10th anniversary of <i>Kitzmiller vs. Dover</i> coming up!

The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones's ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited. "That was a real drag," said Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who was the star witness for the intelligent design side. "I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say." Dr. Behe added: "He talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments." William A. Dembski, a mathematician who argues that mathematics can show the presence of design in the development of life, predicted that intelligent design would become much stronger within 5 to 10 years. Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design. "I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Well, let's see.

Dr., Dr, Dembski's CSI has been revealed as nothing more than the expected outcome of the number of trials multiplied by the probability per trial; a simple idea from high school AP statistics all gussied up by taking logarithms to base 2 and calling it "information." And the poor bloke did even win the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Life is so unfair.

Granville Sewell - PhD in mathematics - has shown that he can't get units right when plugging his "X-entopies" into a diffusion equation.

Retired veterinarian David L. Abel keeps cranking out "papers" that cite his evidence-free assertions in all his other papers; and all of it being "funded" by an "Institute" that has the same address as his little ranch-style house.

Dr. Michael Behe still can't get his head around complex systems of atoms and molecules.

The flagship website of ID - namely Uncommonly Dense - is a can of seething, kvetching worms still trying to find the rim of the can.

I'd say they have nailed it; their own coffin that is.

The poor bloke didn't win the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Mike Elzinga said: The poor bloke didn't win the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Some will remember the "Dover Wiki." Personally I preferred email lists. I thought I did two good things Re:Dover. One was to have written a chapter for Matt, and Taner's "Why Intelligent Design Fails."

One night I got an email from Nick saying, "You will really like today's trial transcript." I was totally stoked to read, "We're going to look at chapter 8 of that book, if you could pull up the chapter heading there? And it's titled The Explanatory Filter, Archaeology and Forensics, and it's written by somebody named Gary S. Hurd. Are you familiar with Dr. Hurd?

The other moment was earlier, and much more obscure. Social Science professor Steve William Fuller appeared as a pro-creationist witness. He was a leading figure in the "Sokal Affair," where a fraud paper submitted by a physicist was published. Fuller was an editor of "Social Text" were the fraud was accepted for publication. Some of the biologists who were commenting on the pretrial expert witness statements were braying and frothing at the chance to humiliate an evil social science dude. They we insisting that the "Sokal Affair" must be used in the trial to attack Steve Fuller, and anthropology, sociology and all those weak horrible "soft sciences."

I am an anthropologist, and I had already professionally collaborated with chemists, and physicists. In fact, I was also a chemist according to real world paychecks. So there is the foundation of my rather obscure contribution to Dover. I pointed out to the group that Steve Fuller knew next to nothing about the Intelligent Design "movement." In fact he was humiliating ID. So..... Rather than attacking him about a bullshit fraud that he was victimized by, we should encourage him to talk at length about ID creationism and how it was an "alternate" to real science.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, let's see. Dr., Dr, Dembski's CSI has been revealed as nothing more than the expected outcome of the number of trials multiplied by the probability per trial; a simple idea from high school AP statistics all gussied up by taking logarithms to base 2 and calling it "information." And the poor bloke did even win the 2013 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Life is so unfair. Granville Sewell - PhD in mathematics - has shown that he can't get units right when plugging his "X-entopies" into a diffusion equation. Retired veterinarian David L. Abel keeps cranking out "papers" that cite his evidence-free assertions in all his other papers; and all of it being "funded" by an "Institute" that has the same address as his little ranch-style house. Dr. Michael Behe still can't get his head around complex systems of atoms and molecules. The flagship website of ID - namely Uncommonly Dense - is a can of seething, kvetching worms still trying to find the rim of the can. I'd say they have nailed it; their own coffin that is.

TomS said: What strikes me as most unusual about a Dembskian Law of Conservation of Information is that, rather than there being evidence in favor of such a law, the evidence presented (of such quality as it is) by its advocates consists of evidence against there being such a law: 1) That "Information" can spontaneously decrease 2) That "Information" can increase in the ordinary working of the world of life 3) That humans are exempt from the supposed law (unlike, for example, humans not given exemptions from the laws of thermodynamics)

OK. It is 10 years later. Where are they now? What progress have they made?

Karen s said:

OK. It is 10 years later. Where are they now? What progress have they made?

Just you wait another 10 years or so!

"[L]et’s...not try to win this in the court of public opinion,” Dr. Dembski said.

The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones’s ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited.

Matt Young asks: OK. It is 10 years later. Where are they now? What progress have they made?

The evidentiary harvest of recent creationist research into ID, in the form of a few quick bullet points; * * *

On 4/23/2002 at the Great Debate (Science vs ID) at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, Bill Dembski was asked by Ken Miller why ID wasn't making progress. In reply, Dembski whined that nobody threw money at ID. Surely they've had time to get together some money since then!

This past summer my family visited Dover High School to see the site where the great lie of intelligent design was laid bare. It is an important part of science history in this country.

We also quite enjoy watching Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

As we can see from PT's most persistent troll, delusional fundamentalists will continue to fight a socio/political battle to get evolution out of the educational curriculum. That has been their objective ever since the formation of the Institute for Creation "Research" in 1970. And we can see the battle continuing over the implementation of educational standards; the goal being to dumb down education so that nobody has the scientific concepts in place to debunk ID/creationist pseudoscience.

"Critical thinking" to an ID/creationist means plunging into an infinite labyrinth of word-gaming legitimate scientific concepts into a useless pulp so that nobody can understand anything and then has to depend on sectarian authority figures to tell them what to think. Fundamentalism depends on the promulgation of confusion, ignorance, and fear.

Unfortunately for the ID/creationists, there is now in the public record something like 50 years of ID/creationist crap and pure fakery from which they can no longer distance themselves. We can attach names to all of this crap; and we will continue to do so. Not only has this crap been thoroughly analyzed and debunked, the crap demonstrates conclusively just how incompetent the purveyors of ID/creationism are when it comes to even the most basic concepts in science.

Not a single damned one of these ID/creationists is able to articulate scientific concepts at even a high school level; and that is an embarrassment they will risk to themselves if they persist in their stupid tactics of the past. Yet, because of their ideologically driven stupidity, they will no doubt persist; that happens to be the unfortunate effect of sectarian dogma on some human minds. "Freedom of religion" apparently means that some people will remain arrogantly stupid for their entire lives.

Nowadays, just about any "nobody" coming out of nowhere can take down an ID/creationist in an intellectually bone-breaking tackle from which the ID/creationist will never recover. ID/creationists simply cannot survive the crucible of real scientific peer review; their pseudoscience is just that incompetently cobbled together. They will continue to lurk around the edges of real science kvetching about how they are being "expelled;" and they will deserve all the mockery they continue to bring down upon themselves every time they open their mouths.

On the pragmatic side, it may be a good thing to have within our culture real live examples of the kinds of people we should never become. We now have Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruze, and a host of Republican Presidential candidates who remind us that these characters are still around and are still revered.

Eternal vigilance, as has been said.

FL said: (the usual crap)

While stevaroni has summed up the evidentiary advances of the last 10 years, let us also not forget the theoretical work. For example, there is the work done on improving the description of Irreducible Complexity, after it had been shown that there were faults in the original description.

TomS said: While stevaroni has summed up the evidentiary advances of the last 10 years, let us also not forget the theoretical work. For example, there is the work done on improving the description of Irreducible Complexity, after it had been shown that there were faults in the original description.

fnxtr said:

FL said: (the usual crap)

Yawn.

Will Kitzmiller ever be overthrown? I seriously don’t think so. But that’s the kicker: it doesn’t matter whether it is or not. Ten years has placed creationism in a box, a nice limiting box, and set it on the clearance rack along with the expired-date Tyson Chickens and Hormel Franks. It has proven itself to be completely scientifically vacuous. No new discoveries, no new equations, no new predictions, no new explanations,nothing of any substance whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks they have the right to teach religion in place of science, it will never succeed. The only thing it can do is attempt to stop people from learning any real science. Let me know how that works out for you.

DS said: Will Kitzmiller ever be overthrown? I seriously don’t think so. But that’s the kicker: it doesn’t matter whether it is or not.

Good grief! Has it been ten years?? I started reading PT because of Kitzmiller.

Ten years of FL, and he hasn't learned a thing. I've learned 7 new computer languages, 2 new operating systems, 2 new messaging systems, and 3 new development frameworks in that time. Plus, I've probably learned in these 10 years more about Creationism, Intelligent Design, physics, biology, politics, and the bible than FL has ever known. Ya' gotta' learn (or re-learn) some of the basics if you expect to be able to intelligently defend a subject that you've learned to care passionately about.

(Is it just me, or are the comments acting "funny"? I hit the "Preview" button, and all it showed was the single digit "1".)

Joe Felsenstein said: But that is now. In not-too-many years there may be further fluctuations in political fortunes and a President from the Religious Right who appoints more Scalias and Thomases, and then: watch out! Does anyone think that more and better arguments against ID would suffice to change Scalia's and Thomas's minds?

FL said: I have my own copy, but I don’t feel like trying to summarize it all right now, so let me just offer a link to a short blurb about it (hat tip to COPE). Just scroll down a little:

FL said: Certainly I have no wish to interrupt any nostalgic Kitzmiller tavern gigs...

Even if the Government changed would the IDiots get any benefit? I thought that the IDers and YECers have fallen out due to many of the IDists holding non-Biblical views such as an old earth. I think that Ken Ham would run the show and at the most IDers would be at the most bit players.

Scott F said:

FL said: I have my own copy, but I don’t feel like trying to summarize it all right now, so let me just offer a link to a short blurb about it (hat tip to COPE). Just scroll down a little:

Why am I not surprised. You appear to be incapable of summarizing anything in your own words.

MichaelJ said: Even if the Government changed would the IDiots get any benefit? I thought that the IDers and YECers have fallen out due to many of the IDists holding non-Biblical views such as an old earth. I think that Ken Ham would run the show and at the most IDers would be at the most bit players.

FL said: Certainly I have no wish to interrupt any nostalgic Kitzmiller tavern gigs, but given ten years of hindsight, this one statement...

Sigh. Four reasons for trashing Kitzmiller, eh?

1) It's "Limited and demonstrably flawed"

Any and every judicial decision is limited - in scope, in application, in address, in subject. Kitzmiller was limited to the specific question of whether teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution was to teach a religious doctrine in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that it was, hence that the plaintiff's Constitutional rights had been violated, and awarded damages against the school district. Far from affecting only middle Pennsylvania, any school district in the US will now be advised that to try to teach "intelligent design" will bring a successful suit and that the insurance won't cover it. Earlier, and more comprehensively, the Supreme Court had found that biblical creationism could not be taught in the PS science classroom, for the same reason.

No flaw in the Kitzmiller decision has been found by any court. DI talking heads can yammer all they like; it doesn't matter what they think. Judge Jones's judgement has become case law that provides precedent in any similar case.

FL's number one consists of an irrelevance followed by a falsehood.

2) Too narrow a definition of "religion" in the judgement. The COPE piece says it excludes religions such as atheism and humanism. It probably also excludes religions like not sacrificing chickens and positive thinking, too.

Really, if there had been any such error, the case would have long since have been appealed. It never was. Why? Because any appeal would have resulted in a crushing and very expensive loss, because the objection is comprehensively cracked. There are no such religions as atheism or humanism. The only relevant religion - this is part of the limited scope FL complains about - was fundamentalist Christian creationism.

And "escape the evolutionist plantation", yet. Evolution is a plantation that you have to escape from. It's the same as slavery. Disgusting - not because of the monumentally bathetic hyperbole, which is merely idiotic, but because of the contempt shown for those who actually did escape from slavery. As if being taught a scientific fact and theory in a public school were the same thing as being property used for stoop labor. FL should be ashamed of himself. I thought it was the left that were supposed to hate their own heritage.

3) The LSEA contradicts Kitzmiller.

It could do, if crackpots decided to ignore the Constitution. If that were ever tried, when the first lawsuit is brought by a plaintiff with standing in Louisiana, Kitzmiller will be consulted, and its precedent will be followed. If it is shown that the school board, school, or individual teacher violated the rights of the plaintiff by teaching "intelligent design" as if it were science, the defendants will go down in flames, and LSEA won't provide even a fig leaf. Why? Because the Constitution, nitwit!

Until then, LSEA is toothless and impotent. It does nothing. If it were ever invoked for the purpose FL would like, it would be a disaster for those who tried. But that's probably fine by creationists. Like the DI, they'll create the martyrs, then they'll walk away with their hands in their pockets, and leave the school holding the bag. The losers will be the children of Louisiana, and the nation's third-worst education system will take another hit it can't afford. Actually, that's a feature, not a bug, to a creationist. They want to impoverish education, anyway, so what's not to like?

4) "Intelligent design" is on the internet, anyway, and the schools (the fools!) teach students to use the internet. Mwahahahahah!

Sure ID's on the net. So is reptiloid alien rulers and moon landing denial. So is the flat-earth society. So is ISIS, Al Q'aida, the Trotskyist Left International, the Nazi party, gay Tyrannosaurs and every whacko cult, fringe group, conspiracy theorist, outer limits sexual practice and deranged political movement on the planet. Every school I've ever heard of teaches not only that the internet can be used, but how to use it. How to tell a crazoid site from a reasonable one. Stuff like attribution, citation, primary sources, known authorities whose names can be checked. That kind of thing.

And when students learn to use the internet, guess what? They find that sites like UD and AiG display the map references of Hucksterville and Fruit Loop Junction. You think you're internet savvy, FL? Compared to the kids, you haven't a clue. You're still at the "I seen it on TV" stage, as you showed us over the Christina Umowski affair, while we all laughed.

"It's on the net" is a non-starter. It's simply dumb.

So, what have we got? An irrelevance, two falsehoods, and some transparently exiguous wishful thinking. "Reasons to believe"? Reasons?

FL again demonstrates that he hasn't a clue what the word means.

Keelyn said:

FL said: Certainly I have no wish to interrupt any nostalgic Kitzmiller tavern gigs, but given ten years of hindsight, this one statement...

I have posted a reply, Floyd, on the BW. I don't won't to derail the thread, but I think your post deserves some scrutiny. http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-345959

Okay Keelyn, I responded to you over at the BW.

But next time, don't be so quick to send yourself to the Bathroom Wall. Your response was not off-topic.

FL

Dave Luckett said: No flaw in the Kitzmiller decision has been found by any court. DI talking heads can yammer all they like; it doesn't matter what they think. Judge Jones's judgement has become case law that provides precedent in any.... similar.... case.

Given a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to disposition of the precedent case; (3) the significant facts of the precedent case are also present in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant. Marjorie D. Rombauer, Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing, pp. 22-23 (West Publishing Co., 3d ed. 1978). From Wikipedia.

2) Too narrow a definition of "religion" in the judgement. The COPE piece says it excludes religions such as atheism and humanism. It probably also excludes religions like not sacrificing chickens and positive thinking, too. Really, if there had been any such Kitzmiller, error, the case would have long since have been appealed. It never was. Why? Because any appeal would have resulted in a crushing and very expensive loss, because the objection is comprehensively cracked. There are no such religions as atheism or humanism. The only relevant religion - this is part of the limited scope FL complains about - was fundamentalist Christian creationism.

And “escape the evolutionist plantation”, yet. Evolution is a plantation that you have to escape from. It’s the same as slavery. Disgusting...

Sure ID’s on the net

Yea that's right Floyd , it's completely flawed and can be overturned at any time. We just ain't got around to it yet. We could have it thrown out any time we wanted, but we just don't want to. So yous didn't whip us no how!

Floyd, do you honestly think that if any school board anywhere approves the teaching of ID or any other form of r=creationism anywhere, mandatory or not, that this landmark case will not be used to strike them down immediately? No? Well that you best commence to get ready to begin, cause in ten years, none of your cronies has seemed to have gotten the message.

Once again, the fossils are on our side Floyd. Get used to it.

Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone. What, is ya censored again? Hardly. You just lost again that's all. Anyone can examine the thousands of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals which provide evidence for evolution. They can also look at all the completely unsubstantiated and worthless claims of the creationists. They can judge for themselves. Funny how exposure to the evidence always persuades people that creationism is nonsense. Why is that Floyd? You lost in court. You lost in the journals. You lost in the media. You lost in the court of public opinion. You lost. You lost ten years ago and you haven't won since. Admit it.

As is the case with every follower of ID/creationism, FL thinks that word-gaming the meanings of words and court decisions is going to get him somewhere. It simply cannot.

Like all other followers of ID/creationism, FL doesn't even come close to understanding that ID/creationism is a sectarian pseudoscience designed to be a Trojan horse in order to crowd evolution out of the public school science curriculum using the tactics of endless word-gaming. Even the Dear Leaders of the ID/creationist movement - the ones who came up with all those distortions of science - know that they cannot defend their pseudoscience in front of a room full of experts; that is why they always try to push their junk science in public debate forums in front of naive audiences.

The history of ID/creationism is in the public record; and every misconception and misrepresentation of science in ID/creationism has a characteristic twist that clearly identifies these as the products of a sectarian mind trying to distort science to fit sectarian dogma. ID/creationist pseudoscience is unique among all pseudoscience because it has such a distinctive sectarian mark of the sectarian religious beast on it. Anybody who knows science can smell the stench miles away. And so can the courts.

So, constantly lying and playing word games about Kitzmiller v. Dover, or any other court decision, doesn't cut it. ID/creationists have painted themselves into a corner with their pseudoscience and they can't back away from it now; they own it whether they like it or not. They have been rolling around in their own feces for 50 years; and while they may try to wipe off or cover up the obvious, the smell remains unmistakably religious sectarianism.

FL will never be able to comprehend the profound difference between word-gaming and blatantly self-evident sectarian pseudoscience; these things go way over his head. We have all seen what he "knows" of science, and it isn't pretty. All of his attempts to fake it are themselves a mark of the sectarian beast. The shibboleths remain; and there is nothing he can do about it. Every attempt at a defense of ID/creationism just continues to reveal its sectarian core and the scientific illiteracy of its followers.

Courts or no courts; deliberately pushing scientific illiteracy onto the children of others is not only irresponsible and unprofessional, it is dead wrong. Such teachers should be fired; period.

Mike Elzinga said: As is the case with every follower of ID/creationism, FL thinks that word-gaming the meanings of words and court decisions is going to get him somewhere. It simply cannot. Like all other followers of ID/creationism, FL doesn't even come close to understanding that ID/creationism is a sectarian pseudoscience designed to be a Trojan horse in order to crowd evolution out of the public school science curriculum using the tactics of endless word-gaming. Even the Dear Leaders of the ID/creationist movement - the ones who came up with all those distortions of science - know that they cannot defend their pseudoscience in front of a room full of experts; that is why they always try to push their junk science in public debate forums in front of naive audiences.

FL said: Well Dave, Mr. Gnome asked me to come back here and read your comments. [snip] You carry the Panda water as expected....

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Public opinion is not science Floyd.

FL said: Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins.

Michael Fugate said:

Mike Elzinga said: As is the case with every follower of ID/creationism, FL thinks that word-gaming the meanings of words and court decisions is going to get him somewhere. It simply cannot. Like all other followers of ID/creationism, FL doesn't even come close to understanding that ID/creationism is a sectarian pseudoscience designed to be a Trojan horse in order to crowd evolution out of the public school science curriculum using the tactics of endless word-gaming. Even the Dear Leaders of the ID/creationist movement - the ones who came up with all those distortions of science - know that they cannot defend their pseudoscience in front of a room full of experts; that is why they always try to push their junk science in public debate forums in front of naive audiences.

This is why Floyd never discusses any science; he knows that he can't win with science.

FL said:

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx YOUR side has won the court battles, that is true, but that has not translated into winning the people. FL

Mike,
Way back when I was fresh out of college and teaching high school biology in Kansas of all places, I had students bringing Bibles to class everyday to ward off the evil of evolution. I even inspired one of the local churches to start a creationist Sunday school for teens (the pastor's twin daughters were in my class). My favorite anecdote from that time was from a social studies teacher who started a lesson on the evolution of governmental systems and a student's hand shot up and she declared, "I don't believe in evolution, so I'm not taking notes!"

Anti-intellectualism runs deep.

Mike Elzinga said:

Michael Fugate said:

Mike Elzinga said: As is the case with every follower of ID/creationism, FL thinks that word-gaming the meanings of words and court decisions is going to get him somewhere. It simply cannot. Like all other followers of ID/creationism, FL doesn't even come close to understanding that ID/creationism is a sectarian pseudoscience designed to be a Trojan horse in order to crowd evolution out of the public school science curriculum using the tactics of endless word-gaming. Even the Dear Leaders of the ID/creationist movement - the ones who came up with all those distortions of science - know that they cannot defend their pseudoscience in front of a room full of experts; that is why they always try to push their junk science in public debate forums in front of naive audiences.

This is why Floyd never discusses any science; he knows that he can't win with science.

One of my own approaches to ID/creationism has been to try to understand and use the misconceptions and misrepresentations of science in order to develop better pedagogical techniques to overcome common misconceptions. In that regard the exercise has been helpful. However, there is a disturbing aspect of ID/creationism that manages to dodge all attempts to correct misconceptions and misrepresentations of scientific concepts; ID/creationist followers are taught how to deliberately mislearn science. One can find examples of these instructions online an in their churches. It isn't just a matter of simply being ignorant of science and scientific concepts; ID/creationists learn formally how to block all neurological channels to the brain by which they could unpack and learn a real scientific concept. They have consciously made themselves illiterate when it comes to science or anything that might conflict with their sectarian beliefs. It is a process of bending the words as they read or listen so that meanings change in the process of reading and hearing scientific concepts explained. I have actually observed this process live quite a number of times over the years; and it never ceases to be disturbing. By the time students coming from these backgrounds are in their teens, they do it automatically; and unless they are fortunate enough to have a life-changing wakeup experience, they simply get more sophisticated at it as they get older. (Q.E.D. with FL's last comment. Unfortunately he is not unique in this case.)

FL said:

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx YOUR side has won the court battles, that is true, but that has not translated into winning the people. FL

Michael Fugate said: Mike, Way back when I was fresh out of college and teaching high school biology in Kansas of all places, I had students bringing Bibles to class everyday to ward off the evil of evolution. I even inspired one of the local churches to start a creationist Sunday school for teens (the pastor's twin daughters were in my class). My favorite anecdote from that time was from a social studies teacher who started a lesson on the evolution of governmental systems and a student's hand shot up and she declared, "I don't believe in evolution, so I'm not taking notes!" Anti-intellectualism runs deep.

I recently learned about a study or something about the effect of being indoctrinated early in life, before the age of ten.

The effect doesn't wear off, it is difficult to take stand against what one has been taught as absolute truth early in life. It must be very convincing when being 'educated' by parents with the best of intentions and a deeply rooted belief that what they are doing is just the right thing to do.

DS said:

Michael Fugate said: Mike, Way back when I was fresh out of college and teaching high school biology in Kansas of all places, I had students bringing Bibles to class everyday to ward off the evil of evolution. I even inspired one of the local churches to start a creationist Sunday school for teens (the pastor's twin daughters were in my class). My favorite anecdote from that time was from a social studies teacher who started a lesson on the evolution of governmental systems and a student's hand shot up and she declared, "I don't believe in evolution, so I'm not taking notes!" Anti-intellectualism runs deep.

The correct response should be: Well I don't believe that you will ever learn enough to pass this class, so I'm not going to bother to grade your exam.

Mike Elzinga said:

DS said:

Michael Fugate said: Mike, Way back when I was fresh out of college and teaching high school biology in Kansas of all places, I had students bringing Bibles to class everyday to ward off the evil of evolution. I even inspired one of the local churches to start a creationist Sunday school for teens (the pastor's twin daughters were in my class). My favorite anecdote from that time was from a social studies teacher who started a lesson on the evolution of governmental systems and a student's hand shot up and she declared, "I don't believe in evolution, so I'm not taking notes!" Anti-intellectualism runs deep.

The correct response should be: Well I don't believe that you will ever learn enough to pass this class, so I'm not going to bother to grade your exam.

Some school districts in several parts of the country - mostly in the South - have allowed sectarian kids to "opt out" of the evolution part of a biology course. I don't know how the grading is handled in those cases; but I can't see any way of justifying anything more than a maximum grade of C in such a case. And if the entire biology course is built on the theme of evolution - as a number of the more modern courses are now doing - then nothing greater than an F would be warranted. One of the problems with sectarian activists from these communities is that they want the same credit for a wrong or watered-down course that other students have to earn by taking the real course. And, in California, they even tried to sue (unsuccessfully, it turned out) the University of California system for not giving high school biology credits to students from sectarian schools that taught creationist biology. Along with their distorted notions of science, these sectarians also have a distorted sense of fairness and morality. They live in and are fed and protected by a secular society, but they want none of the responsibilities of citizenship or education necessary to participate. Many of these sectarians are simply spoiled children full of prideful ignorance who want to be pampered and pandered to.

______ High School parents took a stand against the teaching of evolution to their children -and the _________ Unified School District board just may prevent others from following suit. but the larger question is, who has the final say on what our children learn in school? Once public school became our family’s choice, I got involved, becoming PTA president at two schools and a school site council president. In 1990, the Lord called me to run for school board, so I advanced my involvement to the district level. On the health curriculum committee, for example, I successfully advocated for abstinence-base family life education. When I was first elected as a school board member in 1992, Bible-believing, evangelical Christians were reluctant to enroll their children in public school. Bad policy on sex education and whole-language reading contributed to the movement toward home-schooling and Christian-school enrollment. As I changed the curriculum, elevated the status of parents in district decision-making, defended teachers who wanted to pray at lunchtime and encouraged students to form Christian clubs, I felt I had made a difference. Our children were not forced to abandon their faith at the schoolhouse gate. Public school had now become safe for the children of wary Christians -indeed, for all parents of deep religious conviction. Their voices were heard and heeded. _USD allowed parents to exempt their children if a portion of the curriculum or an intrusive survey contradicted family beliefs, and alternate assignments were granted. To parents like us, the foremost goal in child rearing is that our children know Christ. The Scriptures lead our children to give Jesus Christ pre-eminence in every facet of their lives, discern truth from lies and lead others to salvation. How do my five children approach instruction about evolution in biology? They denounce it and, up to this point, have had no fear in doing so. Their boldness has strengthened the belief of others, too. My children learn the theory of evolution, but they do not believe that life, in its glorious and infinite complexity, is a random happening. Refusal to believe in this God-denying theory has not prevented them from achieving success in post-graduate life. However, some parents are uncomfortable sending their children into battle. for them, there has been a precedent at _USD; alternative assignments. It’s the responsibility of parents, not district administrators, to make an informed decision for their children. It’s also the parents’ God-given right to raise their children as they see fit, and there is no exception during school hours. My prayer is that _USD will continue to be a safe place for parents of religious conviction to choose to send their children.

Michael Fugate said: Wackaloons can be found most anywhere.

Evolution is a hypothesized theory, an unexplainable, farfetched idea. The supposed outcome of it - man – was never observed being formed. To expect a thinking person to accept it as factual science is nonsensical. It is a false religion, maneuvered into our captive-audience children in the governmental public schools, against most of our, wishes. Religion is the act of having faith in something. Our children are being duped into having faith in unscientific evolution, under the guise of proven science. I want it removed from the schools. I am appalled, stunned and cannot understand how supposedly thinking people have even bitten on this bait. Some don't realize this is simply a handy tool used to subject our children to the atheistic idea of no God. Intelligent design does not have to be taught in the schools, but evolution should not be taught because it is not a proven fact. A growing number of science professors and teachers, having taught this concept to children, tearfully admit they were duped and anguish over the fact they led so many astray. They are trying desperately to correct the error they taught, to the extent of writing books about it. Bravo for their courage and humility. Children have quite simply been indoctrinated/brainwashed about a false theory/idea from youth onward. Put yourself in the child's place. What vulnerable child could possibly refute this theory while under the dominating teacher's influence? If that child is taught differently at home, the confusion and stress it causes the child is excruciating for him/her to bear, and undermines the rights of the parents to teach their child as they wish. Children lose heart when they grow up thinking they are nothing but evolved animals. Actually, they are intricately woven created human beings. The theory that the evolving man gets better and smarter at each level is an ideal climate for the idea of racism to blossom- one level better than the other. However, the creation of human beings, of man/woman, by God allows no racism. All are created equal- no mention of race or color is made since all are brother and sisters, descended from the original human beings (Acts17:26- NKJV). We need our schools to return to using Classroom time for teaching basics so our children will be employable after finishing high school. Research now shows that sex and drug education encourages promiscuous behavior rather than discourages it, as is certainly evidenced by the downturn of our national teen culture. Including these courses in the public schools, has led us to be the sickest nation of teens/young adults in the world. Promiscuity, minds dominated by sex (not love), young teen single parenthood, abortions, fatherless children, malnourishment, addictions, STDs resulting in sterility, depression, suicide, murders in school, homosexuality, etc., are exhibited damaging effects realized in their pre-adult lives and carried into their adult lives. Before the above nonsense courses were force-fed daily to our captive children, and God and prayer forced out, our nation led the world in teen academics and teen morality, and teens were healthy. Consequently, that led to a vibrantly blessed nation. Observe what we have allowed to shamefully happen to a great percentage of those teens and the sick status of our nation. There is no excuse for us. Get the hurtful courses out and get God back in. We've discouraged and deprived a highly significant percentage of three generations of children who have ended up damaged by evolution/health courses being force fed to them. It doesn't take a lot of brains to connect the dots for a thinking people. The money spent on just these two courses could be used to add productive, decent, courses to educate and turn our children's minds optimistically on their future. And guess what? Their behavior would improve too. Let's fight to remove these classes from the schools now and give back to children the "sweet mystery of life" to discover for themselves at the proper adult times of their lives, and help equip our children with a healthy and high academic future. Let's turn it around.

OMG! - research now shows that .....a complete lack of perspective leads one to say really, really stupid things.

Kitzmiller involves a very specific and very rare (but egregious) error made by the Dover School Board: literally **forcing** teachers to teach intelligent design as a mandatory policy.

Mandatory or not, you cannot offer bullshit in public school science classes. Period.

Since it's been 10 years since the Kitzmiller trial, shouldn't some more closet ID creationist professors have attained tenure, so they can "come out" with impunity, as Michael Behe has done?

Sure, opt out of evolution. Opt out of public school altogether. But if you are going to go to public school and graduate you are going to have to follow the state mandated curriculum. If you don't you won't' be going to college. Fine, that's your choice. Opt out of reality all you want, reality won't care in the least. Evolution is part of the curriculum for a reason. You don't like it, you can opt right out of your future.

Says FL "No flaw has been found by any court” NOT because no flaws exist, but simply because Kitzmiller has never been appealed to a higher court.

fnxtr said: Mandatory or not, you cannot offer bullshit in public school science classes. Period.

Michael Fugate quoted from a letter: ...Bad policy on sex education and whole-language reading contributed to the movement toward home-schooling and Christian-school enrollment.

DS said:

FL said:

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx YOUR side has won the court battles, that is true, but that has not translated into winning the people. FL

Floyd I have an honest question for you. DO you deliberately try to be wrong about every single thing you claim? Because you have not once, not ever, presented any evid3nce in defense of any of your ideas that actually, you know, supports your ideas. According to the site you posted, 44% believed that god created humans in their present form in 1982, today the number is 42%. The number has not increased in over thirty years, if anything it has decreased.

FL said: It has always stayed between a healthy 42-47 percent range since 1982. According to you, "my side" "hasn't managed to convince anyone". Yet the Gallup Poll has consistently refuted your claim for decades. And that's with "your side" having total dominance in the nation's courts and public schools for those same decades. So I'm not worried. One mind, one heart, one life at a time. It's still happening now.

FL said:

DS said:

FL said:

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx YOUR side has won the court battles, that is true, but that has not translated into winning the people. FL

Floyd I have an honest question for you. DO you deliberately try to be wrong about every single thing you claim? Because you have not once, not ever, presented any evid3nce in defense of any of your ideas that actually, you know, supports your ideas. According to the site you posted, 44% believed that god created humans in their present form in 1982, today the number is 42%. The number has not increased in over thirty years, if anything it has decreased.

It has always stayed between a healthy 42-47 percent range since 1982. According to you, "my side" "hasn't managed to convince anyone". Yet the Gallup Poll has consistently refuted your claim for decades. And that's with "your side" having total dominance in the nation's courts and public schools for those same decades. So I'm not worried. One mind, one heart, one life at a time. It's still happening now. FL

"According to the 2014 General Social Survey the percentages of the US population that identified as no religion were 21% in 2014, 20% in 2012, just 14% in 2000, and only 8 percent in 1990"

I think I see trend. One rational individual at a time. It's happening now. Thank goodness.

rob said: "According to the 2014 General Social Survey the percentages of the US population that identified as no religion were 21% in 2014, 20% in 2012, just 14% in 2000, and only 8 percent in 1990" I think I see trend. One rational individual at a time. It's happening now. Thank goodness.

FL said:

DS said:

FL said:

DS said: Oh and Floyd, everyone has had access to all of the evidence on both sides for all ten years as well. Your side still hasn't managed to convince anyone.

Actually, from an ID or YEC perspective, I think we're doing pretty good, especially on the question of human origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx YOUR side has won the court battles, that is true, but that has not translated into winning the people. FL

Floyd I have an honest question for you. DO you deliberately try to be wrong about every single thing you claim? Because you have not once, not ever, presented any evid3nce in defense of any of your ideas that actually, you know, supports your ideas. According to the site you posted, 44% believed that god created humans in their present form in 1982, today the number is 42%. The number has not increased in over thirty years, if anything it has decreased.

It has always stayed between a healthy 42-47 percent range since 1982. According to you, "my side" "hasn't managed to convince anyone". Yet the Gallup Poll has consistently refuted your claim for decades. And that's with "your side" having total dominance in the nation's courts and public schools for those same decades. So I'm not worried. One mind, one heart, one life at a time. It's still happening now. FL

DS said: Sure, opt out of evolution. Opt out of public school altogether. You don't like it, you can opt right out of your future.

Futility, thy name is Flawd.

All you can do is bluster and blow and dodge and duck. You're not competent to defend your convictions. You're too impaired to argue your case. You're a helpless mental cripple.

You poor crazy loon.

stevaroni said:

DS said: Sure, opt out of evolution. Opt out of public school altogether. You don't like it, you can opt right out of your future.

Truth is stranger than fiction, DS. There is a case before the Texas Supreme Court today seeking to determine whether a devout Christian family has to make any effort at all to actually educate their "home school" children. Their legal theory: "Learning is unnecessary since they were going to be raptured anyway."

Also, making home school parents actually school their children is a "startling assertion of sweeping governmental power."

Now, normally, I'd simply chuckle at a family that wants their kids to sing religious songs all day in leiu of school, since cases like this never turn out well for the idiot parents*. Buuuuttt... this is Texas... and the case has made it all the way up to the state Supreme Court... so I'm not taking any bets on how this one goes. _{*There is a previous case from the US Supreme Court, Wisconsin_v._Yoder, that establishes that you don't have to give your children much education if it conflicts with your religious principals (in this case they were an Amish group that only educated up till the 8th grade). Still, "not much" is waaayyy mrore than "none"}

fnxtr said:

Kitzmiller involves a very specific and very rare (but egregious) error made by the Dover School Board: literally **forcing** teachers to teach intelligent design as a mandatory policy.

Really? I thought teachers were asked to read a memo that says "you can see Intelligent Design books in the library".

FL said: 4. And finally, in the intervening 10 years, the nation’s Public Schools have already integrated the Internet and the Social Media into their students’ mental diets. Which means that most of the basic information about “Intelligent Design” and “Teach The Controversy” that Darwinists have worked so hard to surpress all those years, is right there anyway at the student’s fingertips, just a google away. Some students ignore the information, but others do not.

Apologies for the poor formatting of my rant above... I clicked Sumbit instead of Preview by accident.

Keelyn said:

fnxtr said:

Kitzmiller involves a very specific and very rare (but egregious) error made by the Dover School Board: literally **forcing** teachers to teach intelligent design as a mandatory policy.

Really? I thought teachers were asked to read a memo that says "you can see Intelligent Design books in the library".

That is almost correct. It mandated the reading of a statement only. It did not require biology teachers to begin instructing ID along with evolution. I don’t know how Floyd arrived at that conclusion. The books were available in the library (which to me is not an issue – I am adamantly opposed to banning a book simply because you don't like the content. I mean within reason. Clearly, we don’t want graphically pornographic material in a public school library.) for students to access freely if they choose. That was not what was at issue in the law suit – it was strictly the mandatory reading of the notice.

Daniel said: Apologies for the poor formatting of my rant above... I clicked Submit instead of Preview by accident.

Mike Elzinga said:

Keelyn said:

fnxtr said:

Kitzmiller involves a very specific and very rare (but egregious) error made by the Dover School Board: literally **forcing** teachers to teach intelligent design as a mandatory policy.

Really? I thought teachers were asked to read a memo that says "you can see Intelligent Design books in the library".

That is almost correct. It mandated the reading of a statement only. It did not require biology teachers to begin instructing ID along with evolution. I don’t know how Floyd arrived at that conclusion. The books were available in the library (which to me is not an issue – I am adamantly opposed to banning a book simply because you don't like the content. I mean within reason. Clearly, we don’t want graphically pornographic material in a public school library.) for students to access freely if they choose. That was not what was at issue in the law suit – it was strictly the mandatory reading of the notice.

The teachers took a stand and refused to read that statement, which then left that task to the administrators. They stood up to the board at the risk of being fired. This was a particularly brave and professional response by the teachers. Forcing teachers to violate their professional responsibilities would undermine the trust put in teachers to do the best job they could in meeting State-mandated educational standards.

But it was Bill Buckingham and the rabid sectarian members of the board who mandated the reading of that statement. They in fact wanted more than that; they wanted ID/creationism taught along side evolution using a book, Of Pandas and People, they purchased with laundered money. They wanted that book in the classroom. The entire board process was a full-blown case of sleazy politics, preaching, and bullying.

These board members were arrogant sectarians bullying and imposing their religion onto the school; and Judge Jones allowed the evidence from letters to the newspapers that demonstrated that the community members themselves saw it as a sectarian war over a religious issue. Yet none of the IDiots at the Discovery Institution have ever acknowledged the fact that this was an unprovoked sectarian war started by fundamentalists on the school board. ID/creationist memories are so polluted by what they want to believe that not one of them has taken time to read the transcripts of the case. Judge Jones was appalled by the perjury and sleazy money laundering tactics of the board members who blatantly lied under oath in court. At one point he was clearly angry and actually took over the cross examination of one of the defendants. ID/creationists have blotted out all of these, and many more, facts that emerged from the trial. It was all about crass, bullying, sectarian religion on the part of the board members.

Mike and Keelyn make a good point. Let's not let this point get lost in the onslaught of impotent bluster by delusional incompetents like Floyd. Creationism not only lost in Dover, it was an unmitigated disaster. Not only was creationism shown to be scientifically vacuous, a significant ruling in itself, but the charlatans were exposed for the lying hypocrites that they truly are.

I still cannot understand how they committed perjury and didn't end up doing jail time. Supposedly it was to avoid an appeal. Couldn't they have appealed anyway? And so what if they did? They would have still been guilty of perjury and they still would have lost again. Why would any judge, so outraged at their duplicity, not want them to pay for the contempt that they so proudly displayed?

And if the decision was so tenuous that there was a chance that it could be reversed on appeal, why hasn't anyone tried the same thing again? Maybe it's just another case of blatant exceptionalism for religious beliefs. These guys broke the law and they got caught. After ten years, they should just be getting out of jail.

And of course these are the lying hypocrites that Floyd defends. How typical.

FL said: 3. A huge and current reason why Kitzmiller is now limited, is as simple as L,S,E,A. LSEA -- the Louisiana Science Education Act. THIS is what the Dover School Board should have put forward. THIS is what the Kansas Board Of Education should have put forward. THIS is what the Ohio Board of Education should have put forward. THIS is what should have been put forward, back in the old days of McLean, Edwards, and even as far back as the Scopes Trial. THIS one item has certainly assisted well in placing Kitzmiller and Judge Jones where they belong -- on the back shelf, on the clearance racks with the expiration dates. LSEA is Kitzmiller-proof. LSEA is ACLU-proof. LSEA is Cult-Of-Darwin-proof. You hate it, but you can't touch it. So far, LSEA's survival all these years is nothing short of amazing. It has become the years-long Gold Standard of Science Education Reform. It's Kitzmiller-proof. As long as it remains so, the Kitzmiller Decision will stay on the BACK shelf, not the front burner. ****

Perhaps it's time for a little reflection. What if the judge had ruled in favor of creationism ten years ago. Well I for one would like to think that there would have been an immediate appeal and a more reasonable judge, faced with the same evidence, would have struck down the decision, ruling it illegal and unconstitutional. But what if the decision were upheld, for whatever reason? I would like to believe that the teachers would still have refused to read the statement. They might have been fired or they might have resigned, but there was probably no way to ever make them violate their principals.

Let's say that the teachers were fired and some administrators were found to read the statement. All of the students would know that the teachers had refused. All of them would know that the teachers were fired. They would probably be smart enough to figure out that they were being lied to. And of course, the same thing would be true even if the teachers were somehow forced to read the statement themselves. So the creationists would have accomplished absolutely nothing, except for possibly a little bad publicity and probably no one would even be tempted to go to the library and read their book of lies.

Well let's say that other creationists, emboldened by the decision, began to teach creationism in public school science classes. The court cases and appeals would pile up until a case was taken all the way to the supreme court. What then? Well if the court ruled agains the creationists, that would probably be the end of it, they might never try again. But, if for some reason the court ruled in favor of creationism, there would be big trouble. It might mean the end of education in this country. It might mean the end of evolutionary biology in this country. It might mean the end of modern medicine and agriculture in this country. Millions might starve to death, or die horribly from preventable diseases. What? You think that's an exaggeration? You think that's fear mongering? Can you say Lysenko? A wise man once said that those who cannot learn the lessons of history are stupid. Once again, I was right.

phhht said: So I’m not worried. One mind, one heart, one life at a time. It’s still happening now.

Keelyn said: Judge Jones was kind in his mercy. The lying bastards should have gone to jail!

eric said:

Keelyn said: Judge Jones was kind in his mercy. The lying bastards should have gone to jail!

Not so kind - IIRC he recommended to the prosecutor's office that one or two of the defense witnesses be prosecuted for lying on the stand. The AG's office declined to press charges. My apologies for my last, off-topic post. This conversation is simultaneously occurring on the BW and here and I forgot which thread I was in. Matt, feel free to move my last post to the BW.

Here is the Pew report. Interesting that acceptance of LBGT is increasing for all categories - even evangelicals.

Another point I always raised is that prior to Dover ID was gaining some ground in the broader community amongst agnostics and more liberal Christians. These were guys who sounded like scientists and not overtly religious saying that evolution was impossible. A lot of media were quoting them quite seriously (with a rebuttal from a real scientist relegated to the last paragraph). I remember the frustration on this site whenever ID came up in the media.
Dover exposed these guys to the world and since then I don't think that even Fox would have them on TV.

I have copies of the main books on the Dover trial, including Lebo's, and have read the trial transcripts, but the one document I have yet to see is the newsletter sent out by the school board in Feb 2005, otherwise known as Exhibit P-127 in the trial records. Does anyone know if this is available anywhere on the 'net please?

Daniel -

Your comment is highly articulate and the hypothesis that some creationists are overt con men and some are foolish marks is common.

It doesn't matter, but I think the former is surprisingly rare. Highly educated, intelligent ideologues who are obviously biased and wrong tend to believe themselves at the conscious level. For an example that will universally accepted, think how many brilliant intellectuals and leaders of the Soviet Union believed sincerely, at the conscious level, in their system.

I certainly don't think such people are honest in the strongest sense of the word. They have built defenses that literally prevent them from seeing reality beyond the most concrete level. An interesting book the describes such tendencies in totally different context is "Superforecasting - the Art of Prediction" by Tetlock and Gardner. I'm not defending the title or overall contents here (the contents are better than the slightly lurid title may imply), but it does present a model of how persistently wrong prestigious "forecasters" of the "pundit" type go wrong. My bottom line summary is, they get more rewards, emotional and otherwise, for confirming their own biases.

Think about it this way. If FL is able to persuade himself, and he clearly is, and he clearly is average or above in superficial aspects of writing ability and presumably underlying intelligence, what is in it for him if he confronts his biases and abandons them? Not much, other than intellectual satisfaction.

One factor may be "curiosity". I'm a curious person; therefor studying science gave me great satisfaction. If you're not, who cares how it works? However intelligent you are, if you lack curiosity, you may just prefer to endlessly insist that the world works in the way that your biases prefer. Why not?

When biases are challenged, there is discomfort (that type of discomfort is usually termed "cognitive dissonance" - a slight misnomer since there is no conscious acknowledgement of the discomfort). Cognitive dissonance can cause reevaluation of ideas, but more often, it causes an emotional commitment doubling down. Expressing excessive anger when challenged about an abstract idea is a sign of cognitive dissonance.

MJHowe said: the one document I have yet to see is the newsletter sent out by the school board in Feb 2005, otherwise known as Exhibit P-127 in the trial records. Does anyone know if this is available anywhere on the 'net please?

harold said: ... the hypothesis that some creationists are overt con men and some are foolish marks is common. It doesn't matter, but I think the former is surprisingly rare. Highly educated, intelligent ideologues who are obviously biased and wrong tend to believe themselves at the conscious level.

What I did fail to mention in my post is that, like you say, I don't consider most of the Aware creationists dishonest, precisely for the same points you make. Take Kurt Wise for example: he knows that science pretty much says "Your religion is wrong on most of its claims", and he knows that the sciences he must reject have a wildly successful track history in explaining and predicting the real world... yet he consciously chooses his religion. But he is honest about it. It generated a tremendous amount of cognitive dissonance, but he always admits his reasons. Or the guy who wrote the "Evolution is NOT a theory in crisis". He acknowledges the success of the ToE... yet chooses to believe his religion even when it flies in the face of reality. But he is honest about it. Hell, I don't even think FL is dishonest... he does engage in diversionary tactics and massive goal-post shifting (like all creationists regardless of classification), but he is not what I would qualify as blatantly dishonest, merely doing mental gymnastics to save his belief. So no, my definition of Aware creationist does not equate to a dishonest person.

Daniel said: Or the guy who wrote the “Evolution is NOT a theory in crisis”.

I have entertained mixed impressions over the years about whether the ID/creationist leaders are dishonest, mentally ill, or habitually self-delusional from early adolescence. I have little doubt that, whatever may be the case, primal fears planted in childhood or early adolescence are the main drivers of their behaviors and perceptions.

Since I know something about the physics and math, I have been able to analyze in excruciation detail the ID/creationists' misconceptions and misrepresentations of physics and math. And I have learned from experts in other fields of science that the patterns of misconceptions and misrepresentations I find in physics and math among all ID/creationists are the same patterns found by those experts in all other areas of science. This tells us that the patterns of misconceptions and misrepresentations are institutionalized within a connected culture; they aren't idiosyncratic to each individual. They aren’t the standard misconceptions that educators find and catalogue in the various areas of science education. There is conscious planning behind it.

ID/creationist misconceptions are unique and bent in particular ways; and they are jarringly and persistently wrong despite the availability of excellent textbooks, study materials, and feedback that could correct those problems. Their calculations are irrelevant and totally off-the-wall; having nothing to do with the basic underlying physics of atoms and molecules, or relativity, or orbital mechanics; whichever of their "experts" is doing the calculating. Their PhD mathematician, after over 12 years of angst and wrangling, still can't get units correct when plugging variables into equations; basic notions that are taught in introductory high school physics and chemistry classes.

And no feedback over a period of five decades of ID/creationism that has ever corrected what ID/creationists churn out repeatedly in every new venue. Are they dishonest, delusional, or mentally ill; what drives them? We know that their religion is a common thread.

The few ID/creationists I have met in person remind me somewhat of the crackpots that show up at seminars, colloquia, and professional scientific meetings; crackpots looking for any scientist who will validate and give testimonials to their crackpot ideas. These characters have psychological problems; and if they happen to latch onto you, they are very hard to shake. Most of them are loners who are out of touch with reality in some way.

But ID/creationists are different in that they direct their arguments at the youth and they have socio/political grass roots organizations pushing their pseudoscience into public education. They aren't loners; they are organized and they communicate with each other. They have think tanks cranking out erroneous science despite the contrary information that is readily available in textbooks.

If one is sitting all day in a plush office and being highly paid to crank out misconceptions and misrepresentations of science - doing the quote mining and everything else it takes to generate an erroneous picture - is that dishonesty, mentally illness, or habitual self-delusion? It is clear that it is done with purpose; and it is directed at a specific audience with the idea that it will be someday be enforced by law.

Many years ago, a mainstream church minister once told me that the emphasis in fundamentalism is on mental. And that raises in my mind the question of what lies behind religious blood feuds and the continuous splintering of a religion into mutually suspicious sectarian branches. What are the mental states of those leaders and their obsessive/compulsive fixations on specific doctrines?

ID/creationist leaders have worked themselves up to the level of superstar status within their sectarian subcultures. That is where their egos are stroked. What is their role in those eternal, internecine battles for sectarian domination? I suspect that if one finds the answer that question, one will have the answer to what drives an ID/creationist leader. And I would bet that it will not be about genuine curiosity and a desire to learn how the universe works. As scientists, ID/creationists are worse than incompetent.

Re "As scientists, ID/creationists are worse than incompetent."

Yeah, one might even say, Deliberately Incompetent.

Funny, Mike. The remark that in fundamentalism the emphasis is on "mental" was also a commonplace of my father's. He was a Presbyterian minister. Possibly it can be traced back to its source, but that would take far more grunt than I've got available.

However, I think it might be said that most Christian clergy from the mainstream denominations are certainly not fundamentalists. He certainly wasn't, and he spent far more mental (there's that word again) energy trying to reconcile what the Bible did say with what he believed, than was good for him. I hope it will offend no one here if I say "God rest his soul". I owe him much more than that wish.

Henry J said: Re "As scientists, ID/creationists are worse than incompetent." Yeah, one might even say, Deliberately Incompetent.

Dave Luckett said: Funny, Mike. The remark that in fundamentalism the emphasis is on "mental" was also a commonplace of my father's. He was a Presbyterian minister.

j. biggs said:

FL said: 3. A huge and current reason why Kitzmiller is now limited, is as simple as L,S,E,A. LSEA -- the Louisiana Science Education Act. THIS is what the Dover School Board should have put forward. THIS is what the Kansas Board Of Education should have put forward. THIS is what the Ohio Board of Education should have put forward. THIS is what should have been put forward, back in the old days of McLean, Edwards, and even as far back as the Scopes Trial. THIS one item has certainly assisted well in placing Kitzmiller and Judge Jones where they belong -- on the back shelf, on the clearance racks with the expiration dates. LSEA is Kitzmiller-proof. LSEA is ACLU-proof. LSEA is Cult-Of-Darwin-proof. You hate it, but you can't touch it. So far, LSEA's survival all these years is nothing short of amazing. It has become the years-long Gold Standard of Science Education Reform. It's Kitzmiller-proof. As long as it remains so, the Kitzmiller Decision will stay on the BACK shelf, not the front burner. ****

Well Floyd, since you are so fond of the LSEA (you say the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was limited, but you seem to think the LSEA isn't curious), looks like you might just get your wish to see how it stands up in court. Airline High in Bossier Parish, Louisiana has just received a warning shot from the ACLU because there is ample evidence that the school is violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. What does the principle and the school board claim as their protection from their illegal behavior? Well, none other than the LSEA. Apparently the LSEA allows the principle to recite prayers over the loudspeaker and the home economics teacher to make students recite Bible verses while making chocolate chip cookies. Like pretty much all god bots with some authority, they can't even hide their religious motivation. Well they have been warned and apparently they won't be backing down. Any guesses as to how this will turn out Floyd?

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The Bossier Parish school board issued the following statement: “The Bossier Parish School Board is committed to honoring state and federal law as it relates to the rights of all students, regardless of their religious beliefs. Within the last week, the ACLU has complained about alleged practices at Airline High School relative to prayer, the principal’s monthly messages, prayer boxes and the content of the school’s website. The system has also received Freedom Guard’s open response to the ACLU’s allegations and legal analysis. “The Board’s counsel has investigated the allegations raised by the ACLU and found them to be without a factual or legal basis. At the same time, the Board wishes to publicly reaffirm its intent to operate a successful school district in which equal access is recognized and the legal rights of all students are respected, including those of its students who wish to engage in student-lead, student-initiated religious expression. “This Statement is being entered into the official minutes of this Board and released to the press. Copies are being sent to the Governor, the State Superintendent of Education, members of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Executive Director of the Louisiana School Board Association as such persons and entities, along with the members of our school communities and parents, are stake-holders in our school system. “The Board and its administration welcome meaningful discussion of this and any issue but will base their decisions on the law and facts as they know them to exist. Decisions in the best interest of our students can never result from threats and intimidation.” -- KSLA News Channel 12 (online story)

FL said: Keelyn has already brought up the key text that separates the LSEA from the alleged events at Airline High School in Bossier Parish, La.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

There you go. Spelled out totally. So it’s clear that the LSEA has got nothing to do with any alleged Christian prayers, proselytizations, Bible readings, etc. If the alleged activities are accurately reported, then those activities are in VIOLATION of the LSEA. That’s therefore strictly falling on the Airline High people and admins, if the allegations prove to be true. The ACLU can take it up with THEM in court, but that stuff is ALL separate from the LSEA. At least for anybody who has read the actual text of the LSEA, which only deals with teaching and discussing scientific theories.

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Bibles, Bible readings, prayers, and evangelism efforts are clearly NOT scientific theories. So again, everything is spelled out to the letter. So nobody on any side can reasonably claim that the LSEA is the basis for any alleged religious or religious-proselytism events at Bossier Parish/Airline High School.

If one is sitting all day in a plush office and being highly paid to crank out misconceptions and misrepresentations of science - doing the quote mining and everything else it takes to generate an erroneous picture - is that dishonesty, mentally illness, or habitual self-delusion?

harold said:

If one is sitting all day in a plush office and being highly paid to crank out misconceptions and misrepresentations of science - doing the quote mining and everything else it takes to generate an erroneous picture - is that dishonesty, mentally illness, or habitual self-delusion?

Impossible to answer in individual cases, but overall, evidence seems to suggest that "habitual self-deception" is a surprisingly likely answer.

Uh, Floyd, I think you might have missed the second page where a school district representative invokes the LSEA.

The Bossier school system has justified teaching creationism through a law called the Louisiana Science Education Act that allows teachers to “critique” evolution through “supplemental materials.” In an email to Michael Gryboski, a reporter for the Christian Post, representatives of the school district told him, “Our educators may choose to use the Bible as supplementary material in presenting alternative viewpoints to evolution,” language drawn directly from the law. Another email I obtained, from Tom Daniel, Bossier’s chief academic officer, said, somewhat unintelligibly: “The information that [Bossier Parish’s supervisor of high school curriculum] sent to you was generated due to the Legislature’s ACT 473 – Science Education Act. We are encouraging teachers to use the Bible to teach creationism but rather to supplementary material to present alternative viewpoints to evolution.”

These statements are on the record. So, I suppose you could argue they weren't doing it right, but it will certainly provide an opening for the ACLU to attack the LSEA if this goes to court. And considering these statements along with the other proselytizing being done, that there is someone in the district complaining (otherwise the ACLU isn't going to send a warning letter), and the district's press release claiming no wrongdoing and the principal saying nothing is going to change, my guess is that this will end up in court. It was only ever a matter of time.

Bibles, Bible readings, prayers, and evangelism efforts are clearly NOT scientific theories.

Can we quote you on that when teachers or administrators try to pass them off as such, FL? Like maybe the Bossier Parish supervisor of high school curriculum?

But Keelyn specifically told Floyd he had to read the second page. I guess he missed it anyway. Go figure. Maybe he was right and LESA really wasn't meant to shoehorn religion into the public schools. It doesn't really have any other function, but so what? I guess these guys just didn't get the memo. Oh well, LESA or no LESA, what they are doing is illegal and unconstitutional, as well as immoral. They will no doubt pay and hopefully help to pull down LESA as well. Or at least make it clear that nobody else should be stupid enough to try to pull this crap again. So all of the hot air spouted by Floyd will once again be for naught.

J. Biggs wrote: These statements are on the record. So, I suppose you could argue they weren’t doing it right, but it will certainly provide an opening for the ACLU to attack the LSEA if this goes to court.

So Flawd, set us straight. Did Joseph of the bible actually build the Pyramids to store grain, like Ben Carson says, or is that just another loony christian claim, like creationism?

Really Floyd? The only reason the act was written was to allow for the teaching of creationism in science classes. That is clear from the statements of the authors, supporters, and of course the Discovery Institute - no matter what Westie says.

As Kopplin said “You don't need a law to teach critical thinking. That's what science is. You need a law to teach creationism.”

tomh said:

MJHowe said: the one document I have yet to see is the newsletter sent out by the school board in Feb 2005, otherwise known as Exhibit P-127 in the trial records. Does anyone know if this is available anywhere on the 'net please?

Dover Area School District News, Biology Curriculum Update, Feb 2005

phhht said: So Flawd, set us straight. Did Joseph of the bible actually build the Pyramids to store grain, like Ben Carson says, or is that just another loony christian claim, like creationism?

Meet The Pyramid Truthers: Where Ben Carson’s Whacky Theory Came From

“Some people believe in the Bible, like I do, and don't find that to be silly at all, and believe that God created the Earth and don't find that to be silly at all,” [Ben] Carson told reporters Thursday. -- ibid.

I get the impression that some creationists "know" the Bible is right but they also realise that the evidence currently points to evolution. They argue and deflect waiting for somebody to come up with killer arguments in their favour.
Take FL for example. He will hang around until somebody asks him a follow up question about the Bible. If he can't ignore it He'll disappear for a week.

MichaelJ said: I get the impression that some creationists "know" the Bible is right but they also realise that the evidence currently points to evolution. They argue and deflect waiting for somebody to come up with killer arguments in their favour. Take FL for example. He will hang around until somebody asks him a follow up question about the Bible. If he can't ignore it He'll disappear for a week.

FL said: But somebody is going to ask in court, "OK show me where the specific LSEA text said or even implied any such thing", and then the ACLU lawyer is going to ask for a court recess because the ACLU will be dead meato. FL

FL said: “My teacher read a Bible text in my health class today” is guaranteed to pique the interest of the ACLU, but only in terms of correcting the actual situation itself. That stuff doesn’t involve the LSEA in any way. Keelyn has already brought up the key text that separates the LSEA from the alleged events at Airline High School in Bossier Parish, La.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

There you go. Spelled out totally.

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Bibles, Bible readings, prayers, and evangelism efforts are clearly NOT scientific theories. So again, everything is spelled out to the letter. So nobody on any side can reasonably claim that the LSEA is the basis for any alleged religious or religious-proselytism events at Bossier Parish/Airline High School.

And by the way, there's two sides to that Louisiana story -- not just the side presented by evolution activist Zack Kopplin (whose activism has been defeated multiple times, by the way).

The Bossier Parish school board issued the following statement: “The Bossier Parish School Board is committed to honoring state and federal law as it relates to the rights of all students, regardless of their religious beliefs. Within the last week, the ACLU has complained about alleged practices at Airline High School relative to prayer, the principal’s monthly messages, prayer boxes and the content of the school’s website. The system has also received Freedom Guard’s open response to the ACLU’s allegations and legal analysis. “The Board’s counsel has investigated the allegations raised by the ACLU and found them to be without a factual or legal basis. At the same time, the Board wishes to publicly reaffirm its intent to operate a successful school district in which equal access is recognized and the legal rights of all students are respected, including those of its students who wish to engage in student-lead, student-initiated religious expression. “This Statement is being entered into the official minutes of this Board and released to the press. Copies are being sent to the Governor, the State Superintendent of Education, members of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Executive Director of the Louisiana School Board Association as such persons and entities, along with the members of our school communities and parents, are stake-holders in our school system. “The Board and its administration welcome meaningful discussion of this and any issue but will base their decisions on the law and facts as they know them to exist. Decisions in the best interest of our students can never result from threats and intimidation.” -- KSLA News Channel 12 (online story)

So now there's two sides of the story, now there's a battle to establish exactly what HAS or HAS NOT actually taken place within Bossier Parish and Airline High School in terms of religious activities or religious proselytism. That process is going to require time and hashing-out all by itself. Don't look for the ACLU to just rush right into the nearest courtroom on this one. Meanwhile, nobody on ANY side seems to be able to demonstrate exactly how the LSEA text, with its very very VERY specific wording, causes or even **permits** the alleged religious or proselytism events at Bossier Parish.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

FL said: But somebody is going to ask in court, "OK show me where the specific LSEA text said or even implied any such thing", and then the ACLU lawyer is going to ask for a court recess because the ACLU will be dead meato. Zack Kopplin asks when will the ACLU file the big lawsuit. Hey, I don't know. I just know what the LSEA text says. And THAT, is why Mr. Zack better not be in any hurry to see the ACLU rush into that courthouse.

CJColucci said: Bibles, Bible readings, prayers, and evangelism efforts are clearly NOT scientific theories. Can we quote you on that when teachers or administrators try to pass them off as such, FL? Like maybe the Bossier Parish supervisor of high school curriculum?

FL said: But somebody is going to ask in court, "OK show me where the specific LSEA text said or even implied any such thing", and then the ACLU lawyer is going to ask for a court recess because the ACLU will be dead meato.

I think the key to determining whether or not ID/creationists actually know that they are deceiving their audience lies in the fact that they don’t submit their calculations to the prestigious scientific journals. If they really believed that their claims were true and had revolutionary consequences for the course of science, then, as scientists, they would want to give their ideas exposure in the most important and widely-read journals in the fields where they apply.

Courts are always so impressed by "this act shall not be construed as being for the purpose for which it was written" clauses.

eric said:

CJColucci said: Bibles, Bible readings, prayers, and evangelism efforts are clearly NOT scientific theories. Can we quote you on that when teachers or administrators try to pass them off as such, FL? Like maybe the Bossier Parish supervisor of high school curriculum?

You can, but its unlikely to do any good. He seems to be just trying to one-up whatever comments we make rather than arguing from a firm position. So first it was "Kitzmiller important", FL: "Kitzmiller meaningless because LSEA." Then "LSEA hasn't helped creationism", FL: "Of course not, religion not allowed under it." Now we've responded "Bossier county explicitly quoting it", and no doubt FL will come back with some rhetorical point which is again (at best) orthogonal to or (at worst) contradicts his earlier points.

Meet The Pyramid Truthers: Where Ben Carson’s Whacky Theory Came From

Karen s said: They believe that lots and lots of marvelous, advanced technology was lost in the flood of Noah (how they knew that wasn't explained), and that the great pyramid is much more advanced than the others.

harold said:

I think the key to determining whether or not ID/creationists actually know that they are deceiving their audience lies in the fact that they don’t submit their calculations to the prestigious scientific journals. If they really believed that their claims were true and had revolutionary consequences for the course of science, then, as scientists, they would want to give their ideas exposure in the most important and widely-read journals in the fields where they apply.

They aren't perfectly honest but probably aren't consciously aware that they are deceiving others, either. Their rationalization here is easy. They claim that the scientific journals are "biased" and "hostile". We're all familiar with this.

Eric wrote: FL: “Of course not, religion not allowed under it.” Now we’ve responded, “Bossier county explicitly quoting it”

There is a hypothesis about religions that they thrive when they demand something of the adherents which strongly differentiates them from others. Somethng that one does (or not do), or something that one believes. Something which is outrageous enough that one would not accept it without the religion.

Is it possible that this is what is going on with these public figures, that they are showing that they are part of the right religious group by saying outrageous things. That they feel the need to be outrageous. They realize that they are not going to be accepted by the others, but they are proving themselves to their co-religionists?

Just to clear up a few legal matters, since this is my wheelhouse. The only reason LSEA hasn't been litigated (and struck down) already is that, as FL obligingly points out, it is utterly meaningless -- and by intelligent design. There are two kinds of constitutional challenges one can make to a law: a "facial" challenge and an "as applied" challenge. If a Lousiana law explicitly required teaching religious creation stories in science class, it would be unconstitutional, in lawyer jargon, "on its face," and someone could sue immediately and get it struck down, without having to show that anyone actually did anything under the purported authority of the law. The LSEA isn't like that. Because it is utterly meaningless, no one can tell whether it is unconstitutional until we see what people do under it. So no one has -- more lawyer jargon -- "standing" to challenge the law because no one's rights have -- yet -- been violated. The LSEA sits on the statute books like an inert blob. Once someone actually does something relying on the LSEA, then someone can bring an "as applied" challenge. challenge.
FL insists that anything unconstitutional being done by school officials who say they are relying on the LSEA is actually in violation of the LSEA. This is not obviously nuts. A court faced with an "as applied" challenge to the LSEA could conceivably decide that the LSEA doesn't authorize what the defendants are doing and not bother with the constitutional issue. That is unlikely, however, because that is a standing invitation to more cases where people do unconstitutional things claiming authorization under the LSEA and more cases saying: "No, the LSEA doesn't authorize that" until someone gets the bright idea to ask, "well, what does it authorize?" And then the game is up, because no one needs the LSEA to teach any genuine scientific theory in science class. It's literally a law about nothing, which raises the question of what it is for and why it was enacted, the answer to which we all know and litigants can easily prove. So most likely a judge would scotch the snake right away by reaching the constitutional issue.

TomS said: There is a hypothesis about religions that they thrive when they demand something of the adherents which strongly differentiates them from others. Somethng that one does (or not do), or something that one believes. Something which is outrageous enough that one would not accept it without the religion. Is it possible that this is what is going on with these public figures, that they are showing that they are part of the right religious group by saying outrageous things. That they feel the need to be outrageous. They realize that they are not going to be accepted by the others, but they are proving themselves to their co-religionists?

Jon Fleming said: Courts are always so impressed by "this act shall not be construed as being for the purpose for which it was written" clauses.

CJColucci said: It's literally a law about nothing, which raises the question of what it is for and why it was enacted, the answer to which we all know and litigants can easily prove.

You do have to wonder about the people who wrote and promoted the LSEA. The reason for the law is they really, really want creationism to be taught in schools and they really, really want evolution to not be taught in schools. The other examples of "controversies" are window-dressing and a lame attempt to camouflage their true intent. How exactly did they think this law would accomplish what they want? Or was it just a statement that we don't like evolution and nothing more?

Michael Fugate said: You do have to wonder about the people who wrote and promoted the LSEA. The reason for the law is they really, really want creationism to be taught in schools and they really, really want evolution to not be taught in schools. The other examples of "controversies" are window-dressing and a lame attempt to camouflage their true intent. How exactly did they think this law would accomplish what they want? Or was it just a statement that we don't like evolution and nothing more?

Just recently Ben Carson has been extremely flippant in his ludicrous assertions to the media because he is playing to his sectarian audiences and apparently doesn’t believe the responses from the scientific community and other experts will have any effect on his audiences. The secular world has already been thoroughly demonized within his subculture, but he has celebrity status; and that’s all that matters to him. I could be wrong, but I suspect that all ID/creationist leaders are consciously making these kinds of calculations when they make the ludicrous assertions about science that they frequently do.

4) His level of arrogance is common among scientists and doctors. We can’t blame his issues on an inherent arrogant personality. An unusual degree of humility and mental maturity might have led him to question creationism at some point, but his level of arrogance is well within population norms.

Our brains are full of biases. They are necessary and allow us to respond efficiently to the environment. Learning how and when to control them is actually challenging.

And this brings me back to a point I was trying to make earlier; ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations are not just wrong, they are silly and immature; and I really do mean immature. They haven’t benefited from any feedback from anyone with any expertise because that peer review was never sought. Those letters after their names have made them arrogant, self-proclaimed authorities without any of the hands-on experience working scientists acquire after years of effort.

Speaking outside one’s areas of expertise requires a great deal of caution; as one should know very well if one has learned from the experiences any expert encounters within his/her own areas.

Mike Elzinga said: Harold makes some excellent points. In particular, this:

4) His level of arrogance is common among scientists and doctors. We can’t blame his issues on an inherent arrogant personality. An unusual degree of humility and mental maturity might have led him to question creationism at some point, but his level of arrogance is well within population norms.

I think this one is important because I have seen it in person numerous times; and in the case of the medical profession, I had just recently seen a surgeon playing radiologist and making a far-fetched diagnosis of an extremely rare disease on the basis of an ambiguous MRI image. Fortunately other experts intervened and prevented a totally unnecessary operation. Arrogant physicians going on an egotistical rampage can be deadly. The medical profession needs as much or more peer review as does any other area of basic or applied science. And it isn't just physicians who can be out of line by acting outside their area of expertise; we have seen this behavior in a few Nobel Prize winning crackpots as well. Speaking outside one's areas of expertise requires a great deal of caution; as one should know very well if one has learned from the experiences any expert encounters within his/her own areas. This is why peer review is so important; not just in the basic sciences, but in the applied areas as well. We all make silly mistakes; and, if we learn anything from our daily activities in doing research and reporting results, it should be that we need to check what we are doing routinely. When we do calculations and modeling, check units and do the calculations from different starting points and with different assumptions. When we design and build anything, test it and make sure it is safe to operate and does what it is supposed to do. Always have alternative procedures and experiments in place to check for systematic errors. Know thoroughly the idiosyncrasies of your equipment. Check everything down to the finest detail. For example, don't announce to the entire world that neutrinos travel faster than light before you discover that your results were caused by a faulty connector in a critical signal cable. A detailed list of such checks would be long; but in any case, research makes one humble because it always takes longer than it takes, and it always requires a thorough shakedown period of operation to work the bugs out of any experiment. Just the doing of research in itself is a detailed lesson in humility. It is difficult for anyone to escape these lessons if one is deeply involved. Furthermore, one learns to recognize good advice because one has already become familiar with excruciating details and recognizes that familiarity in others. And that is why anyone who has achieved a level of expertise in one or more areas should be aware of the need for caution and should defer to experts in other fields whenever one is asked to comment outside one's own area of expertise. Also, self-confidence is not the same as lack of humility. Most researchers require a lot of dogged determination and confidence in order to pursue their research goals; but the humility part is recognition of the fact that scientific peer review is absolutely necessary and should be sought out and welcomed. ID/creationists never do this; they are not integrated into the scientific profession and cannot be called scientists in any sense of that word. And this brings me back to a point I was trying to make earlier; ID/creationist misconceptions and misrepresentations are not just wrong, they are silly and immature; and I really do mean immature. They haven’t benefited from any feedback from anyone with any expertise because that peer review was never sought. Those letters after their names have made them arrogant, self-proclaimed authorities without any of the hands-on experience working scientists acquire after years of effort. These ID/creationist characters have avoided all that experience in order to get to the top of their subcultures in a hurry. And they haven't learned one of the most basic lessons of science that Harold points out.

Our brains are full of biases. They are necessary and allow us to respond efficiently to the environment. Learning how and when to control them is actually challenging.

Its boring about these trivial court cases. Just more cases are coming in time.
There is no way to be the equations.
If anything is censored in the education etc world then it means someone is saying its not true. Truth is the objective of education.
So if the state censors creationism in origin subjects in science class then the state is saying its not true was is censored since the subject classes are about truth and even getting it right by better methodology.
If they do this they are saying creationism is nort true and so breaking the state/church separation concept WHICH they invoke for the censorship legitimacy.
Its legelly imp[ossible to censor creationism and much less by the law to justify the censorship.
censoring equals denial of a option for truth. In education this is absurd.
Its so clearly a hostility to Christian doctrines.
I have never seen anyone beat these equations.
More cases please, we are creationists.
In Canada too . America matters more since its freedoms original and still greatest advocate.

The apostrophically challenged Byers troll. It makes less sense than usual - please ignore it.

CJColucci said: Just to clear up a few legal matters, since this is my wheelhouse. The only reason LSEA hasn't been litigated (and struck down) already is that, as FL obligingly points out, it is utterly meaningless -- and by intelligent design.

ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that if the Act is utilized as written, it should be fine.... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/aclu_says_louisiana_science_ed008301.html

So Flawd, got any verifiable evidence that your loony stories about creation gods are true?

No, of course not. Why don't you run along and work on something else. Like your own mental health.

Alfloyd Lee Neuman said: (The usual concern troll horseshit pretending he actually understands and values science.)

FL said: Permission for what? To introduce and discuss supplemental class-handouts featuring snippets from peer-review science-journal articles showing **big problems** in the origin-of-life arena. ..."Chance And Necessity Do Not Explain Origin of Life", 2004, Trevors and Able, Cell Biology International

IOW, the LSEA, allows science teachers to propose and (if approved up the ladder) to offer supplemental science material and class discussions WITH necessary legal protection for themselves, so that overzealous evolutionist or atheist parents or groups won't be able to automatically hold the science teacher's job hostage by falsely screaming "creationism" to the media or the ACLU.

And this includes other science topics and theories too: the issues of human cloning, climate change, other science topics. Nothing is singled out here.

Henry J said: Re "As scientists, ID/creationists are worse than incompetent." Yeah, one might even say, Deliberately Incompetent.

How would a science teacher properly “utilize” the LSEA? Well, here’s one possible example: A biology teacher teaches from the standard district-approved biology textbook. The teacher and class arrive at the Origin-Of-Life chapter. So a conscientious and caring science teacher would properly follow the chain of command up the ladder, to obtain permission. Permission for what? To introduce and discuss supplemental class-handouts featuring snippets from peer-review science-journal articles showing **big problems** in the origin-of-life arena. …”Chance And Necessity Do Not Explain Origin of Life”, 2004, Trevors and Able, Cell Biology International …or maybe some of the late Leslie Orgel’s descriptions of problems with the RNA World hypothesis from a few of his science-journal published articles. Or other science-journal articles that pose problems for the so-called “primordial soup.”

FL: "I never said, nor even suggested, that the LSEA was meaningless. Not at all. That’s just a falsehood."

True, he never said that; it is simply the logical implication of what he did say. If FL says he doesn't get that, I'm not surprised. He often fails to understand the logical implications of what he says.

eric said: Moreover, such a list would transparently shows the teacher's or administrator's politically-driven motivation because one of those things on your list isn't even 'science' at all. 'Human cloning' isn't a science issue. How to clone might be, but there would be no reason to discuss human cloning in science class specifically, given that we can't do it, nobody is trying/proposing to do it, and even if we could, the question of whether we should allow it or not would be an ethical and policy issue not a science issue.

This. This exactly shows that FL and creationists don't really consider things they don't like as "real". Exactly why human cloning would be a controversial issue, speaking in terms of it being factually possible? Either we can or we cannot right now, but wheather we should try is an ethical discussion. Generalizing to animal cloning... in science class we can teach that animals HAVE been cloned. There is nothing controversial about that fact, since nobody doubts that we have cloned animals. There is no religion that says we haven't. The ethics of it are another story, but the reality of cloning is not controversial. Same as climate change. THe fact that there is global warming and is caused by humans is not controversial. Why shouldn't we teach in science class that fact? What could be controversial would be a matter of Economics, about how if we implement politicies to reduce GW we might harm our economy, but scientifically speaking there is nothing controversial about it.

FL said: ... The two Bossier Parish guys only said LSEA supports them. Just the title of "LSEA", nothing more. They haven't actually quoted (neither explicitly nor implicitly!) a single word, not even a single syllable, out of the LSEA itself, in support any of the alleged religious activities. No "explicit quotation" has been given at all. Not by them, not by you. That's what I'm asking you for; that's what your ACLU is ABSOLUTELY looking for. Somebody better find some and put it on their table quick. Let's have some explicit quotations; let's see some actual LSEA text snips, please. ...

Maybe LESA stands for Limited Science Education ALternatives.

FL said: ... (2) CJColucci, near the end of the post, also pointed to a possibility by which a judge could kill the LSEA even if **nobody on any side of the dispute** could demonstrate that a single word of the LSEA had anything to do with, (for example), the alleged religious events or prayers of Airline High School. Well, that's unfortunate. But if that possibility exists, then it just plain exists. C'est la vie. Those who put their faith in government, courts, or officials to always do the right thing, are guaranteed to be disappointed. But I am glad that the ACLU already conceded that the LSEA is constitutional, so that even if someday a biased judge gets rid of the LSEA, the ACLU's public concession can still be pointed out time and time again. Just for the fun (and the PR value) of it. ...

The reunion was a blast. Diane and I got there too late for the panel discussion on Thursday night, where there was an appearance of the janitor who burned the student mural on evolution back in 2003(IIRC), waving a bible kinda like Captain Fitzroy. And we woke up too late to attend the workshop on Friday, but had a nice consolation in a kayak outing on the Conewago with Jeff Lebo. There was a dinner gather Friday night at the Lebos and discussion running way too late by the fire. (Friday's weather was close to perfect, with just a bit of drizzle in the afternoon that did not discourage us from taking the kayaks out.) Saturday featured more arrivals and a potluck starting in the afternoon, and a notable departure in that Ken Miller had to get to another event. PT's contingent of Nick Matzke, Burt Humburg, and me had a discussion and group photo that Burt posted to Facebook. The evening featured a panel discussion moderated by Vic Walczak, with Christy Rehm, Richard Katskee, Kevin Padian, Eric Rothschild, and Nick Matzke discussing the case and the years after. Baba Brinkman gave a performance of his new "Rap Guide to Climate Chaos", lighting up the crowd and benefiting the ACLU-PA. There was yet more discussion back at the Lebos afterward, going on into the morning hours well past when I faded. Sunday mornings are tough at these things, as almost everyone hanging about at the Brewhouse Mountain Eco-Inn (check it out on AirBNB; you, too, can stay in the famous Beer Can Museum) packed up, had breakfast, and said their farewells. Nick and I had a leisurely discussion on Sunday afternoon, and pizza for dinner with Jeff, Lauri, and Diane. We said our own good-byes on Monday morning and headed back to Michigan.

j.biggs wrote: But if a district does what Bossier Parish has done it creates “standing” where a plaintiff can sue to demonstrate the LSEA has “been applied” in an unconstitutional manner. At that point, it can be struck down if the court decides not doing so will likely cause more litigation (so long as the plaintiffs have demonstrated that likelihood). I thought it was all pretty well laid out.

…In an email to Michael Gryboski, a reporter for the Christian Post, representatives of the school district told him, “Our educators may choose to use the Bible as supplementary material in presenting alternative viewpoints to evolution,” language drawn directly from the law…

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

So Flawd, still no verifiable evidence for the truth of your preposterous contentions. Still no empirical evidence for the reality of gods. All your assertions remain nothing but empty, baseless blather.

Why don't you explain to us how your beliefs in gods differ from delusions. How can we tell the difference?

FL said: Meanwhile, Eric tried to resurrect the following dead meat:

…In an email to Michael Gryboski, a reporter for the Christian Post, representatives of the school district told him, “Our educators may choose to use the Bible as supplementary material in presenting alternative viewpoints to evolution,” language drawn directly from the law…

But that doesn't mean anything, because the LSEA's actual text has already shut the door on it.

No, LSEA says you have to go up the chain of command regarding permission, and your local city, district or parish asks permission of the STATE board to "allow" and also "assist" you (the teacher) regarding doing those supplemental materials that you are requesting permission to bring into class. State Board has to ALLOW you to do it.

The text is clear on this part too:

D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

So Floyd were the authors of the LSEA saying that before the law passed there was neither critical thinking nor logical analysis employed in Louisiana public schools? That is a pretty damning indictment and probably should have been rectified long ago. I wonder why none of the teachers notice this deficiency and didn't just fix it themselves?

Alfloyd Lee Neuman said: (His usual mix of obfuscation, word games, preening, and condescension.)

Floyd, I understood what you wrote perfectly well, but you brought up that the ACLU stated previously the LSEA was constitutional, therefore any judge that rules against it is biased and and activist. But this statement completely ignored what was so clearly laid out; Yes the ACLU admits the LSEA is constitutional on its face, but if it can find a plaintiff with standing they can try to show it is unconstitutional in application. If the ACLU sues to challenge the constitutionality of LSEA in its application, then obviously they don't think the LSEA is constitutional even if it was on it's face. And if the ACLU can demonstrate unconstitutional application, a judge ruling in their favor can hardly be considered biased or activist for following ruling in their favor.

Secondly you have me confused with eric. You said the school district reps didn't use "one syllable" of the LSEA when they clearly used part of its language which consists of multiple syllables, so I reposted that part of the quote. BTW, this isn't a teacher writing this in an email. This is someone representing the school district. So your whole, "this wasn't approved higher up" argument won't fly, especially considering the part of the law you quoted said a district or parish, etc. can request assistance from the state, not that they have to. This email is just one piece of evidence that shows the school applied the LSEA in an unconstitutional manner. As CJColucci alluded, if the ACLU can demonstrate that the LSEA has little other purpose than to generate this type of "misapplication", it is likely to be struck down to avoid further litigation. And in the end, yes it's possible that the ACLU may not sue, but usually when they fire out a warning, they have a case they are ready to pursue.

BTW, I love how you redact my real criticism of your posts from your follow up to try to make my arguments look silly. It really makes you look dishonest.

Yardbird said:

Alfloyd Lee Neuman said: (His usual mix of obfuscation, word games, preening, and condescension.)

People on this blog have been reading just what you wrote for years. It's pretty easy by now to figure out the game you're running so it's not surprising that people respond not to your words, but to your intent. If you hadn't proved over and over that you're a lying asshole, you might be taken at face value. At this point, it would take more than your phony complaints about how misunderstood you are to turn that around. So, please continue fucking off.

What was the point of calling creationism "creation science"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools.
What was the point of calling creationism "intelligent design"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools.
What was the point of calling creationism "academic freedom"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools.

Anyone spot a trend?

Michael Fugate said: What was the point of calling creationism "creation science"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. What was the point of calling creationism "intelligent design"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. What was the point of calling creationism "academic freedom"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. Anyone spot a trend?

eric said:

Michael Fugate said: What was the point of calling creationism "creation science"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. What was the point of calling creationism "intelligent design"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. What was the point of calling creationism "academic freedom"? To get around the 1st amendment and proselytize in public schools. Anyone spot a trend?

What's really crazy about the current conversation is that FL seems to be defending a non-creationism-allowing interpretation of the LSEA, when I'd guess that the ACLU and most of us here aren't attacking a non-creationism-allowing interpretation of the LSEA. We're attacking Bossier county's creationism-including interpretation of it, and by extension other similar interpretations that may be flying under the radar. I kinda see the evolution (ahem) of this conversation a bit like this: FL: "I want to bring my pet dog to school." Us: "Pet dogs shouldn't be allowed in school." FL: "What about this law allowing service dogs?" Us: "Those aren't pets, so okay." FL: "Ha! I win! I can bring in my non-pet service dog to school, and you can't stop me!" Us: "We don't want to stop you bringing your service dog, just your pet." FL: "Well the law only allows service dogs, not pets, so I win!" Us: "?????"

Do they really want to critique evolution without being able to promote the Bible as its replacement? Can you imagine the existential angst this could cause among our youth; they will be even more purposeless than they are now.

Michael Fugate said: Do they really want to critique evolution without being able to promote the Bible as its replacement? Can you imagine the existential angst this could cause among our youth; they will be even more purposeless than they are now.

j. biggs said:

Michael Fugate said: Do they really want to critique evolution without being able to promote the Bible as its replacement? Can you imagine the existential angst this could cause among our youth; they will be even more purposeless than they are now.

Well, I think that many sectarians are content just to ruin science. But as we see, the useful idiots that put these hucksters in charge don't know how to shut up about their religious motivations. They always eventually let the cat out of the bag like they did in Dover, like they are doing now in Bossier Parish.

DS said:

j. biggs said:

Michael Fugate said: Do they really want to critique evolution without being able to promote the Bible as its replacement? Can you imagine the existential angst this could cause among our youth; they will be even more purposeless than they are now.

Well, I think that many sectarians are content just to ruin science. But as we see, the useful idiots that put these hucksters in charge don't know how to shut up about their religious motivations. They always eventually let the cat out of the bag like they did in Dover, like they are doing now in Bossier Parish.

The ironic thing is that they are doing the one thing where religious motivation is a problem. They could preach in their tax free churches with no problem. They could fund and do research with no problem. They could publish in their own "peer reviewed journals" or even in real ones with no problem. What they can't do is try to get their misconceptions and misrepresentations taught in science classes. They haven't earned that right and they never will. So why is this the one thing that they seem to value most? Why is this the one thing they must have at all costs? Why is this the thing they are willing to lie and cheat and break the law for? Why not just do the other things? What? Oh. Never mind.

DS said: So why is this the one thing that they seem to value most? Why is this the one thing they must have at all costs? Why is this the thing they are willing to lie and cheat and break the law for? Why not just do the other things? What? Oh. Never mind.

DS said: The ironic thing is that they are doing the one thing where religious motivation is a problem. They could preach in their tax free churches with no problem. They could fund and do research with no problem. They could publish in their own "peer reviewed journals" or even in real ones with no problem. What they can't do is try to get their misconceptions and misrepresentations taught in science classes. They haven't earned that right and they never will. So why is this the one thing that they seem to value most? Why is this the one thing they must have at all costs? Why is this the thing they are willing to lie and cheat and break the law for? Why not just do the other things? What? Oh. Never mind.

Just Bob said: And they can teach 'creation science' all they want in their private 'Christian academies' and bible colleges and to their homeschooled kiddies. It makes me puke, but they're free to do that.

Just Bob said: And they can teach 'creation science' all they want in their private 'Christian academies' and bible colleges and to their homeschooled kiddies. It makes me puke, but they're free to do that.

j. biggs said: They can't stand that the narrative is changing and that people are being encouraged to question the way things are including the fundamentalist's version of history and worst of all their authority.

j. biggs said:

Michael Fugate said: Do they really want to critique evolution without being able to promote the Bible as its replacement? Can you imagine the existential angst this could cause among our youth; they will be even more purposeless than they are now.

Well, I think that many sectarians are content just to ruin science. But as we see, the useful idiots that put these hucksters in charge don't know how to shut up about their religious motivations. They always eventually let the cat out of the bag like they did in Dover, like they are doing now in Bossier Parish.

Spam alert!