Another embarrassing anti-evolution takeover of the Kansas State Board of Education could happen if voters don’t pay attention and if good candidates don’t step forward. Three mainstream science board members are not seeking re-election, including Wichita representative Carol Rupe (in photo). That gives social conservatives a good shot in November at retaking control of the board and once again weakening the state’s science standards. To prevent that, Kansans need quality candidates who understand the importance of basing science standards on mainstream science, not personal religious views.
187 Comments
So what are you saying Brownlee? That if I applied for a position on the BOE and went there with a large Bible under my arm wearing a T-shirt that said “Adam and the Sauropods,” my chances might be slim of getting support for the position?
just wondering…
What is embarrassing is having people that actually believe in evolution on the Kansas State School Board.
Anyone who studies the facts understands that the theory of evolution is junk science.
The simple understanding of the DNA cell and all the information it carries should prove beyond a shadow of doubt that intelligent design is correct.
The ones that don’t believe also don’t want to acknowledge that there is an almighty God.
Yeah whose telling the fairy tales now SSITL.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention,been so focused on the other elections and this one is extremely important.
Hopefully Kansans have learned that we can’t trust the conservatives in this office. And we still need to get Ken Willard out of that office.
Every time this comes up the pro-government people just don’t learn the lesson. They wanted government education and they got it. Now they act surprised when their opponents take control and do things they don’t like.
Tough. You wanted to educate by force and you got it. If you can’t handle someone with a big stick making decisions for you then don’t constantly vote to give them the stick.
The best solution to this is to do away with the state board of education and replace it with a cabinet level posisition appointed by a governor or elected in a statewide race (I prefer the former solution, but even the second solution is better than having a state board that only gets attention when Christian Right activists take control and start irritating the general electorate).
It been in several movies, the scene where the explorer confronted by the ignorant savages pulls out a lighter or match and produces fire. Suddenly because they do not understand just how this is possible they have found a new God! Just because you have yet to found out how something was done is not a sign that is was a wonderment. The Great Blue whale, the largest creature known to have inhabited the earth has a throat the size of a walnut. Do you know why? Nope neither do I… Its just the way it is!
Pointing to the wonderment of DNA is not prove in and of itself, it just an example of being amazed by the flame lapping for the end of the match.
“Pointing to the wonderment of DNA is not prove in and of itself”
It should have read: “pointing to the wonderment of DNA is not proof in and of itself”
Sorry
God who?
Do away with public funded education K-12. Let the parents decide what is best for their children and pay for it themselves. The tax levels would come down and people may then be able to afford pay their own way. Others may decide to give financially to schools they think are doing the best job, including teaching science the way they consider most scientifically correct.
Sigh….
Are there STILL fearful people that feel the kiddies aint getting enoung religious dogma indoctristruction?
I’ll repost a couple of old PERSONAL stories later to reassure them.
But my favorite take on this comes from Carl Sagan….
“”The solution of many cultures, is that a God or Goddess created the universe. If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ask, where did God come from? ”
I am content to let those who need a deity to comfort them be. UNTIL they start trying to force it on me or my kid. So, we must be ever watchful. The forces of ignorance are relentless and sneaky.
Oh and ksagnostic? A cabinet appointed Education board is NOT a good idea. Not in Kansas anyway.
We are always more likely than not to get a chief executive sympathetic to the fundies.
And of course this sort of thread will and already has invited ANOTHER sort of zealot.
So along with the “Go with God!” we will also get a dose of “Go it alone!” callling for an end to public education.
The agenda is the same. Keep the poor ignorant and believing in things to keep them quiet.
Once again the Eagle disingenuously tries to frame the debate. They accuse all those who want valid criticisms of Darwinian theory taught to our public school students as being “anti-evolution”. Yet they know that the science standards would not change and evolution would be taught as always. So their concern is not for the student.
The Eagle editorial board always seems to be concerned about being “embarrassed”. Yet by misrepresenting and sensationalizing the point of contention they bring it attention to it and cause themselves whatever ridicule and embarrassment they feel.
” Yet they know that the science standards would not change and evolution would be taught as always.”
I’ll afford you that you don’t have a covert agenda here outlander.
But education is hard. Faith is easy.
Put evolution side by side with creation? No.
Because creation is a cop out. Creation says “God did it”. And then offers no proof of God. It is a perfect escape for the intellectually lazy. That is, unless and until you can get God to show up to show his work. If you can get God himself into the classroom? I’ll sign the permission slip for my kid to attend.
See, if you do this, you subvert all science. You invite subversion of history too.
Open the door and kids will start writing “God did it.” in the answer space. And then their parents will sue for religious descrimination to protect their childs intellectual laziness and their own ignorance when that answer earns them a zero.
I believe in God. I also believe that God Created. I do not know how. I do know that evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. As such, it should the theory taught in schools. Creationism should not, as it is not in any way a scientific theory. Evolution, with all it’s faults, is the best answer science has, so for now, let’s go with it. I do have have request of all those who desire a “faith free” education. Leave it faith free. Many years ago, I had a discussion with the science teacher for my kid. The teacher was teaching evolution in the class. No problem. The teacher was also teaching that those who believed in creationism were stupid and
should not be listened to. He crossed the line. If you cannot bring into the educational arena a discussion in creationism, you cannot bring into the educaitonal arena a vent about creationism. He agreed, and changed his material.
And of course there is that word, “evolution”. “Evolution” is an elastic word that can take on a variety of meanings. Its meaning can range from changes in drug resistance of certain bacteria, to the theory of common descent(Darwinism). Such a word is very useful if you intend to pull the wool over the eyes of your readers.
So, if you say someone is a critic of “evolution”, you are being very imprecise. A person would be a fool to deny evolution that can be demonstrated such as in bacteria or within species such as Darwin’s finches. This is the only evolution that has any impact on practical scienc. Yet that same person could doubt evolution that cannot be demonstrated, Darwinian theory (common descent).
Yet to the Eagle’s simplistic world, that person is “anti-evolution”.
So how about it Phil? Are you willing to do your journalistic duty to clearly portray the debate?
“The agenda is the same. Keep the poor ignorant and believing in things to keep them quiet.”
This has always been the agenda of public education…
Freedom of speech! Brownlee… I could not possibly disagree with you more than I do. I am quite sure you would and I would not “get along” if we knew each other outside of this “cyber world”. BUT… you are entitled to your opinion… and thus you are entitled to climb up on your soap box and shout to the world “Christians are idiots!”. But we are entitled to our opinions as well. And we also our entitled to vote. And until you (or actually someone much more intelligent than you) can PROVE that evolution is anything more than a theory… we will continue to vote that the thus far “un-provable” theory of intelligent design should be taught as well. But please… by all means… continue your rants… it also imforms us that there are seats available on the board. Maybe we can use that information to “intelligently design” a right thinking board. Thanks for the heads up.
Do away with public funded education K-12.
We have enough uneducated people now, and you want to make it a choice? Because that’s what it’ll come down to.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
“sci·ence
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.”
Natural selection (also known as micro-evolution) does exist and has been proven (Variation within a species).
Evolution (as is more generally known as macro-evolution), which proposes species evolved into other higher species has not been proven.
Just what are the facts and knowledge of macro-evolution (evolution) and how has it been observed and what are it’s general laws?
Macro-evolution (also known as evolution, and is the idea that species evolved into higher species) is only a faith based system. A religion, if you will, because it has not been proven.
“Evolution (as is more generally known as macro-evolution), which proposes species evolved into other higher species has not been proven.”
According to whom??
Why is it there are those reich-wingers who believe government is inefficient and ineffective and want to hold office so they can prove it by being the most inefficient and ineffective people? Creationists want to get on the BOE so they can dumb down education, teach religion claiming to be science so we produce uneducated children so they can decry the system.
Perhaps it’s a vicious circle. Creationists are uneducated about the scientific fact of evolution and want to do their best to make sure everyone is as uneducated as them. They probably realize that education is the biggest threat to their deluded fundamentalist views.
I can’t accuse creationists of being stupid because when they run for office they don’t advertise themselves as creationists who are opposed to good science standards. To do so would make them unelectable, so they have to be deceptive and dishonest. But that’s the fundy way.
“According to whom??”
According to those who don’t know anything about biological science.
Bottom Line: Creationism is not science.
Religion is not science.
Science deals with observation, testing, analysis, and conclusions which lead to further investigation, testing, systematically compiling evidence and challenges, further research, observation, testing, evidence, and on and on.
“God did it” is not science.
There are all sorts of opportunities to study religion, even in public schools. You could study all the myths and legends of the Bible, the Koran the Bhagavad Gita, Navajo spiritualism (Hey, kids! It’s peyote day in Miss Finster’s class!) in disciplines such as philosophy, literature, history, sociology. They’re simply not science texts.
When I was in college I took a history course from a professor who acknowledged that “history is written by the winners.” It was a challenge, because he had us study history from the perspective of the losers. There were plenty of then-contemporary arguments for slavery, for limiting the vote to white male male gentlemen of property, for child labor, for considering African-Americans 3/5ths of a person, that the Earth was the center of the universe….
People should be taught that stuff, even if it’s later been proven wrong. It tells us where humanity was, what some people thought and think, how understanding evolves.
The attacks on “Darwinism” is a classic straw man, given that Darwin’s observations are something like a hundred and fifty years old.
If some sect or ideology about Military Science were still being taught today, we’d all be speaking German. Darwin (in Billy Joel’s usage) “started the fire.”
And in so many ways, the original Darwinian scientific observations have proven to be scientifically correct.
And, to be specific, Darwin never presumed to speak about the origins of life; his book was “The Origin of SPECIES.
A good education should prepare people for how to think, not what to think.
Every time the twice-born gin up a majority of ideologues and try to foist their theologies on other disciplines the progress of human understanding is threatened.
Creationists had plenty of opportunity to present the science at the Dover trial. Naturally they failed to do so because they’d be under oath and they know they are lying.
On the other hand the scientists had no problem presenting evidence that proved, without a doubt, that the theory of natural selection is true.
Since creationists can’t present science, they can’t win in the courts, they have to go and put stealth candidates into office and force their religion upon people contrary to law, because they hate America as much as they hate science.
Even universally accepted concepts such as Gravity have theorys in them. Newton and Einstein had radically different views on gravity. Some can present a decent argument that gravity can only be considered a theory (Saturn having rings and Jupiter not)
Nonetheless, gravity is a pattern that is accepted within our science. Obviously we are not going to stop teaching gravity and start teaching “intelligent falling” although I like the satire.
We are not going to stop studying quantum physics just because it hasn’t been proven. The role of education is still to teach HOW to think rather than WHAT to think. I agree with Rob that a balance is called for and that Brownlee is guilty of an appeal to fear.
However, I am still not convinced that the “talking snake theory” has been removed from the curriculum. When advocates of Intelligent Design can convince me of that, I will be sold on the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei
Newton’s theory of gravitation
In general relativity, the effects of gravitation are ascribed to spacetime curvature instead of a force
So, we don’t really know. Therefore we MUST TEACH THIS:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory
“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060825.html
If more Americans would read works like Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, the longevity of our democracy, as we know it, would be more assured. I say this because the more people who understand the thinking and agenda of the growing forces of “Christian nationalism,” the less likely it will be that these forces will succeed. Not many people want to go where Christian nationalists want to take the country.
Michelle Goldberg, a journalist who writes for Salon, defines Christian nationalism as the “Christian worldview” that envisions Christianity governing “every aspect of public and private life, and [holds] that all — government, science, history, culture, and relationships — must be understood according to the dictates of scripture.” Christian nationalists have “biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates.”
These believers are also known as dominionists. Dominionism is a theology drawn from God’s instruction to Adam in Genesis (1:26-27) to take dominion over the animate and inanimate world. As Goldberg explains, “dominionism is derived from a theocratic sect called Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates replacing American civil law with Old Testament biblical law.”
As always the creationists (intelligent design people) misuse the word theory.
Some of their contentions that have been destroyed by data:
1) irreducible complexity - the complex structure that is outlander’s middle ear evolved in steps (there is a fossil record of such)
2) there are no or “few” transitional life forms - there are many of them
And, do intelligent design theorists, rebutt or take into account these facts given the data? No, they do not because they are not scientists and intelligent design does not qualify for a scientific theory.
Please believe whatever you want to believe about supernatural beings, but do not call said beliefs a scientific theory. It is not. Thank you.
As always, I recommend the documentary A Flock of Dodos.
Their cousins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Resistance_Army
The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA),[1] formed in 1987, is a rebel self-proclaimed Christian guerrilla army operating mainly in northern Uganda and parts of Sudan
“bth” cited –
“‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory”
I know the guy who wrote the original “Intelligent Falling Theory.”
“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down…”
“The Journal of Irreproducible Results” is/was a satiric scientific publication. People who hate science should read it, since it proves that true scientists have a sense of humor and understand how the human thought process can get bogged down with false assumptions and manipulation of non-scientific language.
One of my favorite essays was a perfectly rational-sounding thesis that the sun, the stars, the light bulb in your room don’t emit light, but are “Dark Sinks” that suck darkness like a sewer.
The sun doesn’t emit light, it sucks darkness. Dark can’t go around walls and stuff, so the remaining shadows are protected from the Dark Sink.
A physicist I know acknowledged it was funny, but said it turns out there are some problems in physics that can be easier explained by the Dark Sink theory than what everyone knows is true. Wrong, of course. But easier to explain.
Without getting into all the complicated math involved, the THEORY of gravity is easier to explain with “if it goes up, it must come down.”
Who wants to do the homework?
And if the “Intelligent Falling” or “the Earth Sucks” theories get a following, it’ll be pretty easy to garner a majority of voters to impose those theories on public education.
That’s what we’re fighting.
I’ve seen Michael Jordan play basketball and it seemed like he was defying gravity. But I suspect someone who studied his physiology, technique, and the perceptions of people in the crowd would figure out that the Theories of Gravity still worked on him.
I hope the eagle will do their civic duty and inform the public of the candidates’ stance on evolution/creationism!
How does a teacher make a curriculum regarding Intelligent Design? I can see it as perhaps a disclaimer. But a curriculum is a stretch.
One could say “our existence is not due to random chance. Rather a force, being or personality was responsible for it” After that, what more can be studied without going into metaphysics and out of logic?
It must be pretty weak argument when all I have to say to defeat is: “It is easy to demonstrate the theory of gravity. Drop a rock.
Now, demonstrate the theory of common descent.
All theories are not of equal certainty.”
I believe that natural selection (known as micro-evolution)(variation within a species) occurs and it is observeable and testable.
Plesas provide proof that evolution (known as macro-evolution) exists. Please show the test results and proof and who observed it.
Evolution is simply a belief system that is strongly partnered with atheism at it’s core.
We have all proven that gravity exists.
How can “science” be taught in public schools based upon lone randomness?
It didn’t just happen, did it?
The complexity of organisms being revealed in today’s micro-organisms speaks of a complexity that can only be because of a designer.
Also, the genetic information in existing organisms today does not become more complex, as evolution might suggest, but less.
Oh that’s easy American. Take for instance Rhagolettis pomenella which in the 1860’s started infesting apples to lay their eggs. Previously the species would only lay their eggs in Hawthorne fruit. Genetic observations by Feder, Chilcote and Bush (Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.)
The fly was originally from America and brought to Europe. As a result of geographical isolation numerous, as you call it, microevolutionary changes occured and enough of them developed to make two genetically distinct species.
The observed instances of new species evolving is quite abundant. Rhagolettis pomenella is just one species among many. I suppose you can always go to KU and watch the process directly involving bacteria. On your own person you have species of bacteria that exist nowhere else.
Yeah Maggot, I bet Mister Fly adapting to that apple will change into an advanced flying hominid in a few decades as well.
To think, science just boils down to fruit preference.
Who would have thought?
I agree American that it can’t be based on random chance. I accept the “designer” so long as nobody is pretentious enough to think that they can define said “designer” for everyone.
But what genetic information supports your notion that organisms do not become more complex? This goes completely contrary to Prigonine’s Nobel Prize work of entropy and bifurcation.
LLTVET - you stated - “I agree with Rob that a balance is called for and that Brownlee is guilty of an appeal to fear.
However, I am still not convinced that the “talking snake theory” has been removed from the curriculum. When advocates of Intelligent Design can convince me of that, I will be sold on the idea.”
First off… thank you for fully reading the post and not responding with the type of pointless, emotion-laced barbs that normally fill these threads. They do nothing to unite - they simply incite and are therefore useless to try to sway anyone to a different way of thinking.
As to the “talking snake theory”… I see where you are coming from. But intelligent design in and of itself is NOT a christian theory. It is really at its heart a theory based in deism as you can clearly see if you go to http://www.deism.com and read some of their articles. Granted… Christians can “make it their own” and of course we do “add our own spin to it” based on our beliefs. But fundamentally ID is not the Genesis version of creation. Far from it. It is simply the belief or theory that life and the existence of the universe is too complex to not have been “designed” by someone or some thing. For Christians that is the God of the bible… for others it is not.
Read some of the stuff out at deism.com — I personally don’t agree with hardly any of what they have to say. But I do read other theories contrary to my own beliefs. Skeptism is healthy and should be encouraged. Don’t believe something just because someone tells you to. Do the research and arrive at your own belief. I did and it lead me to where I am now. Thanks for your post.
Monk,
“Without getting into all the complicated math involved, the THEORY of gravity is easier to explain with “if it goes up, it must come down.””
Gee, with that explanation and the assumption that beyond outer rim of the universe= Down, we could explain the apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe without the need of Einstein’s controversial (even to himself) cosmological constant, or some other theoretical fifth force. The universe is simply falling down!
“We have all proven that gravity exists.”
NOT TRUE!
“”Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,”
there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.”
Regular out again with the non-sequiturs. I’m sure there’s some Hannah Montana forum on Disney’s website where you could hang out with your intellectual peers.
I understand Rob. I just don’t see how that can be made into a curriculum. A reasonable disclaimer? Absolutely. But if a teacher were to elaborate much further than you have, they are going into metaphysics. I can tolerate intelligent design as a disclaimer to learning genetics, quantum physics, biology and many other disciplines in science. I just don’t see how it could responsibly be made into a curriculum.
Are you saying that Walt Disney was unintelligent Maggot?
just asking…
Always wondered why mass attracts mass.
I just think of evolution as man’s best theory of how the intelligent designer designed.
It’s only the old testament literalist that have a problem and want to teach testament as theory.
LLTVET - (thanks again) - Perhaps a reasonable disclaimer would be enough. There are a great many who simply do not accept macro evolution as a fact. As long as it could be a requirement for the educator to state (without rolling their eyes while they say it) that macro evolution is indeed a theory (perhaps even the leading theory) and not scientific fact… and (insert disclaimer) there is a reasonable belief/theory that our universe was “intelligently designed” and must be considered.
In my opinion the curriculum could base itself around the fact that we simply do not have an answer for how the basic building blocks of life could have assembled themselves to form what we now call life. And until we can show how this happened we must allow (not assume) other hypotheses to have merit until one can be clearly shown to be true. I do not suggest we throw out macro evolution as a strong possibility (though my personal beliefs lie elsewhere) just that we do not throw out any possibility until we can show it is incorrect. That is not good science.
Rob,
” But fundamentally ID is not the Genesis version of creation. Far from it. It is simply the belief or theory that life and the existence of the universe is too complex to not have been “designed” by someone or some thing.”
The problem with the “designer” universe theory is that art imitates life, not vice versa.
“‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,””
Wrong again. That would be Chuck Norris.
Jed - I don’t want to insult you in any way. I respect your opinion - but I don’t agree with you.
Rob: Fair enough. As long as there is dilligence in keeping the “designer” undefined, I’m fine with that.
Jed: Art imitating life and Life imitating art are both possible. It is the argument, if handled maturely, that can help a child learn HOW to think.
Just my opinion.
Fukn’ Chuch Norris
To clarify, that would be Chuck Norris’s beard.
The face of Satan hides behind that beard, I tell ya….Ask Chas, he read it on a website…and it’s real.
LLTVET: Agreed - it would have to be that way. Children should be taught to think… and to desire to find answers. Theology can and will be taught in the home and Sunday Schools.
Thanks for the intelligentdebate. Gotta sign off now.
and I’m done.
Ask Chas, he read it on a website…and it’s real.
But he won’t provide a link - LOOK IT UP YOURSELF !!!! ROFLMAO !!!!
“Maggotpunk
Posted May 22, 2008 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
Oh that’s easy American. Take for instance Rhagolettis pomenella which in the 1860’s started infesting apples to lay their eggs. Previously the species would only lay their eggs in Hawthorne fruit. Genetic observations by Feder, Chilcote and Bush (Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.)
The fly was originally from America and brought to Europe. As a result of geographical isolation numerous, as you call it, microevolutionary changes occured and enough of them developed to make two genetically distinct species.
The observed instances of new species evolving is quite abundant. Rhagolettis pomenella is just one species among many. I suppose you can always go to KU and watch the process directly involving bacteria. On your own person you have species of bacteria that exist nowhere else.”
So, for the sake of argument, are you saying that the Rhagolettis pomenella fly evolved into a different species? But it was still a fly!!! I do not see how that is anything other than variation.
Much like there are many diffrent kinds of dogs, but they are still dogs.
Also, can you lower the level of “science-speak” and more into plain english?
KU_Rob, you might have been misinformed by whoever told you that “But intelligent design in and of itself is NOT a christian theory.”
The Discovery Institute’s own Wedge Document states that its primary goal is to supplant evolution with intelligent design, which they define as a science consonant with Christianity. DI leader William Dembski stated that ID is just the Logos theory of the Gospel of John. Another DI leader stated that the goal of getting ID into the schools is to “clear away the obstacles that keep people from accepting Christ as their Savior.”
Just ask the rank and file who show up in Texas and Florida and Kansas and Oklahoma for public hearings - in almost every case, they are in favor of adopting ID simply because they think it will bring the kiddies to Christ.
Now, y’all can argue the validity of evolution all you want, just as you can argue whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa. Our arguments don’t have any impact on the scientific reality: the sun still orbits the earth, and evolution still happens whether you accept the overwhelming evidence for it or not. If you want to keep Kansas in the scientific backwaters, let Carol Rupe be replaced by a Connie Morris clone.
But if you want kids to be taught the most accurate, up-to-date science, elect someone who recognizes that the mainstream science community knows a hell of a lot more about science than any state school board member.
chas is right. Look it up yourself.
http://www.chucknorrisshadowgoverment.com
excellent fleetwood…HA HA HA, I think I just sharted! LOL
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
“Jed” contributes (sort of) –
Monk,
“Without getting into all the complicated math involved, the THEORY of gravity is easier to explain with “if it goes up, it must come down.”
With…
Gee, with that explanation and the assumption that beyond outer rim of the universe= Down, we could explain the apparent acceleration in the expansion of the universe without the need of Einstein’s controversial (even to himself) cosmological constant, or some other theoretical fifth force. The universe is simply falling down!”
And there is a viable theory — not proven, mind you, but supported by a lot of evidence — that the universe is an infinite cycle of expansion and retraction.
The math and the physics is beyond my personal understanding, but I understand that some people understand the theory. And frankly, I put more credence into that theory than, say, Bishop Usher’s compiling the Old Testament listings of “begats” which led him to declare that the world was created on the 12th of October some 6000 years ago, at 9:35 in the morning.
(No word whether that was standard time or daylight saving time.)
And all that crap of evolution being a “theory” is a logical fallacy, since the nature of science is to always question scientific observations.
Not so with “Intelligent” Design. No evidence, no research, merely conclusions. That conclude.
Long ago I read a paper from someone who analyzed Bach’s fugues and showed how, mathematically, every note of the score was established by the first three notes of the composition. I’m not a mathematician or a musician, but I suspect Bach was simply writing something to listen to and didn’t begin composing only after he’d worked out the calculations.
Now, the reason Bach is Bach might be he instinctively (or by happenstance) tuned into the math, but just because we don’t know how “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” turned out so goddamned beautiful. That part of human achievement isn’t within the realm of science.
“God told Bach to write it that way,” might be an acceptable explanation in some fields of study. But it isn’t science.
For all I know, “God” may have created the heavens and the earth on “the 12th of October some 6000 years ago, at 9:35 in the morning.” But no one has come up with a scientific case for it.
Resources for those needing them:
http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp
A lot of scientific theory is unexplained. Newton’s gravity theories run into problems with Einstein’s view on gravity and Einstein’s view on gravity has problem in ‘black holes.’ Even the ’string theorists’ have problem explaining what gravity is and how it actually works.
Can’t we get anything right?
A review of the “documentary” Expelled:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/
It provides a clue as the what ID proponents are like.
Ah yes, the NCSE with Eugenie Scott as the main spokesman.
She was on “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, Ben Stein’s movie.
I see that quite of the few people on the NCSE staff from the website above are not “scientists”, but are philosophers, etc.
Boston Globe review of Expelled?
Did you expect them to endorse the movie?
“Also, can you lower the level of “science-speak” and more into plain english?”
In other words - dumb it down enough that the scientifically illiterate can understand it.
A You-Tube expose’ on the so-called “science” book, On Pandas and People:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
“So, for the sake of argument, are you saying that the Rhagolettis pomenella fly evolved into a different species? But it was still a fly!!! I do not see how that is anything other than variation.”
And humans are merely hairless apes so would you conclude we are no different than chimps? If two species cannot breed together and have different DNA the false conclusion is to label them the same. A honeybee and a carpenter bee are both bees but they are clearly not the same species. A carpenter bee looks more like a fly.
A simple mechanism for creating two different species from an original population is genetic divergence. Take for instance the Amazon River Rat. One population, separated by a geographical event, like a huge ass river, and the two identical populations can no longer breed together and therefore are no longer able to share their mutations. They therefore acquire different traits. That’s your macroevolution, the same mechanism for why people in Africa have darker skin than northern Europeans who have paler skin, genetic divergence. Keep the two populations apart long enough and they’ll diverge even more like modern humans and Neanderthals.
Now if you want to conclude that a species is still the same despite evolution occurring then look at the platypus. The platypus genome has recently been completed and shown to have DNA similar to birds and reptiles, a clear marker than the species maintained it’s genetic identity through isolation ever since the two kingdoms of bird and reptiles split apart. But what would you conclude, that’s it’s still a lizard because of it’s venom that’s like a snake, or it’s bill that’s like a duck? The most accurate conclusion is that it’s its own species and not still a lizard.
It’s all evolution. The mechanism is the same and the theory proves again and again to be correct. It’s simple to predict that a population separated in two will branch apart. It’s seen over and over again hence the reason evolution is true and creationism is false because creationists predict that new species will just magically appear out of nothing. There has never been one instance of that occurring nor any mechanism to explain how that is possible.
If you don’t agree with the scientific fact of natural selection perhaps you have an alternative theory. There hasn’t been one since Lysenko’s (which was proven wrong) and Lamarkianism (which natural selection replaced).
bth,
No, so that one can understand the theories and propositions that you are trying to assert without someone trying to sound like they are the expert, and assume that thay souldn’t be questioned. In other words, open your mind to the truth.
““Also, can you lower the level of “science-speak” and more into plain english?”
In other words - dumb it down enough that the scientifically illiterate can understand it.” - bth
————–
My my my… did we an arrogant pill today, Ben?
did we TAKE an…
but, but cuz Maggotpunk,
Why do we still have cockroaches basically unchanged for 10s of millions of years?
Why are there flightless birds like the Ostrich?
What inspirational moment in the Universe of the beginning created the ’spark’ that started the amino acids from that primordial ooze into a four-legged live-born bearing, hairy, breast feeding mammal?
What exactly caused that spark?
If gravity affects light which has no mass, how can we know that something beyond our range of extrapolating light even exists?
Explain nothingness.
Ah, the old natural selection/survival of the fittest tautology.
They survived because they were the fittest. And they are the fittest because they survived.
Survival of the luckiest would have little appeal.
Here we go again…
Yes, some creationist use Intelligent Design to try to support their views and beliefs.
That doesn’t mean that all Intelligent Design is based on creationism when it is not.
No more than Evolutionary Theory is Atheism because Atheists use it to support their views and beliefs.
“That doesn’t mean that all Intelligent Design is based on creationism when it is not.”
In the Dover trial is was proven that creationists simply edited their books to change the word creationism to intelligent design.
“Why do we still have cockroaches basically unchanged for 10s of millions of years?”
Are you saying the numerous species of cockroaches are exactly the same as the fossilized remains from over 300 million years ago?
Facts put a damper in your spread of disinformation.
Maggotpunk,
Once again, the theory of Intelligent Design is held by many who do not support Creationism. It was not started for that reason.
Do some Creationist use it? Sure.
Doesn’t prove that Intelligent Design = Creationism.
Logic 101.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
“Why do we still have cockroaches basically unchanged for 10s of millions of years?”
Are you saying the numerous species of cockroaches are exactly the same as the fossilized remains from over 300 million years ago?
Facts put a damper in your spread of disinformation.
————————-
So not understanding the taxonomy of a particular bug is an excuse for avoiding the question?
Avoidance in answering the questions posed is unbecoming and might I say, intellectually cowardly.
Your turn cuz…
“open your mind to the truth”
ID as science - what’s next - Elvis was God, John Lennon was Satan, Maradona scored the goal with the “Hand of God” getting an assist?
Because evolution is a “theory” doesn’t mean that because it hasn’t been proven beyond the proverbial “shadow of a doubt” that any other conjecture is “proven.”
The lack of complete “proof” of evolution does not make ID a viable scientific “theory.”
Teach science in science classes - teach religion on Sunday in church.
WS - Your “religion or belief system” is evolution, solidly based in atheism, which is also a belief system, is it not?
“Your “religion or belief system” is evolution, solidly based in atheism”
Sigh…………………….
As I have stated many, many, many times, I am not an atheist, I believe in God.
“So not understanding the taxonomy of a particular bug is an excuse for avoiding the question?
Avoidance in answering the questions posed is unbecoming and might I say, intellectually cowardly.
Your turn cuz…”
So which species of the numerous cockroach species that evolved over millions of years are you referring to? Which one is exactly the same as the fossil remnants of the 300 million year old ancestor and why are the other species of cockroach that don’t match up not really cockroaches? It’s your argument, are you just admitting you don’t know what you are talking about?
“Once again, the theory of Intelligent Design is held by many who do not support Creationism. It was not started for that reason.
Do some Creationist use it? Sure.
Doesn’t prove that Intelligent Design = Creationism.”
So why in your creationist textbooks has only the word ‘creationism’ been replaced with ‘intelligent design’ if they are completely different?
In the Dover trial a curious phrase was uncovered, “cdesign proponentsists”. The editors of Pandas and People, in an effort to claim intelligent design was different than creationism, poorly edited the word ‘creationists’ with ‘design proponent’. No other words in the paragraph were altered.
So how are the two terms different? Creationists couldn’t explain that at the Dover trial since they were caught red handed in their dishonesty. Perhaps your dishonesty is a bit more rehearsed.
This debate going on here only addresses some of the minor relevant issues. Avoided entirely is the major issue that no matter what a given individual thinks should be taught there is a powerful entity deciding the curriculum. Complete government control of education is bad for society.
Only by removing the ruling monarch from education can we truly blossom as a people.
The amazing diversity of cockroaches.
http://www.blattodea-culture-group.org/content/cockroaches-an-amazing-diversity
Apparently, according to the creationists there is only one species of cockroach. The obviously godless scientists classified over 4,500 cockroach species.
Amazing the things you can discover when being some intellectually cowardly and just googling something.
Maggot Punk,
You would have to cite for me the specific parts of the trial you are talking about.
Either way, you still side stepped the irrefutable logic I presented.
Once again, there are creationists who try to use ID to further their cause.
That doesn’t mean or prove that ID is creationism.
Logic 101.
“Once again, the theory of Intelligent Design is held by many who do not support Creationism.”
Ever heard of the list of Steve’s?
“Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.” Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
“Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
There may be a relatively small number of scientists who adhere to ID principles, in general, though, Nathan’s post above is quite misleading. But, that is nothing at all new for ID creationists. See my posts above.
Does a christian get points for lying for God? Pretty screwed up reward system if you do.
Certainly Nathan, the evidence was presented on the 6th day of the trial (Oct. 5th) in the AM session.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html#day6am889
Maggotpunk
Posted May 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
The amazing diversity of cockroaches.
http://www.blattodea-culture-group.org/content/cockroaches-an-amazing-diversity
Apparently, according to the creationists there is only one species of cockroach. The obviously godless scientists classified over 4,500 cockroach species.
Amazing the things you can discover when being some intellectually cowardly and just googling something.
————————
Exactly Cuz,
Now why haven’t those species and sub species become other species after tens of millions of years?
They all belong to the same species identification. Just like wolves and dogs.
Why haven’t those insects become birds after tens of millions of years of evolution?
Steven,
How am I a liar?
Where is your proof that ID = Creationism?
“Now why haven’t those species and sub species become other species after tens of millions of years?”
There are over 4,500 species. Do you even bother reading what I post? I don’t know how I could have made things more simplistic for you.
It is well known that the overwhelming number of IDers are creationists. Check out this website for numerous examples:
http://www.natcenscied.org/default.asp
Another dead give-away is that ID is not a scientific method. One can never prove the existence of God. IDers never do experiments - there is no way to do so. That is the main reason respectable scientists are in so terribly small numbers amongst IDers.
Here’s an assignment Nathan - an easy one for someone as smart as you. Describe an experiment where the notion of irreducible complexity could be proven - even demonstrated, or merely suggested. Please show your work.
Now why haven’t those species and sub species become other species after tens of millions of years?”
There are over 4,500 species. Do you even bother reading what I post? I don’t know how I could have made things more simplistic for you.
—————————-
So, species of cockroaches - lots of them.
How many of those species have evolved into another species.
Are there birds with cockroach thorax? Do birds retain remnants of six legs.
Just what connection do these 4500 species of cockroaches have to other species higher up the Genus and Kingdom lines?
I mean, that primordial oooze started it all. What happen to the roach?
Are we looking at the perfect species that cannot evolve into a higher life form?
How much DNA does a cockroach have in common with a chimp?
And for overwhelming evidence of the ID/Creationist link, read this book:
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10511.php
ID is a marketing effort (not a science) which attempts to sell poppycock to people desperately wishing to believe it.
“How much DNA does a cockroach have in common with a chimp?”
Less than you.
Going to get dinner. Will be back later to check on & grade Nathan’s experiment proposal using ID.
Do birds retain remnants of six legs?
Yes.
Most of the DNA codes are not used.
Due to environmental pressures however, the progeny of an individual can adapt by switching off some codes and switching on others.
For example, humans are a good example of neonetny (spelling). We look a lot like an unborn chimp. The common ancestor of humans and chimps used DNA codes already present in ape chromosomes–the DNA that forms the unborn ape–to fashion a new species.
“How many of those species have evolved into another species.
Are there birds with cockroach thorax? Do birds retain remnants of six legs.
Just what connection do these 4500 species of cockroaches have to other species higher up the Genus and Kingdom lines?
I mean, that primordial oooze started it all. What happen to the roach?
Are we looking at the perfect species that cannot evolve into a higher life form?”
It’s a shame you didn’t bother going to the link because some of your questions were already answered. The mantis split off from their common ancestor and termites split off from cockroaches.
I don’t know what you mean by higher life form. Do you mean a higher life form as one that is able to reproduce? Then your question is redundant since evolution happens in the reproductive process. I guess a “lower” life form would be a sterile offspring and therefore an evolutionary dead end.
Be sure and don’t eat any flesh Steven Davis. You might be consuming an evolutionary ancestor that has stored patterns of brain wave alphas meant to do harm.
Maggotpunk
Posted May 22, 2008 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
“How many of those species have evolved into another species.
Are there birds with cockroach thorax? Do birds retain remnants of six legs.
Just what connection do these 4500 species of cockroaches have to other species higher up the Genus and Kingdom lines?
I mean, that primordial oooze started it all. What happen to the roach?
Are we looking at the perfect species that cannot evolve into a higher life form?”
It’s a shame you didn’t bother going to the link because some of your questions were already answered. The mantis split off from their common ancestor and termites split off from cockroaches.
I don’t know what you mean by higher life form. Do you mean a higher life form as one that is able to reproduce? Then your question is redundant since evolution happens in the reproductive process. I guess a “lower” life form would be a sterile offspring and therefore an evolutionary dead end.
——————————
Well, since cockroaches appear to be X’d out of the human evolutionary tracking system.
Let’s try trilobytes. Surely these evolved into humans correct?
I mean, what was that first simple life form that was our ancestor?
Was it a slug-like creature? Was is pseudo-podia? Did it have a linear nervous system?
How come we can’t taste with our feet like flies do?
Some days I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Take your meds before you start posting.
Due to environmental pressures however, the progeny of an individual can adapt by switching off some codes and switching on others.
————-
Dang, they would have to be pretty smart. I mean when you start to switch your DNA off and on, you really have to know what you are doing!
Just trying to get a handle on human evolution there cuz.
The evolutionist say we come from apes and apes come from earlier primates and those earlier primates come from earlier mammals and those mammals come from earlier reptiles with mammal characterstics and those reptile/mammals came from reptiles and those reptiles came from some fish and those fish came from some microscopic swimmy things and those swimmy things came from perfectly aligned amino acids and those perfectly aligned amino acids came from a spark into some elements and the spark came from ?
I mean, the evolutionary begats appear to be missing some begats and some of those begats become one-way species while others died out.
Some of those begatting just ain’t begetting.
We have whales with vestigal limbs that are several times larger than the biggest land walking dinosaur and some ancient fish that are unaccounted for in the modern era.
Just what in the begatting world has your ill begotten species gone to?
And if that big meteor killed all the dinosaurs, how come the mammals survived and yet the mastadons and mammoths did not after a lesser event?
Why don’t we have elephant type species roaming North America? Their so-called ancestors were here.
If mitochondrial Eve was proven false back in the 1990s, are we all really from Africa?
Why do Mayans have commanilities with Phoenicians?
And just what are those crystal skulls doing laying about with their piezo-crystal properties?
We didn’t come from apes, we came from a common ancestor. Creationists are the only ones creating the strawman argument that says scientists claim we came from apes or monkeys.
The evidence that we came from a common ancestor is irrefutable. All hominids have a broken gene which codes for ascorbic acid production (there is only one other species, the guinea pig which we aren’t closely related to). If we weren’t related to the other hominids then we wouldn’t share the same mutation.
I will provide you my experiment proposal for ID if either Steven or Maggotpunk can show me theirs for the first life all life allegedly evolved from.
Lets see that experiment.
Maggotpunk,
ID is not trying to prove the existence of God. Nice strawman argument there.
Steven,
Once again, the fact that there are creationist who believe in ID and support ID and even work in the field of study doesn’t prove that ID = creationism.
Logic 101.
I don’t need to read a book to figure that out.
Maggotpunk,
“The evidence that we came from a common ancestor is irrefutable.”
I didn’t think that science spoke in such absolutes?
“ID is not trying to prove the existence of God. Nice strawman argument there.”
When did I state that? Creationism doesn’t try to prove anything, hence the complete lack of science.
“I didn’t think that science spoke in such absolutes?”
I only say it’s irrefutable because it is.
“I will provide you my experiment proposal for ID if either Steven or Maggotpunk can show me theirs for the first life all life allegedly evolved from.”
If you’d been listening in class, you would know that the theory of evolution is silent on the question of the beginning of life. Also, logic is on the phone and wants to protest your torturing of her. An absence of proof is not proof of an absence. Shame, shame.
Hence, this project is awarded an F minus. Further as Dean of the Darwin School of Natural History, I regret to inform you that you have been expelled. I am sure this will not trouble you, given your tendency towards being a young earth creationist.
We here at the school would recommend that you practice this question to help ensure your “success” in your new career:
“Would you like some fries with that?”
This is just too much fun.
Maggotpunk,
I thought part of science was that a theory should have falsifiability.
If the evidence is irrefutable then how is Evolution able to be Falsifiable?
Perhaps the evidence you claim to be irrefutable could be interpreted a different way? Nah, why would such a believer in the holy religion of Evolution ever believe that?
Steven,
Have you heard of the strawman argument?
No where did I claim that:
“An absence of proof is not proof of an absence. Shame, shame.”
Steven,
Just as the theory of ID is silent on who or what that ID could be.
If evolution can “assume” life to play it’s little game then why can’t ID assume the Designer?
Just as you think that the evidence points to a life which you assume, ID sees evidence which points to a designer.
Just as Evolution can’r prove the life, ID can’t and doesn’t attempt to prove the designer.
annie_moose
Posted May 22, 2008 at 11:47 am | Permalink
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060825.html
=======================================
Excellent Post, Annie!!
This link is bogus >>>>
http://www.chucknorrisshadowgoverment.com
I am off to have a glorious communion with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Creator of a pasta that is made holy by addition of fine sauces..
Back laer!!
“I thought part of science was that a theory should have falsifiability.
If the evidence is irrefutable then how is Evolution able to be Falsifiable?”
You are absolutely correct (never thought you’d hear me say that about you). Technically all scientific claims must be falsifiable (that’s why creationism isn’t a science), even paradigms like natural selection. However, it takes some common sense to conclude that a fact is a fact.
“Dang, they would have to be pretty smart. I mean when you start to switch your DNA off and on, you really have to know what you are doing!”
Happens all the time. We (humans) do it (switch DNA on and off) all the time. Simple single-celled organisms such as bacteria do it all the time, complex multicelluar organisms do it all the time, indeed every living thing is constantly regulating expression of genes (though I must say this is not an “evolutionary” phenomenon per se, but the capacity to regulate genetic expression is a product of natural selection on previous populations.) So yes, our cells are capable of regulating expression of genes in response to environmental signals, and it doesn’t require any ‘intelligence’ to do so. Some responses are highly coordinated (such as occurs during development), while other genes are switched on or off in response to transient, highly variable signals such as nutrient availability, hormone levels, etc.
One of the reasons antibiotics don’t work well anymore. I always think that the end of mankind will come in the form of a supervirus. It’s alomst wiped us out several times.
Chas…I hope you didn’t forget to put on your pirate costume…I don’t think you can get noodled without it!
True Mary
Just out of curiosity, are there those out there in RR Land REALLY believe that ID/Creationism should be taught in science class?
And, if so, on what scientific basis?
Honest question - looking for honest answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMrtziAaA_o&feature=related
Nathan,
I don’t know why I would even bother to explan anything to a family, as your dad would say “already has the answer.” So, I won’t.
You are one very dense person. I don’t need to prove that. Anyone reading your numerous posts could easily surmise that clear fact.
ID=Creationism is virtually indisputable. It is a book length subject, and I have given you a link to a book that explains that.
What is clear to me is that if my son should apply to WSU, I will disown him. The three grads from that august institution that make me think that are: Paul F. Rossell, Dennis Rader and Nathan Price. Except, I don’t think that Nathan has yet graduated, so there may be a small degree of hope for that university.
WSClark
Posted May 22, 2008 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
Just out of curiosity, are there those out there in RR Land REALLY believe that ID/Creationism should be taught in science class?
And, if so, on what scientific basis?
Honest question - looking for honest answers.
**********
Sorry Clark,
These people are too dishonest to give you an honest answer (my pick) or too stupid (seeming more possible by the day).
“Just out of curiosity, are there those out there in RR Land REALLY believe that ID/Creationism should be taught in science class?
And, if so, on what scientific basis?”
Asking creationists to provide scientific evidence for their claims? You might as well go to Dillon’s and shop in the futile aisle. You aren’t going to get science from a creationist.
Well, guys, I thought I would ask - you know - just for shits and grins.
Rob,
You are viewing the universe as a thing. Actually, the universe is a system that creates its own things. Systems are not created from whole cloth, they evolve.
Good science means teaching about and debating the rampant scientific evidence that contradicts the unproven theory of evolution, which is, in fact, incompatible with Christianity.
If you’d been listening in class, you would know that the theory of evolution is silent on the question of the beginning of life. Also, logic is on the phone and wants to protest your torturing of her. An absence of proof is not proof of an absence. Shame, shame.
——————
So Steven, “the theory of evolution is silent on the question of the beginning of life”. Well then, what do evolutionists say was the beginning of life. When did it occur? Does this mean that the the Designer could have made some organisms whole? Like fish, maybe a mammal or two.Why not? I mean, if the theory of evolution is silent on it, that leaves a lot of room.
You know me. I’m always looking for common ground.
“which is, in fact, incompatible with Christianity.”
And since when is a scientific theory required to be “compatible” with Christianity?
I thought science was supposed to be about facts and evidence.
My bad.
“Well then, what do evolutionists say was the beginning of life.”
We don’t - that is the whole point. Evolution is a scientific theory that is still evolving (no pun intended.)
Evolution has never claimed to have the answer as to the exact origins of life, nor does it claim to have ALL the answers in any regard.
That is the difference between ID/creationism and evolution.
One is a growing body of work - the other just demands acceptance despite a lack of evidence.
Guess which one is which……………………….
Steven,
Is that all you can do? Resort to the ad hominem?
For being the so called champion of civility on the blog, you need to really look at your posts.
Nothing in your post even attempted to reply to the substance of what I said.
I can debate this subject quite well, which is probably why you and others can’t do much more than make fun of me instead of engage in discussion.
WS Clark,
I have told you several times before that I don’t believe that Creationism should be taught in schools.
As far as ID? Perhaps it could be taught on some level. I don’t think it should be mandated or forced though.
I would like to see it get there the right way.
I think that Evolution should be taught with all it’s flaws instead as nearly absolute truth though.
Answer me this:
Why do man