all the mysterious events associated with Exodus, all attributed to God while in reality entirely natural occurences...

harold said:

TomS said: I cannot disagree with harold's comments, but there are a few ways that I have a somewhat different approach. I would point out that the ID strategy of not making any substantive claims arose not only out of legal difficulties in the USA, but also because the most prominent evolution-denial was getting itself in deep problems with things that were so easily seen to be wrong - perhaps most egregiously with respect to Noah's Flood (things like the "vapor canopy"), but it is clearly absurd to argue for a history of life on Earth of less than millions of years. The central concept of "design" has not been well defined, so any attempt to treat it seriously is met with the response that that's not what they're talking about. One might point out that design alone is not enough to account for the existence of something. One can design a "Penrose triangle" or an interstellar rocket, but actually building one is something else. If that isn't what you mean by "design", then please tell us what you do mean. And then I'd point out that there is more than a passing resemblance with "theories" about extra-terrestrial pilots for flying saucers and such; also I'd mention conspiracy theories. It's easy to say that some mysterious agency with no known limits is behind a puzzling event.

We agree about ID, but no, the ID approach did not arise because creationists perceived the weakness of "vapor canopy" or any other such crap. They were 100% happy with those things the day before the Edwards V. Aguillard decision was announced, and then suddenly ID was the new thing. See the Wikipedia article on "Of Pandas and People" for a fairly good summary. It's simpler than many people understand. They are authoritarians. They want to force everyone else to say that their post-modern made up crap is true. They want that because it is part of an overall agenda. They fight for any victory at any level they can get. They have fought for YEC creationism instead of science in public schools, for science followed by "equal time" creationist science denial in schools, for ID/creationism in schools, and for just plain eliminating evolution from schools. As is often mentioned here, they pointedly ignore their own differences and all fight all the time against science. The ideal is a brutally harsh authoritarian society with themselves in charge (naturally they'd turn on each other at that point), but they'll take any minor victory they can get. Anything that can deny, censor, or distort the teaching of science is considered a victory by them.

And if the Discovery Institute's anti-science religious propaganda isn't working, then why do we have people frothing at the mouth over proposals for competent science education standards in Kentucky being an evil atheistic communazi-socialist plot of the Devil?

Henry J said:

To make dust stick together so that you can form it into a man, you need moisture. Now what wetness would God have immediately available, so he wouldn’t have to make an extra trip with a bucket?

Tears? Sweat? Saliva? (Plus a few others that wouldn't be tasteful to mention.) Henry

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: BTW Marilyn, have you per chance read popular level books by Ken Miller, Frances Collins and other theists that accept evolution?

No :)

Tenncrain said: Oh, interesting how you cherry-picked a small part of my post and ignored the rest. Why?

Marilyn said:

Tenncrain said: Oh, interesting how you cherry-picked a small part of my post and ignored the rest. Why?

Sorry. I would like to go more in depth about this but just now I haven't got the time to read any book and especially one on this subject to give it the proper consideration that I would like to. I tried with Dawkins but got as far as the first few pages and thought I don't think I need to go any further. I only read Charles Darwin's Origin of Species for the first time about a year ago and thought it was really good; it didn't sway me away from God. As a believer in God I can't see me being so comfortable in my views to not want to search for answers to all I want to know, there is so much we still need or would like to know about the universe. But if a person has decided that what they need to do is accept we are here with all that surrounds and the important thing is to utilise it all to the best for all concerned and to take it all forward and that they have found that way in God and that is the best way forward and give their time to that direction then that’s OK with me. I think there is no reason why science and belief cannot work together but a lot of time might be wasted on disagreement over shutting one or the other out. I have to admit not to being an avid book reader but as a young person I did read the Bible in particular the New Testament and go to church. If I do have time for reading these days it’s usually PT which has been an experience of a lifetime. I did give time to Signature in the Cell and thought it was great, it was the first biology book I'd read since school textbooks and I didn't find anything unscientific about it. I understand that you all here need to make sure we all don't miss out on truth and direction due to set in belief that might be outdated and need reviewing and then answers to questions will be found that are true and that is all not wrong as far as I know.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: I think one could construct an interesting theology based on the idea that man came from dust mixed with the tears of a god. Possibly one as depressing as the extant Abrahamic religions, although that's a high bar to clear.

Helena Constantine said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: I think one could construct an interesting theology based on the idea that man came from dust mixed with the tears of a god. Possibly one as depressing as the extant Abrahamic religions, although that's a high bar to clear.

Blood is the usual active ingredient. See Enuma Elisha and Orphism.

ogremk5 said: Let me just make sure I understand. You like SitC and thought it a good book. You didn't like/read a book by an actual scientist who has actually published research in the field. You think that there is more we need to know about the universe, but you don't do anything to find out that information or support those who do. And you think that the purpose of Origin of the Species was to sway you from god. Is that right?

Here's the problem.

Meyer is not a reliable science journalist. He's also not a scientist... at all.

Unless you read the work of people who actually do the work (and don't have a mission to discredit science and bring us to a theocratic state), then you aren't learning anything.

What's worse, is you're actually learning incorrect information. SitC has a lot mistakes that a non-scientist won't ever catch. And that's a major problem. Likewise, Darwin's Doubt has a lot of mistakes.

Both of Meyer's books are dangerous. They sound good and you like them because they say things you want to hear. But if you don't compare them to the actual science... then you are learning wrong things.

What's more important: supporting your beliefs or learning the correct information?

ogremk5 said: Here's the problem. Meyer is not a reliable science journalist. He's also not a scientist... at all. Unless you read the work of people who actually do the work (and don't have a mission to discredit science and bring us to a theocratic state), then you aren't learning anything. What's worse, is you're actually learning incorrect information. SitC has a lot mistakes that a non-scientist won't ever catch. And that's a major problem. Likewise, Darwin's Doubt has a lot of mistakes. Both of Meyer's books are dangerous. They sound good and you like them because they say things you want to hear. But if you don't compare them to the actual science... then you are learning wrong things. What's more important: supporting your beliefs or learning the correct information?

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: Here's the problem. Meyer is not a reliable science journalist. He's also not a scientist... at all. Unless you read the work of people who actually do the work (and don't have a mission to discredit science and bring us to a theocratic state), then you aren't learning anything. What's worse, is you're actually learning incorrect information. SitC has a lot mistakes that a non-scientist won't ever catch. And that's a major problem. Likewise, Darwin's Doubt has a lot of mistakes. Both of Meyer's books are dangerous. They sound good and you like them because they say things you want to hear. But if you don't compare them to the actual science... then you are learning wrong things. What's more important: supporting your beliefs or learning the correct information?

My thoughts are is that in SitC Meyer is replying to established findings, I did think he was a scientist. It's a while now since I read it so couldn't go into too much discussion about it, if I remember right he did go to Cambridge, possibly his description of biology is right but he has also tested other theories such as Chance and Necessity I think as a form of persuasion, but yes if I wanted to know about biology I should read a more academic book, I tried Dr Noor but I'm afraid I didn't get far passed the basics, before I knew it was a bit (a lot) beyond me. To me what is important is supporting my belief as that is part of being true to yourself also learning the correct information, I don't feel I have to chose one over the other they are both important.

The Louisville Courier-Journal ran a good editorial on this topic.

Marilyn said: To me what is important is supporting my belief as that is part of being true to yourself also learning the correct information, I don't feel I have to chose one over the other they are both important.

apokryltaros said:

Marilyn said: To me what is important is supporting my belief as that is part of being true to yourself also learning the correct information, I don't feel I have to chose one over the other they are both important.

Except that Meyer (and all other members of the Discovery Institute) is manipulating you via your beliefs in order to trick you into accepting lies and anti-science propaganda. Literally everything Meyer says in all of his books are flat-out blatant Lies for Jesus. So, how can you be true to yourself if you maintain your belief through lies, deliberately enforced ignorance, and propaganda?

ogremk5 said: Just to add to this, I'm doing a serious review of Darwin's Doubt... page-by-page. So far, I've written about 3000 words refuting what he's said (and showing where it's wrong) to his about 600 words. There's that many mistakes, shoddy research, and (I suspect) outright lies. I can't even find a reference for one of his quotes, so I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it doesn't really matter because the guy giving the quote died nearly 40 years ago. That's useless in terms of the research going on today.

diogeneslamp0 said:

ogremk5 said: Just to add to this, I'm doing a serious review of Darwin's Doubt... page-by-page. So far, I've written about 3000 words refuting what he's said (and showing where it's wrong) to his about 600 words. There's that many mistakes, shoddy research, and (I suspect) outright lies. I can't even find a reference for one of his quotes, so I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it doesn't really matter because the guy giving the quote died nearly 40 years ago. That's useless in terms of the research going on today.

I'm looking forward to reading it. As for the quote with no reference, did you try Google Books? As for "the guy giving the quote died nearly 40 years ago", I call that a Past Science Quote Mine [PSQM]. Creationists usually do not give dates for their PSQM.

apokryltaros said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

ogremk5 said: Just to add to this, I'm doing a serious review of Darwin's Doubt... page-by-page. So far, I've written about 3000 words refuting what he's said (and showing where it's wrong) to his about 600 words. There's that many mistakes, shoddy research, and (I suspect) outright lies. I can't even find a reference for one of his quotes, so I don't know whether it's accurate or not, but it doesn't really matter because the guy giving the quote died nearly 40 years ago. That's useless in terms of the research going on today.

I'm looking forward to reading it. As for the quote with no reference, did you try Google Books? As for "the guy giving the quote died nearly 40 years ago", I call that a Past Science Quote Mine [PSQM]. Creationists usually do not give dates for their PSQM.

Creationists make PSQM under the twin assumptions that a corpse will not be able to defend itself against being quote mined in the first place, and that no one will bother to factcheck a corpse's quote in the first place.

ogremk5 said: Yeah, it was Dobzhansky that Meyer was quoting... about OOL research. Considering that the vast majority of OOL work has occurred since Dobzhansky's death in 1975... even if it was a valid quote, it would still be meaningless. As to the reference... Meyer's footnote to the quote was "Dobzhansky, "Discussion of G. Schramm's Paper," 310."

I am getting quite a workout this week! I have just suffered through the recording of the hearing (well, I half-listened to some of it while doing my mail), which you can get here.

My candidates for various awards:

Best presentation. Robert Bevins, a toxicologist, at approximately 1:34. Bevins noted, among other things, that many religions have no problem with evolution, and not teaching evolution would privilege one religion over another. In an extemporaneous rebuttal of earlier comments, he criticized quote-mining and noted that the Soviet Union outlawed the study of evolution, with ill effects.

Runners-up. Daniel Phelps, 1:07, who also extemporaneously expressed outrage at charges of fascism and socialism. Trent Garrison, 1:10, a geology professor, who stressed how hard it is for students to learn his material when they do not have a proper background.

Best presentation by a person who should know better. Valerie O'Rear, 1:24.

Best quote-mining. Donald Patton, 1:18, whose PhD is in education, but who professes more hours in geology. Patton quote-mined Eldredge and Dawkins, and predictably misrepresented the Cambrian "explosion."

Best off-task presentation. James Donaldson, 1:01.

Most self-indulgent presentation. Dena Stewart Gore (?), 0:42.

Biggest jerk. Steve Shreeve, 1:42. Seems to think it is inappropriate for PhD's to testify and pulled his children out of school after he learned about the common core standards.

Most obviously ignorant. Tim Whelan, 1:53. Asks how DNA supports the theory of evolution, says he does not know, and neither does anyone else.

diogeneslamp0 said:

ogremk5 said: Yeah, it was Dobzhansky that Meyer was quoting... about OOL research. Considering that the vast majority of OOL work has occurred since Dobzhansky's death in 1975... even if it was a valid quote, it would still be meaningless. As to the reference... Meyer's footnote to the quote was "Dobzhansky, "Discussion of G. Schramm's Paper," 310."

Ogre, in Dembski's "No Free Lunch", p. 229, Footnote 7 is to [I added the stuff in square brackets]: Theodosius Dobzhansky, Discussion of G. Schramm's paper, in "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of their Molecular Matrices [Proceedings]", ed. S. [Sidney] W. Fox (New York: Academic Press) (1965), p.310. Apparently the proceedings from a meeting. The Fox book is at Google Books here, but it is not searchable. Also, the PT editing system is scrambling my URL's so I'll leave them out. I did a search in Google Books and the top 10 hits were all creationist books, mostly ID, so it's a common quote mine. Other citations are in "Mere Creation" (Dembski et al.), "The Greatness of God", "The Design of Life", "Darwinism, Design and Public Education", "The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity", etc. etc. all of which had contributions from the usual Discovernaughts. Thus we really need to look up the original. In Meyer's "Signature in the Cell", p. 571, the same book is cited, but pages 361-82.

Matt Young said: Best quote-mining. Donald Patton, 1:18, whose PhD is in education, but who professes more hours in geology. Patton quote-mined Eldredge and Dawkins, and predictably misrepresented the Cambrian "explosion."

TalkOrigins wrote: Don Patton is a young-earth creationist who, along with Carl Baugh, is known as a proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. Patton has claimed Ph.D. candidacy in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia. According to Glen Kuban: "When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the [1989 Bible-Science] conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away." Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent." [4] Glen Kuban has written more extensively on Patton's claimed degrees in his articles on the Paluxy "man-tracks". [Brett Vickers, TalkOrigins]

Patten, Donald Wesley. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch. 1966. Pacific Meridian, Seattle WA. [Online here]. Cosmic catastrophe theory to explain Bible events, strongly influenced by Velikovsky. “…to demonstrate the superiority of the theory of astral catastrophism over and against the uniformitarian view of earth history… Among the cataclysmic forces which engaged our fragile sphere were both gravitational and magnetic forces of planetary magnitutde. The results included tidal waves of subcontinental dimensions.” The Ice Age (singular) and the Flood were caused by fly-by of comet which dumped vast amounts of ice on earth in 2800 BC. Ice was pulled in at earth’s magnetic pole—Ice Age deposits are centered there. The global Flood was tidal, caused by the comet’s gravitational pull. The comet altered earth’s orbit, titled its axis and caused condensation and collapse of earth’s Vapor Canopy (described by Patten.) Discusses orogenesis: geographical pattern of mountain ranges supports sudden origin from astral catastrophe. Ararat is geographic center of Eurasian-African land mass. Frozen mammoths prove suddenness of Ice Age [snap frozen!]. Relates worldwide traditions of Flood and astral catastrophes; also previous catastrophe theories (discusses G. M. Price, Byron C. Nelson, Rehwinkel, Henry Morris, Hapgood, Ivan Sanderson, Velikovsky, D. Hooker, Whiston; mentions Isaac Newton Vail.) The Flood, and other, lesser astral catastrophes involved “counter-dominating gravitational forces and magnetic fields, resulting in (1) much tidal upheaval…(2) surging spasms or tides or lava (fluid magma) from within the Earth’s thin crust; and (3) further discharges of an electrical nature.” [McIver, "Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibloigraphy", p. 208-9].

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

Don Patton's Alleged Credentials Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or "Ph.D. candidacy") in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35] However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36] When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away."[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, "PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff....Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent."[38] With surprising boldness, Carl Baugh recently appeared on a radio talk show in Texas claiming the same degrees discussed above, plus a new "Ph.D. candidacy in paleoanthropology from Pacific College." Baugh complained that critics were now attacking his credentials and those of other fine creationists, including "Dr. Don Patton."[39] [Source: Glen Kuban]

I think that Marilyn is in for a big surprise.

So was it the same Don Patton or Don Patten or some other idiot with the same name?

Pacific International University had its roots in Melbourne, Australia, and in 1993 obtained accreditation from the Higher Education Division of Victoria to offer Masters and PhD level qualifications. This accreditation was short lived though, and the university relocated to Missouri, USA. For a period of time it still maintained a Victorian address for correspondence and delivery; however, this was removed due to pressure from the Victorian Office of Tertiary Education and Training. In the USA, where it still operates today, it claims accreditation from the 'American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions Inc.', an unrecognised accrediting agency.

You can see Don Patton, the guy in the Kentucky video, at this link promoting various ICR-style YEC creationist frauds, like the infamous Malachite Man (aka Moab Man), the "Fossilized Hammer" (actually a concretion, not a fossil), the "fossilized human finger" (actually just a rock), etc. Many of these frauds, like Malachite Man, have been debunked by Glen Kuban, to whom we owe a great debt. It is illustrated with a cartoon of Alley Oop riding a dinosaur.

Did I remember to mention that our friend Bradley Monton of the University of Colorado is mentioned favorably at 19:20 as a philosopher who agrees that "challenges to Darwinism can have merit"?

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book. [bold added above]

Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (Keith Miller, geologist at Kansas State University, officer member Affiliation of Christian Geologists, officer member of Kansas Citizens For Science which has successfully challenged anti-evolutionism efforts in Kansas) [Keith is not related to Ken Miller] The Language of Life, and The Language Of God among other books (Francis Collins, led Human Genome Project) Finding Darwin’s God, more recently Only A Theory (Ken Miller, biologist at Brown University, co-author of leading high school biology books, lead expert witness for plaintiffs at 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Board [Intelligent Design] trial in Harrisburg) Saving Darwin (Karl Giberson, physicist at Eastern Nazarene College, former YEC) Beyond the Firmament (Gordon Glover, former YEC, producer of 16 video lessons about Christian education and science) The Dinosaur Heresies (Robert Bakker, paleontologist that proposed during the 1970s that dinosaurs were bird-like/warmblooded) Coming To Peace With Science (Darrel Falk, biologist)

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book.

apokryltaros said:

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book.

As opposed to Swindlers and Liars for Jesus playing on your vanity in order to feed their own Egos for Jesus and Bank Accounts for Jesus?

Now, now. Don’t be mean just for meanness sake. Marilyn at least appears to be honest about what she believes, she appears to answer questions forthrightly and directly (even if we may not like the content or quality of the answers), and in this willingness to try a new book (even when she said she doesn’t have much time for reading) she appears open to the possibility of new ideas. Give her some space to try. And if my assessment is wrong, her approach is at least a refreshing break from our usual wearisome trolls.

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book. I am a member of the Sheffield Astronomical Society http://www.voyagerdome.co.uk/sas/ If ever you or any of you come to South Yorkshire you might come and visit.

Tenncrain said:

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book. [bold added above]

As DS touched on, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise. But Marilyn, it's hoped this won't discourage you from reading the book. I found Your Inner Fish very informative and fun to read just like the Richard Dawkins book I read about a month ago, but without any anti-religious diatribes. I honestly don't know if Shubin is a theist or not; in a way, this is irrelevant for as long as a scientist is properly using the scientific method, it doesn't matter if he/she is a theist or non-theist. While there are many nice Neil Shubin lectures on YouTube and elsewhere on the net, perhaps you might be interested in Ken Miller's humorous (a Miller trademark) take on Shubin's Your Inner Fish here (video #4). If you have limited time, the last part of video #3 into most of #4 is where Miller talks about Shubin and Your Inner Fish (including video clips from Shubin himself). There are also many other videos on YouTube of Ken Miller himself as well. There are other books I also recommend, such as those by biologist Sean B Carroll (including Endless Forms Most Beautiful which is a nice introduction to Evolutionary Developmental Biology [evo-devo for short] ). Sean B Carroll is not to be confused with physicist (and outspoken atheist) Sean M Carroll. If you are looking for more popular level books by scientists that accept evolution and happen to be theists, here's a partial list:

Perspectives On An Evolving Creation (Keith Miller, geologist at Kansas State University, officer member Affiliation of Christian Geologists, officer member of Kansas Citizens For Science which has successfully challenged anti-evolutionism efforts in Kansas) [Keith is not related to Ken Miller] The Language of Life, and The Language Of God among other books (Francis Collins, led Human Genome Project) Finding Darwin’s God, more recently Only A Theory (Ken Miller, biologist at Brown University, co-author of leading high school biology books, lead expert witness for plaintiffs at 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Board [Intelligent Design] trial in Harrisburg) Saving Darwin (Karl Giberson, physicist at Eastern Nazarene College, former YEC) Beyond the Firmament (Gordon Glover, former YEC, producer of 16 video lessons about Christian education and science) The Dinosaur Heresies (Robert Bakker, paleontologist that proposed during the 1970s that dinosaurs were bird-like/warmblooded) Coming To Peace With Science (Darrel Falk, biologist)

We did not descend from apes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor which has since gone extinct some 6 million years ago.

SLC said: We did not descend from apes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor which has since gone extinct some 6 million years ago.

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book.

Marilyn said:

Marilyn said:

ogremk5 said: If you like, I could recommend a few books that are very interesting, entertaining, and have the correct science. For example, Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish (you can get it at Half Price Books for less than $7).

I've got this book on order now, it will be a change from reading how we came from apes, no I do think it sounds like a good book.

Do you think we lost the wings to protect us from bird flu.