President of Ball State issues strong statement in favor of science education, deems ID creationism religious belief

It's like...she understands ID!

Glen Davidson

Robert Byers said: Insert authentic frontier gibberish here...

Robert Byers said: [emphasis added] However hard deeming she is incompetent and attacking conclusions about origins because she says they are religious. So she is attacking religion and banning it in subjects about truth and so a official opinion they ain't true. ID and YEC is not opinions based on religious conclusions but based on the evidence of nature and criticisms of opponents are based likewise. They are not based on bible verses. The point of organized ID and YEC is to base it on investigation and reason concerning evidence. The publicity for this serious issue is better then if quietly the prof had just talked to a few hundred kids who barely are listening. The immoral and illegal attack on this prof and creationisms and freedom will be heard by more people. Every school should be making decisions on the great revolution of modern creationism. We are living in special intellectual, moral, and legal times. Kids will be writing essays about these times in the future. Spell my name right kids.

The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she [President Jo Ann Gora] added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”

She [Gora] cited the American Academy of Religion’s statement on the matter: “Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.”

The [Freedom from Religion Foundation] said it did not object to the premise of the honors science seminar, described in the syllabus as an investigation of “physical reality and the boundaries of science for any hidden wisdom within this reality which may illuminate the central questions of the purpose of our existence and the meaning of life.” Rather, the organization said it objected to the course “as taught,” based on reports that Hedin was sharing his personal beliefs and endorsing a Christian viewpoint over others presented. As a public university, Ball State could be in violation of its obligation to separate church and state, the foundation said.

Very predictable move on Gora's part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of 'em at Ball State and in the media.

So her statement is, well, predictable. C'est la vie.

However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State.

Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly.

****

Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly.

Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN'T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy.

Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic "ID" and "Gonzalez" and reading various articles thereof?

Can't prove it, but things are sure looking that way.

****

So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux.

Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez's cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

And there's NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge), it's at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won.
(Certainly they didn't win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc.

But here's one definite nomination: If anybody from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!!

FL

By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute.

Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=9591

FL

Note: when FL uses the word "honestly", it means "I have just delivered a statement so devoid of evidential support that I have trouble believing it myself, and therefore need to shore it up somehow."

Carry on.

Oh, and observe the interesting FLian analysis:

This wasn't about creationism, oh, no. Wasn't about intelligent design, either, because these brave academics aren't going to teach it.

But because of this, creationists won and you bums lost. Only this isn't about creationism.

Not often you see a bloke dribbling out of both sides of his mouth at once. Not a pretty sight.

I'm not sure this is a win for ID as you seem to think, FL. Indeed, I dare say that most of us are quite happy that "both science majors and other majors [will now] give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime." It is still the case that those who approach these topics as science overwhelmingly see that evolution spanks ID naughtily. Of course, those who approach it as a challenge to their religious beliefs are produce different stats. That said, I am not at all as confident as many of my fellow evil atheists in believing that science will win out in the end. Ignorance, superstition and religious fanaticism are very strong forces that very well may win the social and political battle. Who knows?

Robert, in response to your assertion that "The point of organized ID and YEC is to base it on investigation and reason concerning evidence," can you point to any ID and YEC adherents who are not religious, indeed not a Christian or a Muslim? This might bolster your claim nicely.

oops, "are produce" should be "produce" of course

FL reminds me of Baghdad Bob.

Byers makes me wonder if he was dropped on his head as a child.

No matter how much you fluster and whine, and in this case try to rationalize away a clear defeat, this Ball State outcome is what should happen every time reason bumps into delusion.
Science and rational thought, are the light to the cockroach that is AIG, the DI and the claims of the religious in general.

No one cares what students do on their own time. They are free to read anything or believe anything they want, always have been, always will be. The only issue here is if they will be subjected to pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo pretending to be science in a state funded class room. They will not. Nor do the personal beliefs of anyone teaching or hiring teachers matter one bit. They are free to believe whatever they want, always have been, always will be. They don't need to be fired, unless they try to substitute their religious beliefs for science in the classroom. They have been warned not to do that and they will be watched carefully. If they try to illegally substitute religion for science, they will be caught and probably fired. This sends the right message to all scientists. Teach science and keep your personal religious beliefs out of the classroom.

Of course once they learn the basics of good science, they aren't going to be fooled by any of the pseudo scientific bull... loney. That's why FLoyd got his panties in a bunge. He loses again.

As for Byers, no kids will be spelling his name, unless it's in nursery rhymes about delusional incompetents.

FL said: Very predictable move on Gora's part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of 'em at Ball State and in the media. So her statement is, well, predictable. C'est la vie. However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State. Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly. **** Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly. Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN'T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy. Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic "ID" and "Gonzalez" and reading various articles thereof? Can't prove it, but things are sure looking that way. **** So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux. Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez's cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime. And there's NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby. Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge), it's at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn't win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.) But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc. But here's one definite nomination: If anybody from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!! FL

FL said: Very predictable move on Gora's part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of 'em at Ball State and in the media. So her statement is, well, predictable. C'est la vie. However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State. Hence the ultimate victory is theirs, honestly.

Think about it. At this point in time, would Dr. Gonzalez actually need to offer cosmological ID classes at Ball State? Not at all. Not even slightly. Why is that? Because any BSU science major, indeed any Ball State student of any major, who DIDN'T already know that Dr. Gonzalez is the co-author of the compelling and fascinating book The Privileged Planet, surely knows it now, thanks to all the evolutionist-driven publicity and controversy. Wanna speculate that every bookstore in the Muncie region, and probably farther, will experience steady sales and orders for the TPP book this year? Plus Amazon, BN, and other online outlets? Plus many Ball State students simply googling the topic "ID" and "Gonzalez" and reading various articles thereof? Can't prove it, but things are sure looking that way.

So make no mistake: this is not Iowa State Redux. Granted, Hedin and Gonzalez will not be teaching ID at Ball State. But their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez's cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime. And there's NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

Therefore, if we start asking who won or lost this particular chess game (yes Keelyn I occasionally indulge)

, it's at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn't win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc. But here's one definite nomination: If anybody from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!! FL

FL said: By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute. Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=9591 FL

to give Gonzalez’s cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime.

Scott F said: ...she doesn't want it reduced to a laughing stock, with the reputation of another "Liberty" University.

FL said: By the way, some readers may want to see for themselves, and think through for themselves, some of the important issues and questions that were brought to the BSU Board of Trustees by John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute. Take a few moments and read what he is saying. He is making a lot of sense: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=9591 FL

FL said:...card-carrying evolutionist...

Cool! Where do I apply to get mine?

Of course, there's another — legal — reason that Ball State University is reacting differently than sectarian schools: Its middle name.

As an arm of the state of Indiana, Ball State University is subject to the Establishment Clause, the Lemon test, the Santa Fe Schools analysis, and all of those other inconveniences that inhibit religious advocacy in government bodies. The private, sectarian schools aren't.

President Gora's statement and its rhetoric went beyond the legal bare minimum, for which she deserves praise. The underlying substance, though is the legal bare minimum. If Gonzalez (or whomever), in a class that is not explicitly devoted to the study of religious doctrine as a social construct intended to provide the students with a greater understanding of social context without advocating its correctness, does advocate the correctness of religious doctrine in class or in official university communications of any kind, the State of Indiana is liable for constitutional torts (and quite possibly statutory discrimination). The only winners then are the lawyers and spinmeisters... and as Ball State doesn't even have a law school...

Keelyn said:

FL said: ...it's at least clear that professors Hedin and Gonzalez won. (Certainly they didn't win as big as some folks may have hoped, but a win IS a win.)

Yes but again, won what??

But if they won, then who lost? Hmm. Write down the conflict-of-interest-laden BSU Special Committee, along with other folks like Jerry Coyne, Jo Ann Gora, etc. But here's one definite nomination: If anybody from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is reading this thread, YOU BUMS LOST!! FL

Oh, you are just being hateful. :(

Of course, this letter, (actually an email to faculty and staff), had nothing to do with the hiring of Gonzalez, and everything to do with the course Hedin was teaching, "Boundaries of Science," which promoted ID to the virtual exclusion of real science. The reading list included, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Gonzalez, and a number of other religious-oriented apologists. Gora's email included the sentence, "As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state," and was an obvious attempt to fend off legal action from the FFRF. Whether there are any substantive changes to Hedin's teaching methods, beyond simply revising the reading list, remains to be seen.

I'm just wondering what the students, maybe even the student union, think about this. These clowns won't be indoctrinating elementary school kids. Chances are the upper-level students will milk Gonzalez et al. for all they're worth, and just snicker at the ID crap.

Trying to teach ID in a science class is a hot-button topic. Aside from the constitutional issue at the K-12 level, it's basically no different than trying to teach quantum mechanics in a course about the history of ancient Egypt.

It is misrepresentation; done covertly, it's a violation of Truth In Advertising, if not of academic integrity.

tomh said: Of course, this letter, (actually an email to faculty and staff), had nothing to do with the hiring of Gonzalez, and everything to do with the course Hedin was teaching, "Boundaries of Science," which promoted ID to the virtual exclusion of real science. The reading list included, Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Gonzalez, and a number of other religious-oriented apologists. Gora's email included the sentence, "As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state," and was an obvious attempt to fend off legal action from the FFRF. Whether there are any substantive changes to Hedin's teaching methods, beyond simply revising the reading list, remains to be seen.

gnome de net said: Trying to teach ID in a science class is a hot-button topic. Aside from the constitutional issue at the K-12 level, it's basically no different than trying to teach quantum mechanics in a course about the history of ancient Egypt. It is misrepresentation; done covertly, it's a violation of Truth In Advertising, if not of academic integrity.

If you want to get a sense of Eric Hedin's commitment to academic integrity, compare the proposal he submitted for the course to the actually syllabus and reading list given to the students. A classic case of bait-and-switch. Jerry Coyne's blog website has links to the documents and an extensive discussion of the matter. He is also largely responsible for the case getting going.

Matt G said: If you want to get a sense of Eric Hedin's commitment to academic integrity, compare the proposal he submitted for the course to the actually syllabus and reading list given to the students. A classic case of bait-and-switch. Jerry Coyne's blog website has links to the documents and an extensive discussion of the matter. He is also largely responsible for the case getting going.

Scott F said: But knowing what is known about the world today, astrology, alchemy, and ID are all laughably ignorant.

DS said: Yes but now he has been informed of the official policy, he has been warned that he is being watched and he can now be fired for willfully violating the policy. The university has set it up so that they can take legal action and win.

@Scott F

Your analogies are more accurate; I chose to exaggerate for emphasis.

tomh said:

DS said: Yes but now he has been informed of the official policy, he has been warned that he is being watched and he can now be fired for willfully violating the policy. The university has set it up so that they can take legal action and win.

That was never a problem or even an issue. The administration could have put an end to the course any time in the last seven years if they had wanted to. It's not that they didn't know about it or that their hands were tied. The department chair, who approved the course, stated that besides him, the course content was known to the Dean and Associate Dean of the Honors College, and all felt that the course was appropriate. This for a course that focused on ID luminaries as well as creationists like Hugh Ross. This is a bigger problem than Hedin himself. It was only after threats from the FFRF, and probably warnings from university lawyers, that the university felt compelled to insulate themselves from legal action. As far as Hedin teaching a strictly science-based course, there is no evidence that he is capable of doing so.

FL said: Very predictable move on Gora's part. If she is not a card-carrying evolutionist herself (maybe she is), she knows about the harsh pressure that card-carrying evolutionists are capable of exerting, and she knows there are plenty of 'em at Ball State and in the media.

FL said: However, I notice that professors Hedin and Gonzalez (and Gonzalez had already agreed not to teach ID at Ball State anyway!), are NOT fired and NOT resigned from Ball State. [snip] ...their mere presence (esp. with all that publicity), will cause MANY Ball State students, both science majors and other majors, to give Gonzalez's cosmological ID hypothesis (and likely the Dembski/Behe ID hypothesis) a fair hearing AS SCIENCE, on their own time and dime. And there's NOTHING that the evolutionists can do to stop that important outcome. Lo Siento, baby.

DS said: Why don't these yahoos preach in their tax free churches if they want to lie to people?

Matt G said: If you want to get a sense of Eric Hedin's commitment to academic integrity, compare the proposal he submitted for the course to the actually syllabus and reading list given to the students. A classic case of bait-and-switch. Jerry Coyne's blog website has links to the documents and an extensive discussion of the matter. He is also largely responsible for the case getting going.

Scott F said: But knowing what is known about the world today, astrology, alchemy, and ID are all laughably ignorant.

Chris Lawson said:

Scott F said: But knowing what is known about the world today, astrology, alchemy, and ID are all laughably ignorant.

I wouldn't put astrology and alchemy in that bracket. There was at least a concerted effort within astrology and alchemy to do real science, and neither theory is completely wrong (there are correlations between birth date and life events, for instance children born near the start of the year's cutoffs for sports tend to do better and are more likely to become pro sports players -- although star signs are a confounder rather than a causal association -- and you can convert lead to gold, but you need much higher energy levels than the alchemists were able to apply). By contrast, ID has no research agenda and is, in fact, a scam designed to look scientific to non-scientists without ever being able to formulate a testable hypothesis.

An odd thing about the recent history of evolution denial is that in the middle of the 20th century it took a decided turn in a regressive direction. Before that, creationists generally went along with an "old Earth", and managed to accommodate that with their Bible beliefs. Just about the time that the sciences began to really nail down the age of life, the Earth and the universe with techniques like radioisotope dating, the denial of "deep time" became popular among the creationists. And later in the 20th century, the campaign to eliminate all positive and substantive content from evolution denial, in favor of public relations only: "Dogwhistle Creationism" - if they have anything to say, nobody with normal hearing can hear it.

and you can convert lead to gold, but you need much higher energy levels than the alchemists were able to apply).

If ID advocates routinely did scientific experiments, routinely published in mainstream peer-review science journals, routinely showed up at science meetings and seminars, etc, this could help convince the scientific consensus (provided ID advocates had real scientific evidence);

You mean this meeting Floyd? Maybe you could point to the flood geology part here. Thanks.

So, FL, this is a big step for you!

You've apparently adopted the basic prerequisite of science: acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence!

Scientists can change their minds, FL.
Can you? Can you openly concede that you may be wrong in your YEC convictions? Can you say Sure, given contradictory evidence, I will give up every vestige of YEC, because that is what science demands?

Or will you skulk back into the shadows, mumbling about how you are just so infallibly certain of what you already know with absolute certainty, so you don't need to ever change anything at all?

See FL, scientists do the former. Religious lunatics do the latter.

No, Floyd has already admitted that all of the evidence is against him and he has already stated that that doesn't matter. When the evidence says you are wrong, just trust the bible, close your eyes and ignore all of the evidence. That isn't science, that's religious quackery. That is the way Floyd wants it. To try to pretend that there is any science at all behind YEC is just another lie. To try to pretend that creationists honor the evidence is just another lie. To try to claim that there is any evidence to support them is a blatant lie. Floyd knows all of this, he would probably even admit it if pressed. Trying to redefine science to include creationism is just another old dodge. It didn't work in the past and it isn't going to work now.

'Cause, you know, I see the Christian propaganda sites claim these papers were presented, but the GSA site doesn't mention them at all. Maybe they were in the cafe across the street? Plus the ignoramuses were debunked AGAIN, including by Wildwood Claire, bless her.

...acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence

acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence naturalistic materialistic pre-assumptions

Scientists can change their minds, FL.

FL said: Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC's are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

FL said:

...acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence

That's what the ID hypothesis starts out with, honestly. YEC and OEC start out by pre-assuming that certain Bible statements are true (as in God created stuff)

So what evidence is there for the existence of scientific papers about Intelligent Design?

FL said:

...acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence

That's what the ID hypothesis starts out with, honestly. YEC and OEC start out by pre-assuming that certain Bible statements are true (as in God created stuff), and even Theistic Evolution starts out by pre-assuming that at least God exists (just ask Tenn!). But the ID hypothesis don't pre-assume ANY religious texts or claims. ID starts out with you empirically observing a biological object (or in Gonzalez's case, observing the sun moon stars planets etc).

And then letting the empirically observed chips fall where they may, even if they point to design instead of descent, teleology instead of accident. That's science.

The problem is, these evolutionists are religiously committed to:

acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence naturalistic materialistic pre-assumptions

And woe to those who dare to question THAT caustic religion, as 20 years of history has proven!

Scientists can change their minds, FL.

Sure they can. Biochemist Michael Behe used to be just one more evolutionist, that's how he was taught in school. Same for biology professor Dean Kenyon.

Michael Denton used to be one more Theistic Evolutionist (and he still is!), but he IS open to ID-style teleology in nature, and he DOES openly state that ID is falsifiable (with examples) and therefore would be a scientific hypothesis on that basis (see his book "Nature's Destiny."

But like I said, it's been nearly two decades Phhht. All I have to do is point to the evolutionists' treatment of a professional scientist, Dr. Gonzalez, and you can see that Kuhn ("Structure of Scientific Revolutions") and you can see what's really going on.

And there you have it folks, straight from the horses mouth, (or at least the other end). YECs do science, BY FIRST ASSUMING THE BIBLE IS TRUE. That's why Floyd can't actually cite any of the papers he claimed exist, BECAUSE THEY DON'T. He lied about it, admitted he lied about it, then switched out ID for YEC hoping no one would notice. And of course there are no scientific papers supporting ID either, so Floyd is just lying again. But I guess that was already apparent.

None of Floyd's ranting is on topic, so time for another dump to the bathroom wall, where ten thousand unanswered questions await for chuckles (AKA stumpy).

phhht said:

FL said:

...acceptance of the primacy of empirical evidence

That's what the ID hypothesis starts out with, honestly. YEC and OEC start out by pre-assuming that certain Bible statements are true (as in God created stuff)

So the evidential basis for those assumptions that gods exist - and they are not just assumptions, are they, FL, but absolute certainties - are what, exactly? This "design" you speak of, how can I empirically detect it? Why should I believe it exists at all? Just because you say you can see it? After all, patient 1 sees a woman under the sheets of an empty bed. How are your infallible certainties different from hers? And as for mind changing, YOU, you personally, FL, cannot change your mind, can you. No, you are a prisoner of your religious madness. You have no free will, because your illness does not permit it. You have mental rigor mortis.

FL said: Have you even specified how many years the Christian YEC geologists will have to keep presenting their YEC papers to the "deep-time" GSA Convention geologists before you would even **begin** to consider this segment of your laundry list to be fulfilled? Nope.

(And does "mainstream science journal" mean "don't you guys publish any ID articles if you want to stay in business",

And finally, is a particular topic/hypothesis only "science" when the majority of scientists declare it is (aka "science by majority vote", as if dissenting scientists are not equally scientists!), or is it "science" when it proves that it is falsifiable in accordance with the scientific method?

Suppose I told you, for example, that Christian YEC geologists now show up routinely at the Geological Society of America conventions and some of them present actual papers in front of the GSA peers just like the pro-evolution geologists do. Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC’s are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

phhht said: C'mon, FL, exhibit a little Christian humility. Show a little human sanity. Just say these words: I believe that gods exist, but I could well be wrong. I could be mistaken in my conviction. I can do that, FL: I believe that gods do not exist, but I could well be wrong. I could be mistaken. That's what sane people say, FL. Everybody concedes he could be wrong, because everybody IS wrong, time and again, throughout life, about every conceivable issue, including religious ones. But you can't do it. Your religious delusions compel you to believe that you have an inhuman superpower, the ability to know, infallibly, the truth about religious questions. That is what I mean when I say you are a religious cripple, FL. Your religious illness locks you into preposterous counter-factual positions, and you can't even make a nod to sanity.

But take it at little further. Have you even specified how many years the Christian YEC geologists will have to keep presenting their YEC papers to the “deep-time” GSA Convention geologists before you would even **begin** to consider this segment of your laundry list to be fulfilled? Nope.

harold said: FL said -

But take it at little further. Have you even specified how many years the Christian YEC geologists will have to keep presenting their YEC papers to the “deep-time” GSA Convention geologists before you would even **begin** to consider this segment of your laundry list to be fulfilled? Nope.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, all it would take to convince me would be one - if the paper actually made sense.

Now let's ask you the same question. Could any evidence convince you of biological evolution? If so, what evidence is now lacking which, if present, would convince you? Please do not evade this question.

eric,
The "logically follows" part of that needs more emphasis. Otherwise, they'll just make something up, and say it was a prediction.

Henry J said: eric, The "logically follows" part of that needs more emphasis. Otherwise, they'll just make something up, and say it was a prediction.

Could any evidence convince you of biological evolution?

But as Mendel tried to tell Darwin in a written letter

The fact the letter is written in English might give us a clue that it is fiction; but on the website where the photograph first appeared, the artist also tells us that he wrote it himself on a grocery sack, and the pen came from his wife's calligraphy set.

phhht said:

FL said: Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC's are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

So c'mon, FL, cite those papers! Or is this just more hot air?

I guess those papers you referred to are no more real than your gods, huh FL. That was just stinking breath farts. Just horseshit you were shoveling. Just hot air.

Matt Young said: I was afraid it would come to this:

I guess those papers you referred to are no more real than your gods, huh FL. That was just stinking breath farts. Just horseshit you were shoveling. Just hot air.

While it is hard to disagree with the sentiment, I'd prefer to keep the rhetoric on a higher plane.

I’ll happily retire to the BW; it’s my usual haunt. Just send FL along, please.

FL said: Some of those papers, such as at the 2009 GSA, have addressed explicit issues on which the Christian YEC’s are openly intending to promote literal YEC belief, flood geology, as science.

So Floyd admits that no evidence will ever convince him that evolution is true, because that's not what the evidence shows! And he probably doesn't even see why this is a ridiculous position. The crippled thinking is almost too much to believe, but then again we shouldn't underestimate this guy, he has proven that he really is this stupid many times.

So once again Floyd is caught in lies and evasions. TIme for him to run off to the bathroom wall again. He can't win any arguments there either.

... are significant because they represent the preliminary results from the FAST program (Flood Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics), geologic research being sponsored by the National Creation Science Foundation through the Institute for Creation Research.

I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin's course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

Creationists have shown themselves to be influential within GSA. Expect to hear more after next year's (2010)annual GSA meeting during November in Denver. References (these are the papers that some Pandas say don't exist--FL.) 1.Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guide. 15: 337-344. Reprint available from the author. 2.Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors. 3.Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors. 4.Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

Steve "the guy who repeatedly tried to disprove radiometric dating by deliberately giving radiometric laboratories wrong data in order to get bogus readings" Austin?

None of those papers FL "cites" are "scientific papers."

All of those papers are a bunch of typed flim-flam created by a bunch of Morons and Liars For Jesus playing doctor. They don't belong on the Bathroom Wall: they belong in a toilet.

FL said: This is my final comment in this thread. Matt Young, I would appreciate it if you would leave this final post right here in your thread, since it directly responds to some Panda accusations that were made in this thread.

Creationists have shown themselves to be influential within GSA. Expect to hear more after next year's (2010)annual GSA meeting during November in Denver. References (these are the papers that some Pandas say don't exist--FL.) 1.Austin, S. A. 2009. The dynamic landscape on the north flank of Mount St. Helens. Geological Society of America Field Trip Guide. 15: 337-344. Reprint available from the author. 2.Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors. 3.Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors. 4.Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

Thanks in advance Matt. I also appreciate your insistence on "keeping the rhetoric on a higher plane." I can continue refuting these blokes on the Bathroom Wall; that's my home base. FL

JimboK said: I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin's course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

Caught in a web of lies and deceit, trolling off topic nonsense, begging for special permission to "refute" the charges against him. chuckles stoops to a new low even for him. Ban the boob altogether. Even the bathroom wall is too good for the likes of him. This is your brain on creationism.

FL, please stop using references to creationist sources. Spend some time learning what science says about the same subjects and you'll find a different story. Only problem is they do not support your home turf, fundamentalism. Therefore, to preserve your complacency don't take my advice.

gnome de net said:

JimboK said: I would like to read the original syllabus for Hedin's course. But, not surprisingly, the original link is now dead. Has anyone seen another posting of it? Thanks.

I think this is what you're looking for: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/inside-higher-ed-academic-freedom-doesnt-allow-you-to-teach-junk-science

Rolf said: FL, please stop using references to creationist sources. Spend some time learning what science says about the same subjects and you'll find a different story. Only problem is they do not support your home turf, fundamentalism. Therefore, to preserve your complacency don't take my advice.

Please post responses to FL on the BW. See Tenncrain's comment about 6 comments above if you need a cue. At FL's request I have left alone his comment at 10:19, also above.

Matt G said: Somewhere else there is the reading list,

tomh said:

Matt G said: Somewhere else there is the reading list,

The reading list is here.