Archive for Thursday, August 3, 2006

Election hailed as pro-evolution

August 3, 2006

Advertisement

— Kansas voters dealt a blow to national efforts to put creationism in science classes, evolution proponents said Wednesday.

"I don't think there is any other way to interpret it," said Nick Matzke, a spokesman for the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education.

The results of Kansas State Board of Education primary contests on Tuesday mean there will be at least a 6-4 majority of moderates in office in January.

That reverses the current 6-4 conservative majority that has put in place science standards that criticize evolution and have drawn international attention and some ridicule.

Supporters of the current standards say they simply provide students with alternative views of evolution.

But opponents say the criticisms are meant to point students toward intelligent design, which postulates that life's complexities are evidence of a supernatural designer. Critics say intelligent design is dressed-up creationism and should be taught as theology and not science.

The reversal of the board's majority is the latest in a series of setbacks for the intelligent design movement, Matzke said.

Reader poll
Are you satisfied with the results of the Board of Education primary election?

or See the results without voting

In February, the Ohio Board of Education reversed a curriculum standard that singled out evolution for critical analysis. And in December, a federal judge in Dover, Pa., ruled that mention of intelligent design in science class was unconstitutional because it was a religious doctrine.

Now with the Kansas election results, Matzke said supporters of intelligent design may have to change their strategy.

"If they are having trouble winning in Kansas, a red state, and in the Republican primary, it has to be somewhat discouraging. This was their crown jewel," he said.

But Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that advocates for intelligent design, disagreed.

First, he insisted that the Kansas science standards have nothing to do with intelligent design.

Secondly, he said, the institute plans to continue a campaign of radio ads to educate Kansans about what the standards mean.

"We see this as an academic freedom issue," Luskin said. "The freedom of teachers to teach more about the science of evolution and the freedom of students to learn more about the science of evolution."

He said Tuesday's vote did not represent a setback.

He noted that the State Board of Education voted in 1999 and again in 2005 for standards that criticized evolution.

"Places go one way and then another," Luskin said.

Moderate state school board member Janet Waugh, whose district includes eastern Douglas County, and who held onto her seat in the primary, said this may be a victory, but she's not betting that intelligent design supporters are defeated.

"It's like they won't give up," she said. "They just keep trying. Why won't they accept the fact that we can teach religion in school, but we can't teach it in a science class?"

Waugh said now that the board's makeup will change, there are other issues that must be addressed.

"What I would like to see done is to revisit all 6-4 decisions," she said.

That would also include the new policy to require parental permission before a student can take sex education. The former policy assumed students would take sex education but allowed parents to have their children removed from the class.

And she said it would include the job performance of Education Commissioner Bob Corkins, who was hired last year on a 6-4 vote.

"I think we need to evaluate him," she said. "I would assume he will probably be a priority."

Corkins was on vacation and couldn't be reached for comment.

Waugh said she was eager to see how conservative board members will respond to the shake-up.

"If they make a lot of decisions, we can reverse them in January," she said.

Conservative board member Kathy Martin said she hopes the board can work together and perhaps set in place science standards that both sides can agree on.

"Perhaps we can find the right compromise on it," she said.

Martin said she won't be surprised if Corkins gets the boot. And though she approves of him, she would accept his dismissal.

"If he's gone, he's gone," she said. "He knew that when he took the job."

Though evolution will make national headlines, Matzke conceded other issues may have led to changing the makeup of the board.

But, he added, "When you have politicians who are willing to compromise science education, then they are going to be fast and loose with other things."

Comments

Shardwurm 8 years, 9 months ago

Victory for Evolution?

Cool. It can take all the victories it can get.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

Look at conman try with all his might to use big words to impress us all! Just a little too obvious that he made a point to pick those words, straying far away from the vocabulary of his previous writings.

HEE_HAW and GIT-R-DONE

ds

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

GOP CONS,

I understand and agree with everything you said. I was merely stating that there is NO contradiction with the two in the way I SEE and imagine and believe about them.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Geez

Must be a slow day

Reduced to discussing the origins of our namesake now are we.

Come on hiLarryty and Devolved, come out and play please...we miss you guys.....

DonnieDarko 8 years, 9 months ago

Agnostick: You realize what this means, don't you? If merry-go-rounds are enjoyed by children, and if "Hell Is For Children"...and if Larry's right about this merry-go-round-to-hell...then children are all going to hell!!! The fundies have been right all along--it is WRITTEN! :-)

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

When I win the lottery, then I would buy one of those new MAC computers

DonnieDarko 8 years, 9 months ago

"Conservative board member Kathy Martin said she hopes the board can work together and perhaps set in place science standards that both sides can agree on. 'Perhaps we can find the right compromise on it,' she said."


Sure, Kathy...just like all the compromises brokered by you and your fellow conservative idiots for the past 2 years.

Oh, and Kathy? Perhaps not. :-)

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

LarryFarma said:

"Pro-censorship" is an accurate description of these candidates -- "moderate" and "pro-science" are not. These candidates are opposed to critical scientific analysis of Darwinism in the public schools.

Actually, it's the creationists who are "pro-censorship". For decades they used laws and threats and intimidation and slander and "surely you don't believe evolution, a TRUE Christian rejects that satanic lie!" to keep the truth about the central unifying concept of biology out of science classes. Some schools STILL, in 2006, have officials who use pressure tactics to intimidate teachers from teaching "the 'e' word". I read of a brave teacher who bucked this pressure recently. Too bad she's retiring after winning her case and making them back off. She said the pressure was just too much. Another good teacher lost.

Evolution's lonely battle in a Georgia classroom (free reg required, but I'm sure you can find the story elsewhere, her name is Pat New): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/education/28education.html?_r=1&oref=login

It's especially ironic when you guys claim the pro-science candidates are NOT pro-science, because they prefer to have LEGITIMATE science standards in place for the schools, and won't let you trot out your trumped up charges and false claims about science to "give the other side". Claims that have all been debunked by science already, often decades ago. It's not censorship to keep kooky and already disproven claims out of class, which has limited time and resources to teach the kids a decent science education and shouldn't waste it on your psuedo-science and refuted religious assertions. If there are legitimate problems with evolution, science studies them. But so far, there really aren't any. None that really prove to be one when they are studied. Sometimes they increased our UNDERSTANDING of evolution, showed us an exception that led to learning about a new process or mechanism we didn't know about. But they were in no way against evolution itself. Just changed our understanding of how it works. This is what honest science does.

And science classes (especially in elementary school) should not be dealing with all the nitty gritty and debates going on in science. They have limited time, as I said, and the students have limited understanding and aren't able to understand that level of detail yet. They need to learn the BASICS first, what evolution is, what evidence supports it, why it's considered a well supported, observed fact of science, etc. If they reach college and are still interested in it, they can learn all the advanced stuff and disagreements in science about some of the details. That's not censorship, that's common sense. You just charge "censorship" because it's an emotive argument that instinctively makes people go "oh no, we have to stop that!"

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

If god loses water, can he hold his liquor?

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

"If god loses water, can he hold his liquor?"

Ah finally,

A question worth considering.....

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

GOP COnservative very good post!

Worst nightmare...

awesome post. Thank you for those words!

justthefacts 8 years, 9 months ago

Anyone know - does Corkin have a "golden parachute" in his contract? (Meaning he would get paid lots of $$$ even if he is fired?).....

DonnieDarko 8 years, 9 months ago

Wasn't "Merry-Go-Round to Hell" a Pat Benatar song? :-)

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

ASBESTOS said ( August 5, 2006 at 8:38 a.m.) --

THREE TIMES:

Scopes Trial Supreme Court Ruling Dover <<<<<<<

The Scopes trial was technically a victory for creationists -- Scopes was convicted.

Supreme Court Ruling -- I presume that you are referring to Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Contrary to a popular misconception, neither the Supreme Court nor the lower courts in that case ruled on the scientific merits of scientific creationism (also called "creation science"). The Supreme Court said, "The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning 'battle of the experts' over possible technical meanings of terms in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law." The SC also said, "We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught."

Dover -- the Dover case was decided by a single judge who is a megalomaniacal crackpot -- for example, see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html Fortunately the Dover decision has very little precedential value.

swbsow said ( August 5, 2006 at 10:01 a.m. ) --

To quote from the article,

"But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools. "<<<<<<<

That's right -- the poll showed that only 37 percent of the public would make that substitution.

Kodiac said ( August 5, 2006 at 12:41 p.m. ) --

ID members are relentless in referring to evolution as Darwinism and evolutionary scientists as Darwinists, despite the fact that evolutionary scientists do not use those labels in such a way.<<<<<<<

Darwinists are relentless in referring to all critics of Darwinism as ID proponents and all ID proponents as creationists.

ID is anything but scientific.<<<<<<

The evolutionists' concepts of exaptation and punctuated equilibrium are just-so stories that are anything but scientific.

Kodiac said ( August 5, 2006 at 12:42 p.m. ) --

Early drafts of the book show that it was a creationism book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout. <<<<<<

Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search fo Common Ground Between God and Evolution" shows that Darwinism is a religious concept and therefore should be banned from public-school science classrooms.

you might want to review William Paley's Watchmaker analogy which he wrote so eloquently about back at the beginning of the 19th century.<<<<<<

Paley knew nothing about the great complexity at the biochemical and microbiological levels.

Kodiac said ( August 5, 2006 at 12:47 p.m. ) --

Here is link for an evolutionary model for the flagellum... http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

And you want me to believe that all that complexity arose just by accident?

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

swbsow said ( August 4, 2006 at 6:21 p.m. ) --

I'd like to see the numbers, please.<<<<<

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

no one says that ID can't be taught. We are saying it shouldn't be taught in a science class. <<<<<<

ID is discussed in scientific terms so it is really not appropriate to discuss it in a religion class.

Kodiac said ( August 4, 2006 at 6:28 p.m. ) --

What specifically is "Darwinism".<<<<<<

Darwinism is the idea that evolution was driven solely by random mutations and natural selection.

Creationism (ID)makes claims way beyond what can be demonstrated by science. <<<<<<

ID is not the same as creationism. There is nothing in the bible about irreducible complexity, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, etc..

gr8dane said ( August 4, 2006 at 7:14 p.m. ) --

Science is based on the evidence and testing, not on opinion polls. Especially opinion among the poorly educated general population.<<<<<<

Would you consider physicians to be poorly educated? A formal opinion poll showed that a large percentage of physicians are skeptical of Darwinism -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/06/many-physicians-skeptical-of-darwinism.html

As noted scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."<<<<<<

Biology does not need Darwinism. Anyway, if it makes biologists feel more comfortable, they can continue to use the concepts and tools of evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue, just as engineers use imaginary-number mathematics in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics.

Actually, it's the creationists who are "pro-censorship". For decades they used laws and threats and intimidation and slander <<<<<

Only three states had "monkey" laws (prohibiting the teaching of evolution) for a substantial length of time -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/06/herr-fuhrer-esley-welsberrys-big-lie.html

ASBESTOS said (August 4, 2006 at 8:20 p.m.) --

You have lost twice in contested elections.<<<<<

These were minor local elections and the races were close.

You have lost THREE TIMES in hig visible court sases <<<<<<

Baloney. The Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case has not been lost yet. The Dover case was a big loss because the judge was an activist crackpot. And the Freiler case came very close to being reversed -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/close-votes-in-freiler-case-show.html

gr8dane said ( August 4, 2006 at 8:32 p.m. ) --

boycotting the "Kangaroo Court" was, I thought, the right way to handle that. It was rigged from the beginning,<<<<<

The Kansas BOE hearings were for the benefit of the audience and the media as well as the board members. The boycott made the Darwinists' position look very weak.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane said ( 3:26 a.m. ) --

He'd be singing a completely different tune if Jones had ruled Larry's religious cult is science and should be allowed in science class.<<<

Wrong. My position is that Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID or irreducible complexity at all.

ASBESTOS said ( 9:02 a.m.) --

""We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.""

That is what the Jones decision stated too<<<<

Wrong. Ol' Judge Jones banned ALL criticism of Darwinism -- the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion said, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants ... from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution ...." (page 138)

Kodiac said ( 10:40 a.m.) --

It is hiLarryous watching you trying to paint a conservative devout christian judge appointed by none other than George Bush II as an "activist" judge.<<<

I care only about actions, not labels.

....."one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." That is what Jones was talking about.<<<<

Since when are we obligated to follow everything or anything that Jefferson thought?

ASBESTOS said ( 11:08 a.m.) --

(Jones said) -- "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."

Exactly! THis country is NOT about standardized religion ..... <<<<

You missed my point. My point was that Jones was likely prejudiced by his hostility towards organized religion. He also said that he was going to watch the movie "Inherit the Wind" -- which very negatively portrayed fundies -- for "historical context" about the Scopes trial.

gr8dane said ( 1:03 p.m. ) --

Why does it matter that Jones is hostile toward organized religion [even if true]. You have claimed it many times yourself, ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, not a religious one. <<<<

As I said, it matters because Jones was likely prejudiced by his hostility towards organized religion.

They claim their belief system is science .... but scream "persecution for religious beliefs!" <<<<

I didn't say anyone was being persecuted -- all I said was that Jones was likely prejudiced by his hostility towards organized religion.

...they claim evolutionary biology ... is a "religion" too. It's not. But even if that were true, wouldn't what they're doing be "persecution for religious beliefs"? <<<<<

The critics are not persecuting the Darwinists -- the critics are only asking that the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism be taught.

ASBESTOS said ( 2:09 p.m.) --

Intelligent design debate defined by 10 errors <<<<<

These "errors" are straw man arguments.

Scott Tichenor 8 years, 9 months ago

Corkins needs to start updating his resume. I'd suggest he look for something in the $30K range as a "one-man think tank". Oh, wait, that's what he was before this $140K gig.

Godot 8 years, 9 months ago

If the election had gone the other way, the JW headline would have been, "12.5% voter turnout puts cloud over election results."

rwales 8 years, 9 months ago

Let me get this right teachers will no longer be allowed to teach some of the questions and weaknesses about evolution only the strengths and as a professor put it" don't question evolution." When I was young we were not allowed to question God but the foundation of all science was questions and then the search for the answers, now we must question God and search for answers and not question science. So who is God? God and evolution seems to have switched places. If evolution is right then it would be able to with stand the scrutiny. It seems to me that the logical next step in evolution is that a sociaty would become advanced to where they would try to reproduce life in a test tube. They would start by cloning say maybe a sheep and then humans and then they would have to develope a space program to carry these cells of life to another planet but that would be intellegent design and our teachers tell us that there is no such thing. It makes for a good Star Trek movie but there is no intelligent life down here Scotty.

WilburM 8 years, 9 months ago

For supporters of a reasonable school board, and well-considered, consistent policies, the best thing (short of making the Secretary of Education an appointed Cabinet position) would be for moderates and Governor Sebelius to work hard to defeat the 2 R conservatives who received only about 50 percent of the vote in their own primary on Tuesday. Having Weiss (D) defeat Bacon and Wempe(D) defeat Willard in Nov. would mean a solid 8-2 majority and the potential for some reaoned, long-term planning. Sebelius, of course, has her own fish to fry, but raising the visibility and the stakes of these races would be reasonably inexpensive and truly valuable for a strong Board of Education.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

On the Uncommon Descent blog, blogger William Dembski said,

Since 1999, Kansas has now swung four times on the question of science standards and whether evolutionary theory should be properly scrutinized or swallowed whole. Below is the latest. This war will not be decided by courts, legislators, or school boards, but by young people as they wake up to the fact that dogmatic Darwinists have been systematically indoctrinating and disenfranchising them. Just as the counterculture of the 60s overturned the status quo, so a new counterculture, with high school, college, and university students taking the lead, will overturn the Darwinian status quo.

Evolution Opponents Lose in Kansas Primary By John Hanna Associated Press posted: 02 August 2006

Control of the school board has slipped into, out of and back into conservative Republicans' hands since 1998, resulting in anti-evolution standards in 1999, evolution-friendly ones in 2001 and anti-evolution ones again last year.

He's is right. For years, critics of Darwinism have been banging their heads against a wall in a futile effort to get legislators, school boards, and the courts to allow the mildest scientific criticism of Darwinism in public-school science classrooms. It is time to get off this merry-go-round to hell and target the students themselves directly. Legislators, school board members, and judges are soon going to find themselves irrelevant. Like Bob Dylan said in the song, "The times, they are a-changin'."

DonnieDarko 8 years, 9 months ago

LarryFarma: "For years, critics of Darwinism have been banging their heads against a wall..."

You know, I think that explains a lot, Larry. You and your fellow ID-iots can't be entirely blamed for your views. It's obviously trauma-induced.

LarryFarma: "It is time to get off this merry-go-round to hell..."

Gawd, I love that. Are you sure you didn't steal that off the display at the fire-and-brimstone church just east of the Kasold curve? That sounds like some of the priceless sound-bites that they dream up.

Oh, one more thing. The "young people" are embarrassed by the actions of the uber-conservative right wing. You are right that "the times, they are a-changin'"...however, you and your fellow blog-idiot Dembski couldn't be more wrong about the current direction.

Roadkill_Rob 8 years, 9 months ago

First off, I'll preface this blog by saying that I'm an agnostic who tends to lean towards evolution...I don't know, I guess if we're forced to take sides, evolution just makes more sense to me than a God sitting on some clouds and a devil who lives underground w/ a pitchfork.

That being said, I would hope that these right-wing nuts who are trying to get a philosophy taught in a science class give up since they've lost twice now. There's no place for it in science, period!!! But I know they will not.

Kathy Martin says, "Perhaps we can find the right compromise on it."

Although a compromise isn't really deserving since the Cons ignored pleas by the other side, I believe that it is the best course of action. My compromise would be to update the curriculum as a whole since the current one seems to be based on the 1950s. Keep teaching evolution in science. Create a junior/senior level philosophy class that can teach ID along w/ other religions since religion seems to be so important to the world. While they're at it, why not make it a requirement for upper level math classes to teach about how credit cards work and how to pay taxes, but I digress.

Oh, and Larryfarma, please don't quote Bob Dylan anymore...especially an over-used quote like that.

And rwales, teaching evolution will not lead to human cloning...it's ideas like this that helped you become the laughingstock of the country. Your the ones that can't "withstand the scrutiny."

tolawdjk 8 years, 9 months ago

LarryFarma,

I think it can be said with 100% certainty that scientists would relish the opportunity to debate even the "mildest scientific critisism of Evolution" but your crowd can't even come up with the mildest of scientific critisisims.

At best, you have offered half science or "science" based on definitions that allow astrology, alchemy, and Hogwarts School of Wizardry.

hobb2264 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry,

I think Christians should go another direction...next time your child comes home from a public school exclaiming that his/her science teacher taught them about the "big bang" or the "origins of life" call your lawyer and file a lawsuit against the school district and/or state for promoting a religion. Both of these "theories" are based just as much on a person's belief system as ID or creationism...therefore they are in the realm of religion (naturalism, materialism, environmentalism, whatever you want to call it) and not science.

Let teachers teach real science in the classroom and parents teach belief system at home....

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Larryfarma: If the criticism was coming from people other than those pushing ID in order to "bring God back into the classroom" (which IS, in fact, why the ID movement was started in the first place) you'd probably have less resistence. At any rate, the holes in evolution are, in general, accepted by scientists, who continue to raise questions about the process and how it is applied, both academically and in real life. If the holes in Darwin's theory aren't really covered in high-school, riddle me this, how much emphasis and coverage is the entire theory of evolution given in the public schools at all? I went through high-school, including biology, and I think we went over the idea one day.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

Very valid points "rwales" I am a firm believer in science and of a higher power, and with the way I look at things they do not contradict each other in the slightest. I don't know why these 2 are at each others throats, or religion at sciences throat. But I do believe that science class should be just that. A class about science, not vague inclusions of philosophies.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

LarryFarma, Guy you are way off. I personally see no problem with pointing out the gaps in evolution because those gaps are the areas that our future scientists can work on filling in. Science is a process of piecing facts together and stepping back and looking at the groups of facts as a whole to come to the most reasoned conclusion based on those facts. You said "t best, you have offered half science or "science" based on definitions that allow astrology, alchemy, and Hogwarts School of Wizardry." But I say science is not a half science just because all the facts have not been gathered. Its insulting to hear you suggest that astrology is any kind of science, and you seem to forget that your side has failed to present ANY scientific evidence to support your feelings. NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE=NOT SCIENCE

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

By the way all, remember we reside in 4 dimensions, with time being the fourth. Thus the present is like a cross-section of these 4 dimensions. Any time in the past is also a cross-section. Thus if you look at time like a line connecting these cross sections, you can see that evolution is just part of that line that was created all at once. How it was created, man will never know, but whatever did it was a higher power than I or any of you. Call it god. Call it the big electron. Call it whatever. Just one question. Can't we all just get along?

GOPConservative 8 years, 9 months ago

Vanman said:

I don't know why these 2 are at each others throats.


The primary reason they are each others throats is that scientists, based on mountains of evidence, believe the earth is billions of years old, while creationists believe it is thousands of years old. It is impossible to reconcile fact with absurd fiction.

These ignorant people, like the six that used to be the majority on the KBOE, base their "science" on no evidence whatsoever except a myth that was passed down verbally for countless generations before finally being put into writing.

If we are going to base the teaching of science on myths, why not go with the Native American myth about the earth being on the back of a giant turtle or any of the other myths that primitive people came up with to explain what they lacked the knowledge to understand?

Kansas has lost credibility because we allowed such ignorant people to be elected to the KBOE. It has had a profound negative effect on our economy by causing educated people in the rest of the world to not take our State seriously.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

Good points. Very logical LS4. Only one side of this argument has any itellectual ability. The other side seems to just be the kid with his fingers in his ears yelling "LA LA LA, IM NOT LISTENING, LA LA"

But I would like to re-mention that time is just another dimension and that "progression" is merely following, or tracing, the line of time, and isn't actually drawing the line. Everything that is, has been, and will be is already in that line and we are merely part of it. So I don't think a creator would be "managing" it because it was already present. I guess look at it like this is all a painting. Its no longer a work in progress because its already been signed in the lower-right corner by who or whatever is responsible for being. But i do know its initials are NOT I.D., not the current belief of it anyway. At least that is how I see it.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

Yeah, I like all the points you make, logic

Lucky for me, my handle is vanman, so know one criticizes me for being contradictory. Hell , I dont even know what i was thinking when I made it up, I am a man, but have never owned a van. Just rhymed and rolled off the tongue.

VERy good handle though.

I bet when u made yours up, it does mean sound logic, thus those who say your logic is not very sound are not as funny or clever as they think

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Hey, I plugged this into babelfish with settings

"Posted by conservativeman (anonymous) on August 3, 2006 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Logsound04,

You're a clown, try to give your profile name a little credit. Infuse a little logic. Your emotional and hysterical responses continue to manifest deep seated issues you need to address. Namely, you're one angry dude!

HEE-HAW ya Jack-arss

I Love this place!!! ROTFLMAO."

Translation:

"I know you are, but what am I? Neener neener neener."

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

Music Theory? What is that?

I have a theory on music, Everything that comes out nowadays is terrible, and sooner or later others will see this. Especially this crappy hip hop that all sounds like the same songs, yet they tell us its not. Heres a thought, rap with originality if your gonna do it at all. And learn to play instruments, don't wait until your second record deal and then learn the soundboards. Start with real instruments and then you might have REAL talent.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

"Do the math" is quickly becoming a tired cliche, but it fits in this instance, particularly the post by the idiot hobb2264.

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose laid out the the mathematical formulae that lead back to the Big Bang. Anyone who wants to contend that belief in the Big Bang is tantamount to belief in a religion, simply dispute or disprove the math.

Have a nice day.

GOPConservative 8 years, 9 months ago

Vanman,

I understood your point, but the crowd that supports the goofballs who have been running the KBOE believe the myths in Genesis really occurred.

In time, scientists may identify some kind of intelligence involved in evolution, but that intelligence is most likely a subconscious desire on the part of the species itself to better adapt to its environment.

Regardless, there is no debate about evolution. The species on this planet did in fact evolve slowly over billions of generations through billions of years. All evidence supports this.

But to the extent that some kind of intelligence may be involved in evolution, I agree with you that this is a possibility.

However, these ID whackos ultimately wanted to teach such crap as:

The earth was created in six days

The earth is only 10,000 years old.

God found water somewhere in the Universe and suddenly covered the earth so deep that even mountains were no longer exposed, and then, just as suddenly, God sucked it all back up.

Rainbows, which any high school physics student can tell you are universally created by the refraction of light through raindrops, did not occur until AFTER this mythological flood.

Of course, the ID proponents are careful not to actually mention these absurd beliefs, but nearly all those who attend their meetings do believe this crap.

These ignorant people are filled with fear. They have been manipulated through fear to believe such lies because they were told at an early age that to not belive in lies is an automatically sentence to hell.

Satan, if he exists, knows that fear is a very effective tool to make ignorant people believe in the ridiculous.

vanman 8 years, 9 months ago

RIGHT ON GOPCON

"god found water" ? I never heard some of this stuff.

It almost makes me laugh to think someone believes that. I mean, didn't 'god create' everything, according to that belief system. I KNOW! God made water a while back but then he forgot where he put it. Then he was walking around one day and tripped over something and was like "Oh, thats where I put my water, I was looking for that!"

BOE 8 years, 9 months ago

" The results of Kansas State Board of Education primary contests on Tuesday mean there will be at least a 6-4 majority of moderates in office in January. "

--

People making plans, talking about reversals as though there wasn't a General Election yet to go.

A small sample of those motivated enough to vote in a Primary is by no means the "slam dunk", of a more "heated" General Election.

Gotta say though, the voter apathy (esp. with Republicans picking a candidate to face a Dem incumbent), is breathtaking. :(

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 9 months ago

It is interesting that Kansans have vacillated on the issue of evolutionary science and the KBOE. I think what this means is that the more people know and the more they become informed, the more likely they are to dismiss ID creationism as having anything to do with science.

ID creationism thrives in the dark places of inattention, ignorance, and demagoguery. When the light switches are thrown and people become informed, people see ID creationism for what it is. ID creationism then reteats back into the shadows in wait, to find another dark, ignorant place where it can begin to grow again. Just like termites and roaches, ID creationism will be back.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

Both Bacon and Willard did not approach 1/2 of their primary total votes, I think Willard maybe got a little over 50%.

Moderate R's will NOT vote for the Whacko's, however, whaclo's will vote for a Moderate R before any D. D's in Kansas will vote for a Moderate R before a weaker D in that position of KDBOE in my opinion.

I do not think that they have a sure thing here, it will probably end up either 7-3 or 8-2 on the KSBOE, and MAYBE...MAYBE they will then KNOCK off this stupid stuff and get back to important issues.

WHat I absolutely love is the fact that the DI and ID Network have spent a lotta bucks and went BACKWARDS!! FIrst Ohio, then Georgia, now Kansas.

Hopefully they will get the message that a Democracy is NO Place to set up a fundemental religious based cabal.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

ANd they said no miracles would come of this! LOL!

All movements like the ID and such nonsense are funded by wealthy benefactors, however benefactors need to see results. I cannot WAIT to see the fallout, when the Rich guys want to know why they paid so much money to these Creo/ID yahoos for a net zero result. (Acutally LOOSING GROUND!)

There is going to be a fundamentalist ole fashioned bloodletting that is LONG overdue. The purge and blame game hopefully will begin soon, and be ugly!

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I've been busy in the "Group promotes science standards" discussion, but just checked the other news here about evolution.

Congratulations to the people of Kansas for turfing out some of these creationist fascists on the school board and getting back to proper science standards in the schools.

And as vanman pointed out, this is NOT a war between science and religion (or any specific religion, including Christianity). Most mainstream denominations accept evolution just fine. Mainly it's the fundamentalists/literalists who reject it, and lots of other science, like physics and cosmology (including big bang), chemistry, geology, biology (abiogenesis as well as evolution), etc.

Creationism is based on many fallacies and misconceptions. One they use a lot is the "false dichotomy". For example, they push the false dichotomy that you can believe in God OR accept evolution, but not both. The fact that most Christians accept evolution fine sorta refutes that. I know. I'm one of them. So are all the Christians I know around here. Including my elderly parents.

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus'." - Phillip Johnson

This is why they were so keen to get those flawed "science standards" in place. They REDEFINE science to allow supernatural explanations as science. All part of the "Wedge Strategy" of the ID creationism movement.

They deny it, but it's ALL about proselytizing their fundamentalist faith. Even though their campaign of misinformation has been too successful and even non-fundamentalists (and even non-Christians) have swallowed the fallacies and misconceptions of science pushed in creationist propaganda.

Oh well. I hope this election helps Kansas get back on the right track. But as Bennyoates said, the creationists are "unusually persistent, well-organized, and well-funded". And they don't let facts get in the way of their Mission.

GOPConservative 8 years, 9 months ago

Besides the absurdity of God finding enough water to cover the planet above the highest mountains and then sucking it back up, one has to question the morality of a God who would do such a thing.

According to the myth, only Noah and his family were saved. Can you imagine the suffering of all those millions of children, babies and fetuses that were purposely killed by God? What did those innocents do to deserve being murdered?

Although I have not yet read it, I recently saw an interview with Anne Provoost, author of "In the Shadow of the Ark."

It is a story of the Great Flood from the perspective of a young girl who helped Noah build the Ark before finding out that she would not be allowed on it and that God was going to kill her.

"In the Shadow of the Ark" would probably be helpful to those who still live in fear of opening their minds to the truth about the Earth's history.

http://www.teenreads.com/reviews/0439442346.asp

gan 8 years, 9 months ago

Christians and Jews have a creation story. So do other religions.

Materialists have a deep need for their own creation story. Darwin provided that story and materialists defend it because they must. Without it they lose to an alternative story. Darwin's story is full of holes but it's all they've got so it gets defended with all their might, and that defense includes banning any criticism.

How did the writer of Job, written almost 3000 years ago, know "the Earth hangs on nothing?" The science (science?) extant then said the earth rested on something: a turtle or a giant. Was religion less accurate?

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Ah yes, gan. The creationist mantra that science is "just another creation story". Too bad it's nonsense. And so is your claim of it being "full of holes". Are there gaps in our knowledge? Certainly. Do any of these gaps make evolution less of a factual, observed natural process than it is? No. Do they make the evidence we DO have any less overwhelmingly convincing that evolution happened in the past as we see it happening today? No.

Playing apologist with the bible, reinterpretting it to fit modern discoveries (by the materialistic science you hate so much), is just a sign of your fear. You don't want to let go of your own outdated and disproven creation myth because you've been fed a line that if you do, ALL of your faith is wrong. That's the fundamentalist mindset, that the bible is 100% literal (even though they admit it's not in parts), or 100% false. A mindset not shared by the majority of Christians, who are not literalist fundamentalists. And who accept evolution and other science JUST fine, because it doesn't conflict with our faith.

Creationism is what is "full of holes". That's why science rejected it centuries ago. Creationists act like their overly literal interpretation of an ancient creation story is something NEW, something science hasn't tried, and refuses to because of a "materialist bias". That's BS. It was the default position of many, until enough evidence accumulated against it. And it's continued to pour in since we started studying the natural world around us.

Geologists knew the Genesis "account" wasn't literally true long before Darwin came along and showed it wasn't true with lifeforms, either. No Young Earth. No Great Flood. No Instant Fully Formed, Intelligently Designed Lifeforms, Etc.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Gan,

So are you saying that the "materialists" are not christians or jews? Are you equating evolution with atheism?

Hey gan you might want to check out Job 9:6 and Job 26:11. The writer for Job talked about the earth and heavens being supported by pillars. Hmm. How can something "hang on nothingness" and be supported by pillars. Also the translation of "hangs on nothing" is disputed by many biblical experts. They say that the translation is more closer to "He is suspending the earth over the formless deep" and that this type of phrasing was a commonly used in the ancient world meaning not specific to the bible or the writer of Job.

"Was religion less accurate?"

This is irrelevant. Timothy 3:16 clearly states that the Bible is inspired by God so that it is profitable for instruction in righteousness not instruction in science. Trying to read modern day science back into the Bible is simply an attempt by fundamentalist to justify their rigid belief system.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

75x55,

Guilty as charged....

Guess I should have been more specific.

How about "Trying to read modern day science back into the Bible is simply an attempt by Gan to justify his rigid belief system."

Is that better.

prioress 8 years, 9 months ago

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on August 3, 2006 at 8:31 a.m. Anyone know - does Corkin have a "golden parachute" in his contract? (Meaning he would get paid lots of $$$ even if he is fired?)..... +++++++++ Short answer, "no." He serves at the pleasure of the board. I'd like to see them keep him for awhile.......tell him, "Don't mention vouchers (illegal to private schools); don't try and expand charters (don't really work); and continue to hammer the legislature for another 400 million a year or so. Your first evaluation is in 90 days."

prioress 8 years, 9 months ago

"That would also include the new policy to require parental permission before a student can take sex education. The former policy assumed students would take sex education but allowed parents to have their children removed from the class." ++++++ Not true. The SBOE did approve some advisory language, but the regulations remain unchanged and boards do not have to change from "out-out" to "opt-in."

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

I wish news reports would stop referring to the pro-censorship candidates as "moderates." There is nothing moderate about arbitrary censorship.

Also, it is pointless to argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. A literal interpretation of the bible (or other religious source) is actually a basic part of the religious beliefs of some people.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Yes Larry, LITERAL interpretations are a basic part of the religious beliefs of SOME people. Not MOST people. Not even most CHRISTIANS. Most of us find so-called "Darwinism" (more properly, neo-darwinism, as Darwin's theory isn't used anymore) and science in general quite compatible with our faith.

"Pro-censorship candidates". LOL Nice DISHONEST way to refer to moderate candidates who actually believe in following the constitution and keeping science in science class, and religion at home and church. And many Christians agree.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

"A literal interpretation of the bible (or other religious source) is actually a basic part of the religious beliefs of some people."

Not in my Church!

"There is nothing moderate about arbitrary censorship."

Would that be like lying about your position like the DI and ID net did? Or, how about all of us are FORCED to accept an outlandish theory because a MINORITY want to believe fairy tales?

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Hey everyone,

HiLARRYty is back. Gotta love it. Calling the moderates censors because they are "censoring" ID. That is hiLARRYity for ya. Noone stopping anyone from teaching ID in a philosophy class. It just isn't science dude so it doesn't belong in the science classroom. Give it up dude.

Can't spell hiLARRYty without Larry....

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane said ( August 4, 2006 at 5:10 p.m. ) --

Yes Larry, LITERAL interpretations are a basic part of the religious beliefs of SOME people. Not MOST people. Not even most CHRISTIANS. Most of us find so-called "Darwinism" (more properly, neo-darwinism, as Darwin's theory isn't used anymore) and science in general quite compatible with our faith.<<<<<<<

Instead of saying "SOME people," I should have said "QUITE A FEW people." Opinion polls show that a large percentage of people literally interpret the biblical story of creation. A surprisingly high percentage of people think that only creationism should be taught in the public schools.

"Pro-censorship candidates". LOL Nice DISHONEST way to refer to moderate candidates who actually believe in following the constitution and keeping science in science class, and religion at home and church.<<<<<<

"Pro-censorship" is an accurate description of these candidates -- "moderate" and "pro-science" are not. These candidates are opposed to critical scientific analysis of Darwinism in the public schools.

ASBESTOS said ( August 4, 2006 at 5:19 p.m. ) --

Or, how about all of us are FORCED to accept an outlandish theory because a MINORITY want to believe fairy tales?<<<<<<

Why should students be forced to listen to Darwinism if it is contrary to their religious, philosophical, or scientific beliefs? So far, in places where only Darwinism is actually taught, the courts have not even allowed evolution disclaimer statements aimed at accommodating people who disagree with Darwinism (e.g., the Selman v. Cobb County decision banned evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers).

Kodiac said ( August 4, 2006 at 5:24 p.m.) --

No one stopping anyone from teaching ID in a philosophy class. It just isn't science dude so it doesn't belong in the science classroom. <<<<<<

A lot of Darwinism is not science but just philosophy. ID is actually more scientific than Darwinism because ID -- unlike Darwinism -- does not make claims beyond what can be demonstrated by science.

Also, ID and irreducible complexity are not the only scientific criticisms of Darwinism -- there are other criticisms that have little or nothing to do with design, intelligent or otherwise. Examples are criticisms regarding co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction -- see

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/co-evolutionary-paradox.html

-- and --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/propagability-of-beneficial-mutations.html

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

"A lot of Darwinism is not science but just philosophy. ID is actually more scientific than Darwinism because ID -- unlike Darwinism -- does not make claims beyond what can be demonstrated by science."

Hey Larry,

What specifically is "Darwinism". Need to define what that means. I can't find that term defined anywhere in any field of science. So your whole paragraph makes no sense. I do not recognize the term "darwinism". Please clarify?

Creationism (ID) is not scientific. You need to go look up the word S C I E N T I F I C Larry. Creationism (ID)makes claims way beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Science cannot say anything about the Creator (Designer). How is creationism (ID) more scientific? You need to back up such claims Larry.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

Loopy Larry stated:

"ASBESTOS said ( August 4, 2006 at 5:19 p.m. ) --

Or, how about all of us are FORCED to accept an outlandish theory because a MINORITY want to believe fairy tales?<<<<<<

Why should students be forced to listen to Darwinism if it is contrary to their religious, philosophical, or scientific beliefs?""

Because they aren't studying "Darwinism", they are studying a Scientific set of facts called "Evolution Theory". Darwinism is a Social principal cooked up by Maxisists and socialists bastradizing the theory of evolution. THe ToE is not "Survival of the Fittest" it is change through time and acquired charateristics. Nothing more.

Your ballyhooing (and that of ID Net and DI) are WAY OFF the mark! ToE has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING, ZILCH to do with social science or principals. It (Darwinism) is in reality like SwbSow stated a Social philosophy.

Only a fundamentalist and a socialist would misrepresent (or choose to explain) the ToE in such a way. Seig Heil Der Larry!

"So far, in places where only Darwinism is actually taught, the courts have not even allowed evolution disclaimer statements aimed at accommodating people who disagree with Darwinism ..."

Again, that is NOT what is being taught in science class. NOW if it is being presented in Social studies or current events, then you have a case. But you don't cahnge the science standards because YOU, DI, and ID NET are intentionally calling Darwinism a "science" and Theory of Evolution a "religion". You got the apples and oranges all mixed up.

Evolution is not Darwinism, but Evolution is a Science.

ID/Creo is a social Philosophy and so is Darwinism, but neither one is SCIENCE!

Now that is not just using words and rhetoric. That is EXACTLY what these things are.

YOu just prove that you don't have a notion in hell about what you are talking about. You are just repeating "talking points" that someone told you in church, or at the local bar, both of which are obviously not a Laboratory or a Hall of Academia.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

besides:

YOU HAVE LOST.

GIVE IT A REST you obsessed fundamentalist YAHOO!

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

LarryFarma said:

Instead of saying "SOME people," I should have said "QUITE A FEW people." Opinion polls show that a large percentage of people literally interpret the biblical story of creation. A surprisingly high percentage of people think that only creationism should be taught in the public schools.

Science is based on the evidence and testing, not on opinion polls. Especially opinion among the poorly educated general population. Which is why science belongs in science classes. NOT teaching evolution and other science, just because some of you religious fanatics might be offended, has led to many large sections of the USA being ignorant about what it is and why it's a scientific fact, and in that ignorance, fundamentalists have had a fair bit of success spreading their misinformation about science and their campaign of propaganda against it. Larry seems to be a good little example of the product of such brainwashing.

Even if it's true that a surprising number believe the schools should teach "only creationism", such an action is against the constitution and the principles the USA stands for. Including "freedom of religion" and the "separation of church and state" that such freedom relies on. Dominionist fundamentalists want to destroy this freedom and make the USA a theocracy (with them in charge, of course), and from there, rewrite the constitution in their own fascist image.

The majority of the population should be against this, even most Christians, who actually value the freedoms Americans are supposed to hold dear. Now, I won't harp on about that. You don't need a Canadian reminding you what's important. I only bring it up because the creationists are a direct threat to it, as Larry showed quite well. He thinks that OPINION POLLS should determine everything. Too bad. Part of the job of the constitution is to protect EVERYONE'S rights, even minorities. That's why the public school needs to keep secular. Not anti-religion, but not pro-religion (or any specific one) either. Keep science in science class. Teach religion at home and church/temple/synagogue/mosque, etc. America haters like Larry think "majority rules" and that gives them the right to push around everyone else, force them to learn the "majority religion", etc. Even if the creationists HAD a majority religion, and they don't.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, their propaganda campaign has been successful in spreading misinformation about science (especially evolutionary biology), though. So even many non-fundamentalist Christians (and even non-Christians) have fallen for their claims, which SOUND reasonable to someone uneducated in science enough to see through them. So yes, you get a lot of people falling for the creationist fallacies and dishonest tactics, like "teach the controversy", as if there actually is a controversy in science about WHETHER evolution happens (there isn't), and claims that "more and more scientists are rejecting evolution" (also false, the tiny number who do reject it do so purely for religious reason and not because of any scientific reasons, and the percentage is not really increasing).

The school board has a DUTY to make sure the schools are teaching what they SHOULD, without being swayed by "majority opinion" on what they should be teaching. Proper science in science class, not religious indoctrination and religiously motivated attacks on science. Which is all your "critical scientific analysis of Darwinism" amounts to. The schools should be teaching what the scientific community considers their consensus as to what is valid science and how strongly it's accepted. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There IS NO debate in science about WHETHER it happens, even among scientists who disagree (sometimes quite strongly) about some of the details of how it happens (the mechanisms), what order specific organisms evolved in, and other similar details.

And evolution is an important base concept. Evolution is the single unifying scientific theory of life and an essential element of scientific literacy. As noted scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." It would be irresponsible not to teach our kids what it is and why it's so well supported, with no evidence against. I repeat. NO EVIDENCE AGAINST. Your "critical scientific analysis of Darwinism" is a collection of religiously motivated attacks on evolutionary theory, based on dishonest claims, quote mining of actual scientists (misquoting to make it sound like they are saying the opposite of what the full quote says, etc), misconceptions of the theory and of scientific method, and other flawed claims.

If you want your creationism to become science, go through proper channels. DO THE SCIENCE to support it, and publish in peer-reviewed journals. THEN it goes into the schools. Creationists know you can't do that, so you're trying to do it backwards, using politics and appealing to "religious values" of voters to sneak creationism in in the schools, so those kids grow up with distorted views of science and eventually all scientists have those views too.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Even some ID creationists admit they have no science supporting them:

"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." --Dr. Paul Nelson. "The Measure of Design." Touchstone magazine, 2004.

That's why you want to make this "democratic", and appeal to "opinion polls", Larry. Even though science is based on evidence and testing, not opinions of those not qualified to vote on how "true" something is in science. Especially when for decades, large groups of people were hearing nothing but your version, not getting a proper science education in the schools because of pressure not to teach "the 'e' word". Now the pendulum is swinging the other way, and you hate it. Kids will grow up more educated, less likely to fall for the creationist propaganda, less likely to convert to your extremist form of Christianity...

To most creationists, it's NOT about being right, not about finding the truth, not about the advancement of science, not about honesty, not about increasing our body of knowledge. It's about evangelization. Some of the creationist gurus even admit this (I think I posted Phillip Johnson's post earlier). It's also about attacking evolution because they think they have to, to defend their faith.

They only attack evolution to bring people into the faith. And their faith includes the belief that Genesis is literally true, so they have to continue to attack science, even though they know they have no hope through legitimate science. If they don't attack science, it's admitting the bible isn't 100% inerrant and literally true. Instant death to their weak faith. And no new converts.

It shows the dishonesty of creationists, that they never WILL let themselves accept evolution, no matter HOW well proven it gets.

Some of them ADMIT this. They are PROUD of this dishonesty. They just don't admit it's dishonesty. They say it's "loyalty to God" and other bull. God doesn't want them to believe and spread LIES.

Well, maybe the god of the creationists does. But the Christian God doesn't.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Oh, I forgot... if you want to see that nytimes link I gave, you could always try opening http://www.bugmenot.com in another window and finding a password to log in with.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

asbestos, unfortunately, one of the many misconceptions creationists use is that they use "Darwinism" as synonymous with the modern theory of evolution. Science doesn't use "Darwin's Theory" anymore. It's been modified and added to as we've learned more about how evolution works over the last 150 years. For instance, Darwin didn't know any of the mechanisms that created new diversity in the population. Just that diversity was happening. He didn't know about mutations, sexual recombination (the way offspring of sexually procreating species inherit half of their genes, randomly, from each parent, leading to new combinations and some offspring have weaker traits and others have stronger traits).

What Darwin DID propose in his theory is still essentially part of the MODERN theory of evolution (hence why it's called NEO-Darwinism), but we've learned a lot more since then, and using "Darwinism" as synonymous with it is dishonest and ignorant.

I suspect the ignorant part is that they really don't understand this, and really think DARWIN'S ORIGINAL theory is still used. The media people tends to phrase it that way also.

As for the dishonest part, well, even those who know Darwin's theory and modern ToE are not synonymous tend to use it anyway. It fits in with one of their attack tactics, slandering the "founder" of the theory, therefore making the theory suspect. So they say all sorts of garbage like "he was an atheist, he hates God and Christians" and other bunk. He became an agnostic, maybe even leaning toward atheism at times, later in life. And his work on his theory was unrelated to this. The doctrines of his church are what turned him off of faith, including that they said GOOD people can go to ETERNAL damnation just because they don't belong to the RIGHT religion. His daughter's young death might have been a factor too.

As for him being anti-religious, anti-religious-people, etc, that's garbage too. One of Darwin's favorite friends and pen pals was the Christian minister Asa Gray. Who, incidentally, was also a strong proponent of his theory. (again, refuting the false dichotomy of creationists that you can believe one OR the other).

Not to mention the infamous "Darwin recanted on his deathbed!" lie, that even many creationist websites now say not to use.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

In a "History of Science" class we had a choice of reading some books on the subject. I read the History and times of Charles Dawrin. It was a great book! Darwin himself agonized over the very revelation of his theory and he was also in the university at the time trying to become a Priest!

He went on the HMS Beagle as a favor in order to move up in the acedemic field and to eventually become the priest he always wanted to be. His research though consumed him and he just could not let it go (thankfully). He was also in a race with a competitor to grab the title first so to speak. When his came out, it shook the world, he suffered slings and arrows, and his competitor even started defending him and cooroberating his work.

As for the Croe/ID folks they STILL think that Evloution is the abiogenesis on earth. SO there is no counting for intelligence on that side. That is why they keep harping on the "designer".

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

I Posted this on Red State Rabble:

" We need to make a statement against this pro ID/Croe yahoos that will come again at science. That statement must be:

You have lost twice in contested elections. The only elections won by the Fundamentalist yahoos were stealth campaigns.

You have lost THREE TIMES in hig visible court sases and wasted millions of dollars of public school revenues that could have been used for proper scholastic expenditures rather than court cases to argue against something everyone knows is absurd, that ID/Creo is NOT science and is extablishment of religion.

Evolution is not atheistic. It is not "theistic" at all. Those who confuse Theory of Evolution and "Social Darwinism", must be directly and strengently rebuffed and confronted, and often. Don't let one little comment slide.

In the end the goal of the ID/Creo crowd as in the "Wedge Document" so aptly points out is truly a process by which to instill the establishment of a fundamentalist religious component within public schools.

Tell the TRUTH to everyone even when they don't want to hear it, and repeat it often. SCIENCE and EDUCATION is dependant on this. We MUST defend it, if we respect and cherish science and education. Scientists cannot lay in the shadows 8ever again. If there is another Kangaroo COurt, attend! Take a day off, respond and defend your passion and career. Do not sit by meekly! DO NOT make the mistake again "not attending to be above the fray"! We must engage at point zero. Do NOT let any unsubstanciated comments against evolution and science go uncontested. Freedom requires vigilence. We know that they* will be back!

Ever forward!"

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Actually, asbestos, boycotting the "Kangaroo Court" was, I thought, the right way to handle that. It was rigged from the beginning, the board members presiding were of the "our minds are made up against evolution already" ones who put in the phony science standards anyway. And I believe they would have reached the same conclusions if all the most eloquent scientists showed up to defend evolution.

The scientists weren't sitting on their butts, ignoring the case, as they have too long in the past when creationists are actively attacking science. They held their own media events, used it as a chance to teach people what was really at stake, etc. I thought they handled it quite well, under the circumstances forced on us by, as you pointed out, the anti-evolution majority on the board who got in by stealth politics.

And even the media was quite saavy to the whole thing, making it obvious the "Kangaroo Court" really WAS a farce. Although the lawyer for the evo side did an EXCELLENT job, even without the support of scientists (at least publicly). But the "Court" came to the conclusion they would have anyway, whoever showed up. So I don't blame them for boycotting it.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

And in actual fair legally binding court cases, the scientists are showing up and exposing the ID creationists as the religious fanatics they are, who are trying to slip creationism into the schools under a weak disguise as science... The Kitzmiller case about the Dover school board, for instance. I bet the creationists didn't expect a Bush-appointed lifelong Republican judge to rule against them, and so forcefully and persuasively! Kudos to Judge Jones... :)

Just as Christians need to take back Christianity from the creationists who claim to represent it, moderate Republicans need to take back their party from the religious right who claim to represent it. That the religious right are also generally the creationists isn't a coincidence.

That's why the recent election is good news. It ruins the creationist majority on the board, no matter whether Republicans or Democrats win in November. Good to see.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

Don't get me wrong on the boycott of the Kangaroo Court, it was a great strategy last time. But when yu have someone on their heels, keep punching, don't let them breath. I was well aware of the scientists in courts as well. I have been following this.

I am talking about a strategy for the future. Withe the position we have, cede NO ground. That is the tact needed to be taken. ON I believe Panda's Thumb, they were discussing what needs to be done. The comments on the discussion by some of the scientists was that"we ain't gonna sit back ever again and literally rest on their collective laurels.

I ment no disrespect to the scientists, I am just apealling to them to not back away form these yahoos ever again. To respond and respond as brilliantly as they can muster, even though they are agruing with some intellectual lightweights that are definetaly "below their academic level".

Go for it! It is FUN to mentally fillet a person in verbal argument!

I do like your statement on Christians taking back the faith and Repbulicans taking back the party. Both fell into dishonesty and disarray by consorting with these filthy fundamentalists.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Asbestos, yes, I agree with you completely. And I'm glad the scientists are finally realizing they need to step up and refute these false claims and pseudo-science from the creationists, and get involved, or the misconceptions of science are all the average person hears, and they believe it because of that. For too long, they just figured the creationists were harmless religious fanatics that no one would take seriously, but now more are speaking up.

And you're right we need to stay vigilant, stay on the offensive even when we have the creationists on the run, because they are determined to get their way and won't give up just because of setbacks, either on the school board, the courts, or the government.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

THREE TIMES:

Scopes Trial Supreme Court Ruling Dover

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Boy, Larry sure is delusional. I'm not even going to respond to that mess.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Hey HiLARRYty,

You are funny man. You are killing me.

I'm sorry buddy but ID is creationism. See the following from the talkorigin.site:

The reasons given for ID not being creationism fail: The term "Intelligent design creationism" is used because it is descriptive. The fact that the ID movement does not use it themselves means nothing, because the movement is based on propaganda and image manipulation (Branch 2002; CRSC 1998; Forrest 2002).

Claiming this reason is also blatant hypocrisy. ID members are relentless in referring to evolution as Darwinism and evolutionary scientists as Darwinists, despite the fact that evolutionary scientists do not use those labels in such a way.

There are differences between ID creationism, young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, gap creationism, Vedic creationism, and other forms of creationism. Still, they are all creationism.

ID is anything but scientific.

ID has no science program at all.

Intelligent design is defined and treated as a form of creationism by its supporters. (The ideas listed here are prevalent in the ID movement, but there may be individual members who disagree with some of them.) Intelligent design's main characteristics -- rejection of naturalism, denial of evolution, belief in abrupt appearance and supernatural design, emphasis on gaps in the fossil record, claims of scientific support, claims that evolution is a threat to society, and support for "teaching the controversy" -- are essentially unchanged from young-earth creationism of the 1970s (Forrest 2005).

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

The internet domain www.creation-science.com (as of Sept. 17, 2004) is registered by Access Research Network, a major ID organization, and directs you to their Web site. One prominent ID book captures the idea of creation in its definition: Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100)

The ID movement rejects naturalistic explanations for origins and seeks to replace them with one or a few sudden creations by a supernatural agent whom almost everyone in the movement identifies as the Christian God. That is creationism, plainly.

The "intelligent design" strategy evolved from creationism. A main textbook for intelligent design, Of Pandas and People, was in draft stage in 1987 when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teach "creation science" unconstitutional. Early drafts of the book show that it was a creationism book, using the word "creation" and cognates throughout. Drafts made after the Edwards decision show that the authors simply substituted the term "intelligent design" for "creation" (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005). Links: Forrest, Barbara. 2005. From "Creation Science" to "Intelligent Design": Tracing ID's Creationist ancestry. http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/Tracing_ID_Ancestry.pdf

Thomas, Dave. 2003. The C-Files: The smoking gun - "intelligent design" IS creationism! http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm

Also HiLARRYty you might want to review William Paley's Watchmaker analogy which he wrote so eloquently about back at the beginning of the 19th century. Look familiar....It should...its Irreducible Complexity. I think Paley was a heck of alot more convinving than Behe or any of your current creationists. I think Paley would be horrified at some of the ways his own arguments have been dumbed down. Now you are talking about mousetraps for christsakes.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Hey HiLARRYty,

Here is link for an evolutionary model for the flagellum...

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Is that Barbara Forrest? Smart lady. Knows what she's talking about. She was there at the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. I've been meaning to read a copy of her book (co-authored with Paul R. Gross), "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design"

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Yes, Behe's scientifically refuted concept of "irreducible complexity" (and ID creationism in general) is a rehashing of Reverend Paley's Argument from Design and other arguments, which itself was based on older versions by others. Darwin was quite familiar with Paley's work, as it came out 50 or so years earlier. And he answered it. Behe and the other IDers just tried tarting up the argument with modern scientific terms. But scientists weren't fooled and, it's good to see, neither were the judges in the recent cases that went against the creationists.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I love it. The creationists praise the choice of Judge Jones before the verdict, sure they've got a judge biased in their favor... They lose, and screech that "the Dover case was decided by a single judge who is a megalomaniacal crackpot"

That's not the only absurd thing Larry is spouting. This in particular made me laugh at the irony:

LarryFarma said:

"Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search fo Common Ground Between God and Evolution" shows that Darwinism is a religious concept and therefore should be banned from public-school science classrooms."

Obviously, he's never read it. I have.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane said ( August 5, 2006 at 10:16 p.m. ) --

The creationists praise the choice of Judge Jones before the verdict, sure they've got a judge biased in their favor... They lose, and screech that "the Dover case was decided by a single judge who is a megalomaniacal crackpot"<<<<<<

Judge Jones was chosen by lottery, so who or what was there to "praise"?

I didn't want a biased judge -- I wanted a fair and reasonable judge, and obviously we did not get one.

Judge Jones is a jerk of the lowest order. For example, he said in a commencement speech,

"......this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

So essentially what he said was that Christianity and a lot of other organized religions are not "true religions." With such great hostility towards organized religion, he should recuse himself from any case involving either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause.

My following blog article condemning Judge Jones also lists my 8 other blog articles condemning him -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-buffoonery-from-judge-jones.html

LarryFarma said: "Kenneth Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution' shows that Darwinism is a religious concept and therefore should be banned from public-school science classrooms."

Obviously, he's never read it. I have.<<<<<<

I don't have to read the book -- its title is enough to condemn Darwinism as a religious concept. If Darwinism were purely scientific, Miller would not have to invoke his belief in god to support it -- no scientist would write a book with a title like "Finding Copernicus's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism."

My blog also has articles condemning Kenneth Miller --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-darwinism-science-or-philosophy.html

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/hypocritical-kenneth-millers-evolution.html

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/kenneth-miller-hypocrite.html

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry said:

I don't have to read the book -- its title is enough to condemn Darwinism as a religious concept.

Hah. Thought so. No wonder he's so ill informed. He doesn't even read books. He reads titles, and assumes they support his misconceptions and biases.

Miller in no way "invokes his belief in god to support it" (evolution). The evidence supports it fine. It just doesn't conflict with his faith. He wouldn't have to point that out if morons like Larry weren't peddling their false dichotomy.

For normal, honest people, I recommend Ken Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". It's an excellent book. Well written, understandable by the layman but also goes into enough detail when it needs to. Refutes most of the main creationist varieties, shows why evolution is an accepted scientific fact, and doesn't conflict with Christian (or other) faith. As well as being professor of Biology at Brown University, he's also a devout Catholic. (Unfortunately, Behe is a Catholic also, albeit one who disagrees with the Church's position on evolution.)

Thought I'd get that in, since Larry's spamvertising his own silly blog.

And I'm not even going to comment on his sour grapes claims about Judge Jones. He'd be singing a completely different tune if Jones had ruled Larry's religious cult is science and should be allowed in science class.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

"The Scopes trial was technically a victory for creationists -- Scopes was convicted."

All charges dismissed! ALL Schoolbook publishers started excluding the creationism slant.

""We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.""

That is what the Jones decision stated too, It (ID/Creo) has to be science and it isn't. You looked hard and went through your ID/Creo toolbox for those 2 didn't you, but like the rest of the ID/Creo crowd's "facts" they are truncated, misrepresented and taken out of context.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is the timeline in cases in which ID/Creo lost...officially. From the website:

http://www.allviewpoints.org/RESOURCES/EVOLUTION/timeline.htm

Dec 20, 2005 (Kitzmiller v. Dover School District). Judge John Jones III of the Third U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, PA rules that, "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom" as had been mandated by a recently ousted Dover, PA school board.

Jun 19, 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard). The U.S. Supreme Court rules that giving "equal time" to the teaching of Creation Science and evolution in public schools, as required by Louisiana law, violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

(Cont.)

1971 (Lemon v. Kurtzman). In this ruling against the subsidization of Catholic private schools and teacher salaries, the U.S. Supreme Court states that all laws must have a secular purpose. The Court further provided the the so-called "lemon-test" by which laws could be evaluated: The law or regulation (government action) must have a legitimate secular purpose; The government action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and The government action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion Application of this test is instrumental in later rulings on evolution.

1968 (Epperson v. Arkansas). The U.S. Supreme Court rules that an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but did not specifically prohibit the teaching of creationism. This would not happen until Edwards in 1987.

Mar 8, 1948 (McCollum v. Board of Education). The U.S. Supreme Court declares religious classes in public schoolrooms to be an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. While not directly related to evolution or creationism, it is precedent for Schempp and part of a series of cases that infuriated many social conservatives while pleasing church-state separatists.

1925 (Scopes "Monkey" Trial). One of the most infamous and misunderstood trials in American history, this test of of Tennessee's Butler Act pits evolution against Christianity. While advocates of evolution lose, book publishers immediately start pulling evolutionary references from textbooks to avoid further controversy.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

You fundamentalist yahoos need to stick a fork in it. What you are doing is no "the will of GOD", it is the will of many misguided men. If it was GOD, will then how could it loose?

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

HiLarryty,

You are such a funny guy. It is hiLarryous watching you trying to paint a conservative devout christian judge appointed by none other than George Bush II as an "activist" judge. The comment from the commencement speech was about freedom of religion not religious ideology. Jones was referring to Thomas Jefferson who says himself....

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

"We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

See the last part Larry Berry....."one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." That is what Jones was talking about.

Besides, you know what is even more hiLARRYous, why would this even matter. Why does it matter that Jones is hostile toward organized religion. You have claimed it many times yourself, ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, not a religious one. If it was truly scientific, then religion should not matter at all. Which goes back to what the good Judge saying....ID is not supported by any evidence....ID is not science. Behe himself even said ID was not science. Such a clown LarLar.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

From Larry et al, IDnet and DI:

"......this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

Exactly! THis country is NOT about standardized religion, it is the freedom to express religious belief that is in the First Amend. That Amend. also comes with a prohibition which is the "establishment" of a particular religion by the Government is NOT allowed.

"Freedom of religious persecution" is why people came here from Europe, not to establish a state "sponsered" or "endorsed" religion. What the ID/Creo crowd does not understand is that their very position on the matter is Un American and not in allignment with the Extablishment of this country, freedom to express religious belief with our the Government requiring the extablishment of one standardized religion.

You guys don't get that, but you can not read the Bible correctly either, so big suprise!

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac said:

Besides, you know what is even more hiLARRYous, why would this even matter. Why does it matter that Jones is hostile toward organized religion [even if true]. You have claimed it many times yourself, ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, not a religious one. If it was truly scientific, then religion should not matter at all. Which goes back to what the good Judge saying....ID is not supported by any evidence....ID is not science. Behe himself even said ID was not science. Such a clown

Good catch. I was going to comment on that earlier, and got sidetracked. ID creationists want it both ways. They claim their belief system is science (even though they admit they have no theory or evidence), but scream "persecution for religious beliefs!" if we don't let them bring it into the public school science classes. Larry's HARDLY the first creationist to do this.

More hypocrisy: they claim evolutionary biology (which many, like Larry, misleadingly call "Darwinism") is a "religion" too. It's not. But even if that were true, wouldn't what they're doing be "persecution for religious beliefs"? Oh, but it's okay to persecute "the other guys", but not okay when it's the creationists themselves being "persecuted".

That's hypocrisy, even going by their own redefined terms and claims, even though in reality, evolution is science with NO religious statements or beliefs. As a friend of mine said, "any theistic implications you see in evolution is baggage you brought to the table yourself".

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

Intelligent design debate defined by 10 errors Pennsylvania has been the center in the political and judicial battle over the teaching of evolution in public schools. One problem is that many people draw incorrect conclusions from evolution. To illustrate these points, I've identified 10 incorrect ideas that are often heard: 1. There is debate within the scientific community about the truth of evolution. Lehigh Valley personalities notwithstanding, there is no real debate. Federal agencies do not have programs that focus on alternatives to evolution. One can identify scientific gadflies who support a hypothesis that HIV does not cause AIDS. Such exceptions do not constitute a genuine challenge to the scientific consensus. 2. If something about evolution can be shown to be wrong, the entire law of evolution collapses. Science does not work this way. We do not reject gravity because a helium balloon appears to defy it. 3. Evolution is tentative since many Americans do not accept it. Science is not a democratic venture. The vast majority of Europeans once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. The minority Copernican position was correct; the majority position incorrect. 4. Evolution explains the creation of life on earth. When biologists talk about evolution, we are referring to mechanisms of genetic change over time to explain biological diversity. Prior to the first living thing existing, there can be no evolution since there can be no genetics without life. Evolution cannot be introduced to explain beginnings, only what happened after that.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

(Cont.)

  1. There is nothing harmful about examining "alternative ideas" about evolution. We ignore our understanding of the natural world at our own peril. President Bush embraced intelligent design this year, but weeks later implicitly embraced evolution when he marshaled scientific resources to fight the possibility of a new influenza virus causing a pandemic. Why didn't he ask the intelligent design folks for help?
  2. Evolution demonstrates that God does not exist. 1t is unfortunate that atheists and materialists have used evolution as evidence that counts against the existence of God. This is not a logically defensible position. Simply because a natural process requires no supernatural intervention does not mean that no supernatural being exists. Evolution is no threat to God any more than gravity or electricity.
  3. Evolution cannot be proved since we cannot go back in time and test. If this were true, astrophysics would collapse as well. Those who make this argument confuse history and science. History concerns itself with what actually happened. Science concerns itself with identifying the fundamental natural rules that govern what happened and what will happen.
  4. Intelligent design provides an alternative to evolution. Intelligent design provides NO alternative to evolution. The proponents of intelligent design do not provide a mechanism for biological change. Their method is to offer evidence that they argue counts against evolution to try todemonstra~e that evolution is in doubt and that the existence of a creator is the alternative. But, there is no "how" offered, only a wink about "who."

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

(Cont.)

  1. Intelligent design reveals "holes" in the law of evolution. Proponents of intelligent design favor the tactic of using examples that evolution "cannot explain," like the creation of comple~ structures ~nd bioch.emical pathways. S?ientists have long recognized the special problems of gene complexity, anatomical complexity, and biochemical complexity. These observations have led to specific predictions for evolution that have been upheld by decades of research.
  2. Evolution and intelligent design demonstrate an inevitable conflict between science and religion. This is wrong on at least two counts. First, it conflates the diversity of religious thought into a single position and defines it as "religion." In fact, most mainline American Protestants sects and the Roman Catholic Church have accepted evolution. Pop~ John Paul II wrote in favor of evolution, as did Pope Pius XII. Second, thoughtful academics, such as John Polklnghorne and Ian Barbour, have shown how biology and theology can inform and enrich each other. There need be no contradiction. I am an optimist and I hope to see the intelligent design era end in a good place. It is my hope that the "great center of American politics" (whatever that is) will see this as an opportunity to reject both the false science of intelligent design and the logical sloppiness of materialist conclusions from evolution.

This is from: Bruce Wightman, Ph.D., is associate professor of biology at Muhlenberg College. Copyright @ 2005,

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

HGA, we just wanna keep them "in the box" when we get them there. We got to respond every time one of these yahoos pops off about taking their fundamental belief system into the public domain school.

Put them in the box, keep them in the bos, keep hitting them, don't let them breathe.

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

That must have taken a LONG time to consult with the Di and ID net sites, corss correlate it to your Bible, then verify it by using an ouijie board. But you really should not have scraficed a chiken. BAD! Not nice to play with your food and not eat it, say OG!

"These "errors" are straw man arguments."

According to whom? your response is obtuse as it is infantile..."is not!, isn't either!"

GOOD work! Just because You say so, LOL!! Boy THAT is rich.

Well on MY side I have well over 2,000,000 PLUS scientists. You OTOH, have only 600, non-scienbtists and BEHE, Dawkins, etc. makes me sick.

Besides we are not arguing "Darwinism" that has "Social Philiosphy" overtones, not Physical science or biological science. In that we use the Theory of Evolution (ToE for short).

Darwinism is not evolution. I know that will not take, But it is the same argument that ToE is not origins of life. That FACT has not taken with you either.

Keep it up, reveal and wallow in your own ignorance and challenged intellect, but it will be pointed our as embarassingly as possible as often as you continue this stupid prediliction for remaining ignorant as well as requiring the rest of us to remain that ignorant as well.

Layyr, here is a tip, quit posting. You are showing that you aren't that smart, and your dishonesty in defending the faith and claim of piety absolutely is at odds with the tenents of your supposed faith. That will continue to be pointed out to you as well.

Doesn't feel very good does it? Having someone point out (for your own good (tounge in cheek)) you are not a good religious person simply because one wants to become educated.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry said:

Wrong. My position is that Jones should not have ruled on the scientific merits of ID or irreducible complexity at all.

He shouldn't have to. That's for the scientific community to decide, and they have. It has no scientific merits. Religious rightwing activists on the board of education tried to push religious creationism into the curriculum, so the judge had to ask the scientific experts if ID had as much scientific merit and support as evolution, and learned it doesn't have any, and the IDers even admitted it. So he ruled it was against the constitution, as it is.

Get over it, Larry.

Larry then said:

Wrong. Ol' Judge Jones banned ALL criticism of Darwinism -- the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion said, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants ... from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution ...." (page 138)

Wrong yourself. Jones was right. It's NOT the defendents' place to require and force teachers to "denigrate and disparage", purely out of religious hatred of science, "the scientific theory of evolution". Once again, you're taking reality and reinterpretting it from your cockeyed fundie viewpoint. Evolution is a fact and we have a theory explaining it. There IS NO alternative theory, nor does there need to be. If you can come up with one, and support it with evidence, and it fits the other requirements of science (falsifiable, makes predictions we can test, etc), science will look at it. No one has yet. Including the IDers. As they admitted in the Dover case. You're screaming that evolution (which you are still ignorantly and dishonestly calling "Darwinism") is somehow getting special treatment here, being sacrosanct from criticism. Hardly. If you can come up with VALID SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM, fine. Science will look at it.

And that's where your criticism belongs. Studied by peer review by scientists. Not pushed into schools by religiously motivated shady politics. Make your case in science. Then if it holds up, it will get into the schools. Creationists want to do it backwards because they know they can't do it through proper channels because ID creationism isn't science.

Judge Jones was quite within his powers and duties to rule that it's not permissible for religiously motivated officials to break the separation of church and state of the constitution to "denigrate and disparage" valid, well supported and accepted scientific theories to impressionable schoolkids who will get wrong ideas of science if that happens.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry says:

"As I said, it matters because Jones was likely prejudiced by his hostility towards organized religion."

Which has nothing to do with the point that if ID is supposed to be science then hostility toward organized religion doesn't matter. If ID is truly scientific, religion is a moot point. You avoided the whole point Larry. In the mortal words of that little old lady from Wendy's Hamburger's fame......"Where's the science?!"

Deal with the actual point Larry....

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry also said:

The critics are not persecuting the Darwinists -- the critics are only asking that the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism be taught.

There you are again, dishonestly using "Darwinists" when you actually mean scientists. Or even "evolutionists", although that's as meaningless a term as calling everyone who is educated enough to know about gravity a "gravitationalist". The point is, you are full of misleading rhetorical tactics, including using "Darwinism" as synonymous with "evolution". I'd say "for shame, Larry!" but I realize religious fanatics don't feel shame like normal people. They justify any sin by saying they're doing it for their beliefs.

Anyway, you're wrong again. "weaknesses" ARE taught. Just not the false weaknesses you've been taught by the creationism movement. When I was in biology classes, I remember the teachers saying sentences starting with "we don't yet know how..." or "we don't understand...". We don't totally understand everything about evolution yet. The theory is incomplete (as are all theories in science). That in no way makes what we DO know WRONG. That's another fallacy creationists are fond of. Pointing out our GAPS (or "holes", as they like to call them) as if they are WEAKNESSES of evolution. Anyway, the teachers generally are pretty honest about this fact. We don't know it all. That's why research is constantly being done. That's why the theory is growing and changing as we figure more out, observe, test, fine more evidence, etc. That's how science works.

Now, I realize you won't even read what I'm saying, and learn from it. You're a fanatic. Your mind is made up. Evolution = bad. Evolution = false. Evolution = anti-God. All the evidence and observation of it in the world won't convince a true fanatic. You'll just skim through my posts for things to take out of context, percieved "weaknesses" to attack, and won't actually learn anything new, or unlearn the many misconceptions of science you have.

Oh well. Maybe someday your faith will be mature enough to not see science as the enemy.

gan 8 years, 9 months ago

Wow. You evolution folks are really good at name-calling. Reminds me of more extreme religious fundamentalists.

Sure there are criticisms and varying interpretations of Bible passages. There are mysteries in the book that won't ever be solved. They are probably as frustrating as quantum effects that seem to make particles be in two places at once, and other wierd stuff.

If evolution is so certain, how come you guys aren't more equable, temperate? Second, why is the literature of evolution so replete with variations on "plausible?" I'm sure you know that doesn't connote certainty.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry says:

"I care only about actions, not labels"

But earlier he says..."Judge Jones is a jerk of the lowest order"

And on his own blog he says "Jones is just a lousy judge and a crackpot"

And "OK, I won't call you an "activist" judge -- I'll just call you a "lousy" judge."

Sounds like a lot of labels to me Larry.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Sorry I can't take any more of this tonight....someone else deal with Gan.....

Terry Jacobsen 8 years, 9 months ago

Evolution= theory.

Just be honest, that's what I want my children taught. That evolution is the best guess we can make about how plants and animals came to be what they are today, but it is a "theory".

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

gan said:

Wow. You evolution folks are really good at name-calling. Reminds me of more extreme religious fundamentalists.

It's hard not to be rude to people attacking and lying about science and attacking anyone who accepts and supports honest science and a quality public education. It's hard not to be rude to people being rude to us, calling us "atheists", "satanists", "demonic", "sinners", etc just because we accept well supported scientific facts and theories. It's hard not to be rude to people who are rude to the majority of FELLOW CHRISTIANS, calling them "false christians" for accepting science over their overly literal and outdated interpretation of an ancient Hebrew creation myth. It's hard not to be rude to people using the SAME invalid and dishonest claims and tactics, no matter how many times they've been refuted and exposed already. It's hard not to be rude to fanatics intent on using politics and legal tactics to FORCE their religious beliefs on everyone's impressionable children while also trying to keep them from getting a decent science education.

Of course frustration and annoyance is going to tell. I still try never to sink to their level, but even I feel that annoyance and frustration.

gan said:

If evolution is so certain, how come you guys aren't more equable, temperate?

Fallacy. The two are not related. See above.

Evolution stands on its own merits and evidence. And does so fine.

gan said:

Second, why is the literature of evolution so replete with variations on "plausible?" I'm sure you know that doesn't connote certainty.

This is called "honesty". And it's not just "the literature of evolution". EVERYTHING in science uses such language. This is because scientists are even more aware than the average person just how easily what we think we know today can be overturned by tomorrow's evidence or testing. Another problem with your question is that there is not just two "degrees" of certainty. "not very" and "completely, absolutely certain". It's a LONG sliding scale. And the scale doesn't really contain "completely, absolutely certain". We're not ABSOLUTELY certain gravity exists (drop something a million times, it falls... but we aren't ABSOLUTELY certain it will fall the millionth and one time). But we're pretty darn certain it does. That evolution happens, we're just as certain as we are that gravity exists.

Some specific details of the theory and of our ideas about the exact way some biological traits and structures formed, we aren't as certain. So scientists use language that shows their level of certainty. "Plausable" or "we think that" or "it seems to", etc, depending how sure they are. And that certainty can increase as they work with it more, test it, try to disprove it, etc.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

TJ_in_Lawrence said:

Evolution= theory. Just be honest, that's what I want my children taught. That evolution is the best guess we can make about how plants and animals came to be what they are today, but it is a "theory".

That's why our kids need a decent science education. So they won't make the same mistakes TJ just did. But this is a misconception that creationists have intentionally fostered for decades, and a lot of people (even non-creationists) are now fooled by it. What is it? The confusion between the common meaning of "theory" and the way science uses the word. TJ thinks a "theory" is "just a guess we have for something". That's quite different from what it means in science.

Creationists are also wrong that it's "JUST a theory". That claim is not directly in TJ's post, but it is implied. In science, theories are generally well supported, well tested explanations of something that itself could be considered factual. Evolution is not "just a theory". It's a factual, observed process. We have a THEORY (explanation) of the process. So it's both a fact and a theory. Here's how science defines both of those words:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow, based on the EVIDENCE. (caps mine)

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Also, so we're consistent: Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Note that a theory is not "just some guess we have".

Here's another quote I love: "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." - Isaac Asimov

But note what theories are, and aren't. Theories are explanations. They are also the GOAL of science. They are not expected to "become" something else, when "better proven". Not facts, not laws... More on that:

"Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science." - National Academy of Science

They are always theories, except the ones that become REJECTED theories. But they can LEAD to other things, new laws, new facts, new theories, etc.

Examples of: Fact of evolution: it occurs. Law of evolution: allelic frequencies change over time. Theory of evolution: allelic frequencies change due to X mechanisms (mutation, natural selection, etc).

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac said ( August 6, 2006 at 10:10 p.m. )

Larry says: "As I said, it matters because Jones was likely prejudiced by his hostility towards organized religion."

Which has nothing to do with the point that if ID is supposed to be science then hostility toward organized religion doesn't matter. If ID is truly scientific, religion is a moot point.<<<<<<

Maybe Judge Jones thought that he was taking a potshot at organized religion by ruling against ID and irreducible complexity. I strongly suspect that that was the case.

gr8dane said ( August 6, 2006 at 10:12 p.m. ) --

you're wrong again. "weaknesses" ARE taught. Just not the false weaknesses you've been taught by the creationism movement.<<<<<<<

Wrong. Darwinists have been trying to block efforts to include Darwinism's true scientific weaknesses in the science education standards of Kansas and Ohio. Darwinists are even trying to block a biology textbook sticker that just says that Darwinism is a theory and not a fact and that it should be critically analyzed.

Kodiac said ( August 6, 2006 at 10:27 p.m.) --

Larry says: "I care only about actions, not labels"

But earlier he says..."Judge Jones is a jerk of the lowest order"

And on his own blog he says "Jones is just a lousy judge and a crackpot"

And "OK, I won't call you an "activist" judge -- I'll just call you a "lousy" judge."

Sounds like a lot of labels to me Larry.<<<<<<

These labels are actually based on the Dover decision and what Jones said in connection with it afterwards. These are not meaningless labels like "churchgoing conservative Republican Bush-appointed Christian."

TJ_in_Lawrence said ( August 6, 2006 at 10:51 p.m. ) --

Evolution= theory.

Just be honest, that's what I want my children taught. That evolution is the best guess we can make about how plants and animals came to be what they are today, but it is a "theory".<<<<<

That's what they tried to do in Cobb County, Georgia, where a textbook sticker said that evolution is a theory and not a fact, but a judge shot it down.

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Should we put stickers on textbooks for all disciplines that have not yet been 100% proved? Gravity? Quantum physics? Psychology? Maybe the judge ruled against the idea because it's not an attempt to inform, it's a PR move. Perhaps it's because (again) that virtually all of the attacks on the theory of evolution, and 75% of the talking points in the arguments for and against evolution are made up by people trying, either covertly or not so much, to push their religious viewpoints back into the public school forum. And I say 75% because at least half of the talking points of pro-evolutionists that are brought up are false straw-man arguments invented by right-wing politicos out of whole cloth, such as the idea that the weaknesses in evolutionary theory are not taught or covered in school.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry says...."Maybe Judge Jones thought that he was taking a potshot at organized religion by ruling against ID and irreducible complexity. I strongly suspect that that was the case."

Once again you avoided dealing with the actual point. If ID is scientific, then religion is a moot point.....

Larry says...."These labels are actually based on the Dover decision and what Jones said in connection with it afterwards. These are not meaningless labels like "churchgoing conservative Republican Bush-appointed Christian."

I see so your statement of ""I care only about actions, not labels" only applies to others but not you. Hmmm interesting.....

prioress 8 years, 9 months ago

Holygrailale: Good point; one which is often obscured in the political debate. Religion and science have little to do with this issue........the culture wars Pat Buchanan mentioned awhile back continue.....

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas said ( August 7, 2006 at 6:41 a.m. ) --

Should we put stickers on textbooks for all disciplines that have not yet been 100% proved? Gravity? Quantum physics? Psychology? <<<<<<

Some people have actually proposed such a general approach in order to avoid charges that Darwinism is being singled out for criticism. Global warming in particular is being challenged in addition to Darwinism -- the new proposed Ohio science education standards are an example -- see http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/

I say 75% because at least half of the talking points of pro-evolutionists that are brought up are false straw-man arguments invented by right-wing politicos out of whole cloth, such as the idea that the weaknesses in evolutionary theory are not taught or covered in school.<<<<<

That 75% is just an arbitrary number that you pulled out of the air. And the weaknesses of Darwinism may be covered in some advanced courses in college but are not covered in K-12 schools where most people get all or most of their education about biology.

Kodiac said ( August 7, 2006 at 8:25 a.m. ) --

Larry says...."Maybe Judge Jones thought that he was taking a potshot at organized religion by ruling against ID and irreducible complexity. I strongly suspect that that was the case."

Once again you avoided dealing with the actual point. If ID is scientific, then religion is a moot point..... <<<<<

What I am saying is that maybe Judge Jones did not care whether ID or irreducible complexity are scientific or not -- he just wanted to take a potshot at organized religion. Also, Judge Jones had his own "contrived dualism" -- he figured that if something is not science, then it must be religion.

Larry says...."These labels are actually based on the Dover decision and what Jones said in connection with it afterwards. These are not meaningless labels like "churchgoing conservative Republican Bush-appointed Christian."

I see so your statement of ""I care only about actions, not labels" only applies to others but not you.<<<<<<

What is different is that my labels apply to the matter at hand. When Judge Jones defends his Dover decision by saying that Christianity is not a "true religion," it is pointless to argue that he is a "churchgoing Christian."

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry man you are killing me. I am sorry I can't help but laugh out loud. Really this is very funny. Ok your comment is...

"What I am saying is that maybe Judge Jones did not care whether ID or irreducible complexity are scientific or not -- he just wanted to take a potshot at organized religion. Also, Judge Jones had his own "contrived dualism" -- he figured that if something is not science, then it must be religion."

Once again you avoided talking about the real issue...that is if ID or IC is scientific, then religion should not matter. Round and Round we go.....

And then Larry says..."What is different is that my labels apply to the matter at hand. When Judge Jones defends his Dover decision by saying that Christianity is not a "true religion," it is pointless to argue that he is a "churchgoing Christian."

So are you taking back your statement of "I care only about actions, not labels"? So now you are saying it is ok to have labels if you are talking about a specific thing at a specific time? Hmmm Ok Larry whatever you say buddy....

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I see Larry's still at his denial game:

Darwinists are even trying to block a biology textbook sticker that just says that Darwinism is a theory and not a fact and that it should be critically analyzed. and That's what they tried to do in Cobb County, Georgia, where a textbook sticker said that evolution is a theory and not a fact, but a judge shot it down.

I'll not bother explaining again how dishonest it is to refer to scientists as "Darwinists", and using "Darwinism" as synonymous with the modern theory of evolution. It would just be ignored by Larry again.

As for the "just a theory, not a fact" sticker campaigns, the judges struck them down for very good reasons. 1) the stickers LIE. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Or rather, the theory is our scientific explanation of the factual process of evolution. 2) These sticker campaigns are not motivated with honest motives like wanting accuracy in science class, wanting our kids getting the right education, etc. They are religiously motivated attacks on science and education. It's the creationists who want them, so everyone's elses kids will get mislead about science too.

As for the rest of the crap from Larry, I'm not even going to bother responding. He's a broken record.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas said:

Should we put stickers on textbooks for all disciplines that have not yet been 100% proved? Gravity? Quantum physics? Psychology? Maybe the judge ruled against the idea because it's not an attempt to inform, it's a PR move.

Bang on. Reminds me of this excellent link:

Hilarious parodies of those "disclaimer" stickers the creationists like to put in biology textbooks, for other scientific subjects: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Hahahha... Larry says some creationists are saying not just evo should be singled out, and gives "global warming" as another thing that should be. Bahahah.... Most creationists are also seriously misled about global warming and "don't believe it" either. A view very much fostered by the Bush administration (and their use of taxpayer funds to do so), because actually DOING something about global warming will cost money and resources and hurt Big Government's corporate buddies. That's hilarious that he gives that as the sole example of "other science we should be critical of".

Just as the scientific community has a pretty strong (pretty much universal) consensus that evolution happens, the consensus for global warming is fairly strong too. The "anti-global warming" movement seems to be a political/corporate movement to attack the science supporting it, using a lot of the same tactics used by the creationism movement. And this shouldn't be surprising. There is a lot of overlap between the two, as Larry shows.

But... global warming is not the topic either, so moving on...

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

More rebuttals of the "theory not a fact" sticker campaigns:

"The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." - National Academy of Science

"Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!" ( http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html )

Allele frequencies change over time (Evolution). Matter is attracted to other matter (Gravity). Those are both facts that will not change. The theories that explain them can, have been, and will be modified as we learn more about how they work.

Stop trying to drag us all back to the convenient, comforting ignorance of our ancestors.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac said --

Once again you avoided talking about the real issue...that is if ID or IC is scientific, then religion should not matter. <<<<<<

What in the hell does that have to do with my contention that Judge Jones' expression of hostility towards organized religion likely prejudiced his Dover decision?

So are you taking back your statement of "I care only about actions, not labels"? <<<<<

No, I am not taking back my statement. I am saying that I do not use labels that are clearly not consistent with actions. Jones' Dover decision is not consistent with the label "churchgoing Christian" but is consistent with the label "fundy-hating bigot."

gr8dane said --

As for the "just a theory, not a fact" sticker campaigns, the judges struck them down for very good reasons. 1) the stickers LIE. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Or rather, the theory is our scientific explanation of the factual process of evolution.<<<<<<

That is a real piece of double-talk if ever there was one -- "it's not a theory but it is a theory."

These sticker campaigns are not motivated with honest motives like wanting accuracy in science class, wanting our kids getting the right education, etc. <<<<<

So Darwinists are the only ones with honest motives and are the sole judges of what is right.

Larry says some creationists are saying not just evo should be singled out, and gives "global warming" as another thing that should be. <<<<<<

You stupid fathead, I never said that I think that "global warming" should be included in the disclaimer -- I just gave global warming as an example because it was the handiest example.

"The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. <<<<<<

At an oral hearing in the appeals court in the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case, a judge told the plaintiffs' attorney, "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences. It is a theory and not a fact -- the book supports that."

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

It's only "double talk" to you, Larry, because it's not YOUR double talk. It's straight talk. If you want to get technical, evolution is not a theory. It's a factual process. The THEORY of evolution is the THEORY explaining the PROCESS. But since "evolution" can refer to either, we say it's BOTH a fact AND a theory. However, this is the FIRST time I said anything that can be twisted (even by a creationist) to what you said I said, "it's not a theory but it is a theory."

Larry then said:

So Darwinists are the only ones with honest motives and are the sole judges of what is right.

I wouldn't know. I never said anything about "Darwinists". I'm educated enough to know nobody today is a "Darwinist". And that people who use the word are scientifically illiterate religious fanatics with an aversion to honesty. As you've more than demonstrated to my satisfaction...

Larry again:

You stupid fathead, I never said that I think that "global warming" should be included in the disclaimer -- I just gave global warming as an example because it was the handiest example.

Another example of your dishonesty and hatred of scientific evidence and consensus that goes against your religious/political biases? Right. That's one of the favorites of fundies these days. Bush says global warming is bunk, so it's gotta be. What do the stupid scientists know, anyway... snicker

Larry:

At an oral hearing in the appeals court in the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case, a judge told the plaintiffs' attorney, "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences. It is a theory and not a fact -- the book supports that."

The same appeal court that didn't agree with the ruling of the previous court? Gee, what a surprise the judge would have an obvious fundie bias too, and make blatantly false claims like that. Colour me shocked.

Too bad you didn't have him in Dover. You had an honest judge instead. Carry on crying about it.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane said --

The THEORY of evolution is the THEORY explaining the PROCESS. But since "evolution" can refer to either, we say it's BOTH a fact AND a theory. <<<<<<

OK, would you be happy with the textbook stickers if the wording were changed to say that evolution is a theory and a fact?

Too bad you didn't have him in Dover. You had an honest judge instead. <<<<<

The judge in the Dover case was a megalomaniac and a bigot. He is the most infamous judge in America.

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Posted by LarryFarma

"What in the hell does that have to do with my contention that Judge Jones' expression of hostility towards organized religion likely prejudiced his Dover decision?

So are you taking back your statement of "I care only about actions, not labels"? <<<<<

No, I am not taking back my statement. I am saying that I do not use labels that are clearly not consistent with actions. Jones' Dover decision is not consistent with the label "churchgoing Christian" but is consistent with the label "fundy-hating bigot.""

Isn't that circular logic? I deduce that he made the verdict because he hated religion, I deduce that he hated religion because of his verdict?

Do you have any more to go on in calling him a fundy hating bigot?

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

So I read most of the decision

This is the disclaimer that was read: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

It should be noted that, due to the science teacher's refusal to read the disclaimer, a school administrator had to come in to the class to read it. Most interesting of all, though, is what they said after finishing with the disclaimer, from page 46 of the courts opinion.

Second, the administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as part of the disclaimer, that "there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue." (P-124).

Wow, what a wonderful way to present thoughtful scientific alternatives!

LarryFarma: Have you read the decision? I'll link to it for you.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas said --

Isn't that circular logic? I deduce that he made the verdict because he hated religion, I deduce that he hated religion because of his verdict?

Do you have any more to go on in calling him a fundy hating bigot?<<<<<

Yes. Judge Jones said in a commencement speech that Christianity is not a "true religion" -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html

He also said that he planned to watch the prejudicial and historically inaccurate movie "Inherit the Wind" for "historical context" about the Scopes trial -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-buffoonery-from-judge-jones.html

Jones' prejudice is also evident in the obvious relish with which he criticized the Dover defendants -- e.g., calling their actions "breathtaking inanity" -- in the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion.

(quoting Dover opinion) "Second, the administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as part of the disclaimer, that 'there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer questions on the issue.'"

Wow, what a wonderful way to present thoughtful scientific alternatives! <<<<<<

How could that hypocrite Judge Jones call that statement "remarkable and awkward" when he himself banned mere mention of ID, let alone discussion of it?

This is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" -- the school staff cannot discuss ID and cannot say that ID will not be discussed.

The administrators' above statement was obviously an attempt to stay out of legal trouble -- and in retrospect, the attempt was well justified! Also, the administrators' above statement may also have been a favor to the teachers, who indicated that they were not comfortable with the subject.

Have you read the decision? <<<<<<

I have read a lot of it and have commented extensively on it -- see http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/04/traipsing-into-breathtaking-inanity.html

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry said:

OK, would you be happy with the textbook stickers if the wording were changed to say that evolution is a theory and a fact?

No. I'd be happy when you twits stop trying to put your evil little stickers in everything. Let the TEXTBOOKS say what they should, without needing to insert your own religious bias and influence the kiddies.

Larry said:

The judge in the Dover case was a megalomaniac and a bigot. He is the most infamous judge in America.

Boy, when you fundies DEMONIZE someone, you don't go off half-cocked, do you? LOL

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry: I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you are very clearly misconstruing a pretty harmless set of quotes there.

First, he does not refer to Christianity as a untrue religion, he says that the founding fathers saw that "True" religion sprang from within, not without, and, to read further into it, that external controls, referrals, or endorsements, if anything, actually constricted religion and the inner faith than it is based upon. I think support for this viewpoint is fairly easy to find with a cursory examination of the founder's writings. Of course, you can probably find some support for the other side as well, and truthfully, I consider it a mistake to view the founders as the ultimate source for truth without thinking about what they said otherwise. At any rate, you have to be in my opinion leaning towards a bias of seeing a condemnation of religion before looking at his quote and seeing a condemnation of organized religion. It is, however, clear that you are operating under that bias.

Second, oh he was going to watch a movie! All historical undertakings will have some form of bias in them, and I think you should consider that perhaps what you've read about the trial might have as well. Without knowing your sources, however, I certainly can't say for certain.

Third, in regards to the no more ID discussion, you have presented one possible motive, let me present two more. First, that there can't be any discussion, as there is nothing in ID to really discuss, as it is, at best, an empty wind bag theory, very loud but with no tangible content, so therefore there was nothing to hand down to administrators to say. Second, that what the makers of the disclaimer really wanted was to simply plant a seed of doubt and then run away to let it fester. Personally, I think the former is the most likely, but that's just my opinion. At any rate, I doubt the administrators had any more to do with it than the science teachers. I think the lack of content, and rediculous way in which the whole thing was thought up, implemented and enforced is totally from the school board, who I believe lost their jobs.

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas said ( August 8, 2006 at 8:02 p.m. ) --

Larry: I don't know if it is intentional or not, but you are very clearly misconstruing a pretty harmless set of quotes there. <<<<<<

These quotes are not harmless -- they show a clear bias.

First, he does not refer to Christianity as a untrue religion, he says that the founding fathers saw that "True" religion sprang from within, not without, and, to read further into it, that external controls, referrals, or endorsements, if anything, actually constricted religion and the inner faith than it is based upon. <<<<<<

Judge Jones said, "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible." How would that sound if, say, "mosque" or "synagogue" were substituted for "church" and "Koran" or "Torah" were substituted for "Bible"? Furthermore, he said he was going to watch the movie "Inherit the Wind," which makes fun of fundies. Someone in his position should not even give a hint of bias.

I think support for this viewpoint is fairly easy to find with a cursory examination of the founder's writings. <<<<<<

See http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/judge-jones-flunks-history-and.html

-- and --

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/judge-jones-wrong-about-founding.html

Anyway, I think that we concern ourselves too much with what the founders thought.

in regards to the no more ID discussion, you have presented one possible motive, let me present two more. First, that there can't be any discussion, as there is nothing in ID to really discuss <<<<<<

Nothing in ID to discuss? Are you kidding? ID has been one of the hottest discussion topics on the Internet for months!

what the makers of the disclaimer really wanted was to simply plant a seed of doubt and then run away to let it fester. <<<<<<

Gasp! Planting a seed of doubt -- how terrible!

I doubt the administrators had any more to do with it than the science teachers. <<<<<

It was not stated whose idea it was to add the statement that ID would not be discussed further.

I think the lack of content, and rediculous way in which the whole thing was thought up, implemented and enforced is totally from the school board, who I believe lost their jobs. <<<<<

The pro-ID board members were defeated in close races. It is believed that voter fear of the big potential legal bill was a significant factor in the elections. One pro-ID member remained on the board, but I believe that she was not up for re-election.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry said:

Gasp! Planting a seed of doubt -- how terrible!

It is terrible. When it's scientifically unwarranted and clearly religiously motivated.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry,

"Nothing in ID to discuss? Are you kidding? ID has been one of the hottest discussion topics on the Internet for months!"

Evolution has been the central unifying concept for biology the last 140 years.

So what.

You are wasting our time.

No need to discuss any other issues because ID and IC are not science. Any other issue is a moot point and a waste of time to discuss. Show the science baby....

Oh you might want to discuss it here instead of directing us to your blog.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

"Nothing in ID to discuss? Are you kidding? ID has been one of the hottest discussion topics on the Internet for months!"

Reminds me of something a chat friend of mine said:

"things i have learned online: The holocaust never happened. The moon landings were faked. evolution is a religion. ufo's really do anal probe farmers. the earth is hollow...and flat. and carrot top is actually funny." - ondoher1

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

How would that sound if, say, "mosque" or "synagogue" were substituted for "church" and "Koran" or "Torah" were substituted for "Bible"?"

Why, that would sound just peachy! Hopefully, after some acclimation to that idea, we'd have many less extremist suicide bombers, both here and in Israel.

Furthermore, he said he was going to watch the movie "Inherit the Wind," which makes fun of fundies. Someone in his position should not even give a hint of bias.

He was asked a question, he said he might watch it again, then he made a joke and laughed.

As for the links, they do not in any way contradict what I said, so I take it you must agree with me. I don't, by the way, particularly agree with either Jones' viewpoints or his expression of them, but consider his biases clearly less evident or demanding than yours, and there is no evidence that his biased was used in deciding the case, unless you want to say his narrow interpretation of the establishment clause was a bias. I suppose you could, but I would refer to it as more of a sign of our times.

"Nothing in ID to discuss? Are you kidding? ID has been one of the hottest discussion topics on the Internet for months!"

No, EVOLUTION has been one of the hottest discussion topics on the Internet. No one will talk about Intelligent Design. ID proponents, when they talk, hammer away at the weaknesses of EVOLUTION, yell about the "religious status" of EVOLUTION, point out inconsistencies and untestibilities in EVOLUTION, refer to Irreducible Complexity as a flaw in EVOLUTION, without EVER bringing up one solitary answer, or even a solitary question, about the process or mechanisms with which ID can be put to the same rigorous testings, standards, repeatable results, publishable findings, science!

Here's your chance, Let's talk about ID!

What would an ID curriculum be? How much time, in how many classes would it be covered.

How do you propose we test the theory to discover it's validity, seperate from "proof" based entirely off of gaps in evolutionary theory?

Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed Intelligent design and creation, from scratch, in the whole spectrum of life, of any type of biological organism, that could not have just as easily happened by accident, that gives you any reason to believe that what you say is backed up by facts?

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac said ( August 9, 2006 at 1 a.m. ) --

Evolution has been the central unifying concept for biology the last 140 years. <<<<<

I'm tired of hearing this crap that evolution is "the central unifying concept for biology." It is quite easy to study biology without ever assuming that one species evolved into another. Furthermore, scientists can continue using the concepts and tools of evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

No need to discuss any other issues because ID and IC are not science. Any other issue is a moot point and a waste of time to discuss. Show the science baby.... <<<<<

Exaptation and punctuated equilibrium are just wild speculations -- they are not science. Show the science, baby.

There is lots to discuss other than the question of whether ID and IC are science -- for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover would be a bad decision even if Judge Jones is right about ID and IC not being science.

And what about non-ID criticisms of evolution, such as criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction? There is a lot to discuss there, too. Consider, for example, my following points about co-evolution (the evolution of co-dependence between two different kinds of organisms) --

(1) In co-evolution -- unlike in the kind of evolution which is adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air -- there is initially often nothing to adapt to because the corresponding trait(s) may initially be absent in the other organism.

(2) Co-evolution would be virtually impossible where the corresponding traits in both organisms are detrimental when the corresponding trait is absent in the other organism.

(3) Co-dependent organisms often interact in large numbers, e.g., a bee visits many flowers and a flower is visited by many bees, so large numbers of both kinds of organisms with the necessary corresponding traits must miraculously simultaneously appear in the same place.

(4) Co-dependence often consists of whole sets of pairs of irreducibly complex traits, compounding the evolutionary problems presented by both co-evolution and irreducible complexity.

gr8dane said ( August 9, 2006 at 2:44 a.m. ) --

The holocaust never happened. <<<<<<

That may be an exaggeration, but the holocaust is a big question too. For example, despite assertions that official holocaust history is based on "meticulous" Nazi records, there has been a wild variation in the official numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 1 million to 4 million. Also, I assert that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no reliable way of identifying Jews.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

"things i have learned online: The holocaust never happened. The moon landings were faked. evolution is a religion. ufo's really do anal probe farmers. the earth is hollow...and flat. and carrot top is actually funny." - ondoher1

Does anyone else wonder why evolution is the one picked out for both sides to fight over instead of any of the others.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Heheh... Larry really is his own worst enemy.

And gr is little better. People "fight over" some of the other things, too. They just don't have as much support among fundamentalist Christians like science bashing does.

Although holocaust denial is probably more common than the others, as Larry just showed. And I've had some fundies tell me, with a straight face, that the moon landings were faked and that miners in Siberia broke through into hell and recorded the screams of the damned. laugh

LarryFarma 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas said --

"Furthermore, he said he was going to watch the movie "Inherit the Wind," which makes fun of fundies. Someone in his position should not even give a hint of bias."<

He was asked a question, he said he might watch it again, then he made a joke and laughed. <<<<<<<

His bias is no laughing matter.

What would an ID curriculum be? How much time, in how many classes would it be covered. <<<<<<<

Right now, ID cannot even be mentioned in science classes.

Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed Intelligent design and creation, <<<<<<

Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed macroevolution?

ASBESTOS 8 years, 9 months ago

"Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed macroevolution?"

Macroevloution is a made up word by ID yahoos like you LARRY Lemonhead.

There is NO difference between the mechanisms of what you and your ilk call Micro evolution and macroeveolution, because those 2 made up words like yahoos like you are really one in the same...evolution.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry said:

Right now, ID cannot even be mentioned in science classes.

Right. And that's as it should be. Keep religious dogma like ID creationism out of science classes in public (secular) schools. Just as we shouldn't discuss Buddhist beliefs there, or the doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception", etc.

Asbestos said:

Macroevloution is a made up word by ID yahoos like you LARRY Lemonhead. There is NO difference between the mechanisms of what you and your ilk call Micro evolution and macroeveolution, because those 2 made up words like yahoos like you are really one in the same...evolution.

As I understand it, micro and macro evolution were used in science first, but they meant very different concepts than what the creationists have redefined them to be. For instance, no one (in science) ever said they were two DIFFERENT processes, as the creationists do. Creationists go on to assert micro is not even "evolution", that when we say "evolution is a fact", that only refers to MACRO evolution... They use the terms as if micro and macro are two completely unrelated processes, micro being factual and accepted by their dogma (they prefer the term "adaptation" and claim God DESIGNED life to do that), and macro being some impossible, unobserved, unsupported (by evidence) process.

Macro evo is just lots of micro. Get enough micro, you have macro, aka speciation and above. The terms have mostly fallen out of use in science because they're not very useful, and because the creationists have misdefined them and confused everyone about them. They're not very useful because there is no sharp demarcation point where we can say "Here, it's one species, and the very next generation, it's a NEW species". And this is what we'd expect, because of how evolution works. So we can't show an exact point where it becomes "macro" evolution. It's all just evolution, to different degrees.

Not only did the creationists redefine the terms, they repeatedly did so. As science collected more evidence and observation of more obvious and dramatic changes in populations, creationists changed their own definition. We even finally observed speciation, new species forming, and when they couldn't deny it any longer, many creationists redefined this to be "micro" evolution. This has caused at least one wit in the evo crowd to say:

Macroevolution: (n) Creationist term to describe the maximum amount of evolution witnessed in the flesh, plus a little bit more. Note that this is a shifting definition that becomes harder to satisfy as more evidence accumulates.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry.

You are such a freaking idiot Larry. All 4 of your so-called "points" are all about the same thing. Not only that but they are absolutely worthless from a scientific point and have absolutely nothing to do with real-observations. They can all be reduced to IC period and all IC does is argue by incredulity which assumes a supernatural designer. In other words Larry, once again you are wasting our time because you have no understandimg of evolution and you have no idea what science is.

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Larry asks: "Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed macroevolution?"

Human racial traits and differences. Next.

jonas 8 years, 9 months ago

Way to dodge all of the questions, though. Guess I'm done with you.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

jonas, unfortunately, one of the dishonest tactics creationists use a lot is called "moving the goalposts".

They demand evidence for evolution, you show them bacteria evolving resistance, or evolving into a new strain. They say "that's not evolution! That's just adaptation! Show me a new trait!" You show a new trait evolving, they say "that's just MICRO evolution, not MACRO! Show me a new species!" You show a new species, they say "That's just MICRO too, that's not a new KIND of species" ("kind" is their word for animal types from the KJV Bible, how scientific... grin). You show a more dramatic species difference, they still say "That's not macro! It's still a worm or fish or fruitfly [or whatever it started as in our example]. Show me a dog turning into a cat!" and similar stupidity...

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane: "People "fight over" some of the other things, too. They just don't have as much support among fundamentalist Christians like science bashing does."

But, why is that? Do those fundamentalist Christians' support provide something that the others aren't able to - why?

jonas: ">Larry asks: "Where is your one, single, solitary example of witnessed macroevolution?"

"Human racial traits and differences. Next."

I'm not sure either side, no matter what their definition of "macro" is, would consider racial traits and differences as an example of macroevolution.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

gr, it's not that science bashing has any more SUPPORT or VALID REASONING behind it. It's that science is more of a threat to their/your weak faith than the other things. The picture of the world (and its history) that science is compiling goes against your overly literal interpretation of the bible.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane: "The picture of the world (and its history) that science is compiling goes against your overly literal interpretation of the bible."

And what is my "overly literal interpretation of the bible"?

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Well, you're the creationist, gr. Why don't you tell us?

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

But, you were already telling us. Please continue. Or is that another one of your statements with no meaning?

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

laughs Typical dishonest creationist.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Good grief Gr

You are being argumentative and wasting time with your little rhetorical crap. Stop whining about it and just say what you are. Don't sit there and say I never said that or you don't know that about me. All of your arguments have been against evolution and previously you have clearly indicated your stance of the bible being accurate and correct. I don't have the time nor do I want to spend the effort to go back over every one your messages to prove this either. Either say what you mean or tell gr8dane why he/she is wrong and give us your reasoning for this Gr or shut up. At least with gr8dane, you know where he/she stands concerning evolution and the actual statement of his/her beliefs. When you think about Gr, it is you who give us meaningless statements....

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac, that's another typical creationist strategy these days. Don't say anything about your own creationist beliefs, the details of how literally you take Genesis, etc. Just attack evolution without even discussing your "alternative", except in very general ways. If you don't discuss it, it can't be attacked back, can't be shown to be a joke compared to science, or so they figure.

Many creationists even deny being creationists, and sometimes even deny being Christians (fundamentalist or otherwise), figuring that gives them more credibility as they attack evolution. More support for their claim that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution... Too bad it doesn't work that way.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac....Chill Out ---- 'No one asked you'

gr8dane made a statement. It's up to him to substantiate it. It'd be silly to expect you to back up his statements. Whether I made some statement about interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant. gr8dane claimed it was "overly literal". Only he can back up that claim - or refuse to, as the case may be.

==============================================================

But, since you both seem to think my beliefs are "overly literal", and I assume it has to do with the first chapters of Genesis, I'll play along with your little game.

Starting in Genesis 1:5 and following the same pattern throughout the rest of the creation days, it states, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."

While it's true, the word "day" has been used in the Bible to indicate varying periods of time, notice the author doesn't just say the first, second, third..., day. With each, he says, "there was evening, and there was morning".

Added to that, you can look at the commandments which some think need to be propped up by the state. It says, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." This was to explain to the Israelites why they should also rest on the seventh day - Because God rested on it from His creation and made it holy. This wasn't some sort of symbolism of six days of billions of years long past. Otherwise, when reading further in the text, it would make no sense why they were working a literal six days and keeping a literal seventh. How could the Lord have "made it holy" if it was not a literal day, but yet ask them to rest on a literal day?

If you search, you will find other references to creation, besides the one I listed before:
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."

Shall we misinterpret this to mean that in the beginning God made a bacterium and "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife"? Because God made a bacterium?!

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be. The author of Genesis didn't use vague terms in describing a creation day. He didn't even stop at just saying "day", but fully described what a day was, "there was evening, there was morning".

Let's suppose somehow it means billions of years. How would you suggest it be worded to indicate a literal day?

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Gr,

"Kodiac....Chill Out ---- 'No one asked you'"

Hey Girl, if you post on a public forum, then you are inviting others to comment on it. If you don't want other people's opinions, then I suggest you use private emails. Otherwise Gr....Deal with it.

"But, since you both seem to think my beliefs are "overly literal", and I assume it has to do with the first chapters of Genesis, I'll play along with your little game."

WE are "playing a game" huh. Well this isn't a game to me Gr. I think you need to reread the earlier posts. I think you missed the whole point. gr8dane was clarifying the idea that the word "support" of the fundmental christians had nothing to do with actual evidence but rather they "feel" more strongly about evolution because it challenges their own faith which is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. It doesn't matter what the author wrote, your interpretations of what those writings means today is the issue here. You can sit there and point all day to how the passage was written and what was actually meant by the author. It still doesn't change the fact that the author who wrote that passage had no understanding of evolution and most scientific concepts that we have today. Does it mean the bible is completely useless? Absolutely not. It teaches me about sacredness everyday. I just recognize the bible as a historical document that has been translated multiple times which may or may not reflect the original writings word for word.

Sorry my time is up....will have to write more later.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

"Hey Girl, if you post on a public forum, then you are inviting others to comment on it. If you don't want other people's opinions, then I suggest you use private emails. Otherwise Gr....Deal with it."

OK, How's this?:

"Good grief Gr

You are being argumentative and wasting time with your little rhetorical crap. "

See above. (You are soooo funny. You miss some.)

========

"because it challenges their own faith which is based on a literal interpretation of the bible."

Actually, he specifically targeted me with my "overly literal interpretation of the bible." But, whether me or a generalization he's made, I think he needs to substantiate it.

"It still doesn't change the fact that the author who wrote that passage had no understanding of evolution and most scientific concepts that we have today."

That would be an assumption. Either way, you have yet to establish he didn't mean what he exactly said. Why did he specifically say, "evening was, morning was"? And, how could he say it if that's exactly what he meant?

"I just recognize the bible as a historical document that has been translated multiple times which may or may not reflect the original writings word for word."

("Historical"!) So, do you have any evidence those "multiple times" are not the same in regard to defining creation days? Do you have evidence of what the earliest documents have about it, and then extrapolate any changes entered in during the known translations with any unknown translations? Plus, all the other references within the Bible to the creation days? Which comes back to, what differently would you expect to find if a literal creation was intended?

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I don't actually need to substantiate anything. It was a comment, based on past observations of gr. Which she has just confirmed/admitted is true, with her "I'm not sure how much clearer this could be. [that it says literal day]" argument. She herself admits to being a LITERALIST.

She just takes issue that it's OVERLY literal. Too bad. She's a fanatic, and won't consider any other viewpoint. But to the majority of Christians (not to mention non-Christians), she's overly literal. To us, the creation story is a nice origin myth, but OBVIOUSLY not literally true. Even most mainstream Christians today take it as a spiritual allegory, not a literal history or a scientific explanation of how the world was created.

That's why I didn't even bother responding to gr's dishonest little quibbling game.

Also, such quibbling is incidental to the topic, which is keeping science (like evolution) in science classes in public schools, and keeping religion (especially religious myths that literalists take as LITERAL history/science) out of them, as the constitution requires, if freedom of religion is to have any realistic meaning.

And there are very good reasons why even Christians should support this.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

"To us, the creation story is a nice origin myth"

So, you say the Bible teach myths?

"Also, such quibbling is incidental to the topic, " I believe you were the one who said, "The picture of the world (and its history) that science is compiling goes against your overly literal interpretation of the bible."

=========

"She just takes issue that it's OVERLY literal. Too bad. She's a fanatic, and won't consider any other viewpoint. But to the majority of Christians (not to mention non-Christians), she's overly literal."

So, tell me. How am I "overly literal" based on the scripture I quoted? And do tell how non-Christians would care or be able to interpret the Bible to determine if I'm being "overly literal"?

If the texts WERE to be taken literally, how else would it be said? (Just try to creatively consider a different viewpoint in how that would be conveyed) And you claim I'm being "overly literal" for taking them as stated?

Unless you have already concluded what is true and you are the one who "won't consider any other viewpoint" - Even if the text says otherwise.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

gr said:

So, you say the Bible teach myths?

The bible INCLUDES myths, certainly. It's your interpretation that I said it "teaches" them.

gr said:

I believe you were the one who said, "The picture of the world (and its history) that science is compiling goes against your overly literal interpretation of the bible."

Yes. And that's when you started quibbling, dancing around trying to make me tell everyone exactly what you believe in detail not required by my simple statement of observation of you.

gr said:

So, tell me. How am I "overly literal" based on the scripture I quoted?

How are you overly literal? You answered that yourself. You believe in a literal six day creation, apparently a recent one (6000 years? 10000?).

There are people who take it MORE literally than you do, like people who insist the earth is flat as the bible says, and other things even YOU don't believe. But you are only LESS "overly literal", compared to them. And your literalist beliefs are just as well-disproven by science as theirs. And rejected by most educated Christians, that interpretation no longer accepted by the majority as "too literal".

gr said:

And do tell how non-Christians would care or be able to interpret the Bible to determine if I'm being "overly literal"?

They care, as do non-fundie Christians, because you're trying to get good science removed from science classes in public schools and/or your religious beliefs inserted "alongside" science, illegally and against the constitition.

The second part of your sentence was just dishonest. It implies only CHRISTIANS can interpret the bible, or know anything about it. Many non-Christians used to be Christians. Some know the bible better than most Christians, certainly better than you literalists who don't really know it well at all, but only know your fundamentalist version of it.

gr said:

If the texts WERE to be taken literally, how else would it be said? (Just try to creatively consider a different viewpoint in how that would be conveyed) And you claim I'm being "overly literal" for taking them as stated?

If you were REALLY "taking them as stated", you'd believe the earth is flat, as the bible authors clearly believed. Even your sect is selective about which parts to take literally, and which to "interpret" by today's knowledge. Unlike mainstream Christianity, you (fundies in general, not you specifically) agree with the flat earthers that the bible is 100% literal and inerrant, and thus need to DENY the fact that the bible is written from a flat earth cosmological viewpoint, when it's obvious from studying various verses that it would only be written that way from such a view.

gr said:

Unless you have already concluded what is true and you are the one who "won't consider any other viewpoint" - Even if the text says otherwise.

Yes, fanatics calling the non-fanatics the TRUE close-minded ones. I'm used to such projections to defend their weak faith.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

gr said:

So, tell me. How am I "overly literal" based on the scripture I quoted?

How are you overly literal? You answered that yourself. You believe in a literal six day creation, apparently a recent one (6000 years? 10000?).

^^^ Oops, I didn't really complete that. Got side tracked with the "There are people who take it MORE literally than you do" paragraph.

It's OVERLY literal because we know today such an interpretation is just not true. Scientifically, we've disproven it. It cannot be literal. Science has studied the evidence and come up with a different version of history than the ignorant people of thousands of years ago who knew a tiny fraction of what we do.

Just as we know now the earth isn't flat and the sky isn't a dome, we know it's not young and species weren't divinely created much as they are today. You reject the science purely because it conflicts with your overly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth and other references to it in the bible.

Us less-literal Christians can accept the creation story is a myth, and take it as a spiritual allegory, not a literal history or scientific explanation of origins. To do otherwise would make a mockery of our whole faith. Even Saint Augustine warned against that:

"Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers" - St Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, I.19

Not that I expect you to consider viewpoints outside your own because a long dead Christian (and a Catholic one at that, considering the typical fundamentalist dislike of Catholics) theologian and philosopher says you shouldn't embarass the faith with farfetched dogmatic defense of disproven interpretations of the bible. You won't even look at the science showing it's wrong. shrug

All you can do is falsely claim I'm the one who "won't consider any other viewpoint". Falsely because I have considered your viewpoint. And concluded I'd have to give up too much, including my faith in a loving, HONEST God to accept the evil, dishonest creationist god instead. Even if my faith survived that transition, it would be meaningless to me to have faith in and worship such a being unworthy of it.

I've also discarded it because all the evidence says it's wrong. And you have no evidence to convince me otherwise.

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

"gr said:

So, tell me. How am I "overly literal" based on the scripture I quoted?

"How are you overly literal? You answered that yourself. You believe in a literal six day creation, apparently a recent one (6000 years? 10000?)."

That didn't answer the question. If the rules of the city state that rental decks must support X lbs, would you say it is "overly literal" to interpret it to mean X lbs? If an average weighted person falls through it, would it be "overly literal" to say that was a violation? Would you interpret supporting X lbs really means supporting some of those pounds today, other pounds tomorrow, or most of them when built?

You have not answered how interpreting "evening was, morning was" as a literal day, is being "overly literal".

"They care, as do non-fundie Christians, because you're trying to get good science removed from science classes in public schools"

You're mixing things here. Whether non-Christians care what is being taught in science has nothing to do with their ability to interpret the Bible.

"It implies only CHRISTIANS can interpret the bible, or know anything about it. "

Yeah, and that reeks of, "I don't believe in your bible, but I'm going to tell you what it means and what you should believe about it."

"If you were REALLY "taking them as stated", you'd believe the earth is flat, "

And you have failed to show the Bible says that. I already addressed your links which drew conclusions about nothing, which is worse than evolution does about facts.

"Unlike mainstream Christianity, you (fundies in general, not you specifically) agree with the flat earthers that the bible is 100% literal"

And that's very dishonest of you. I have previously addressed that and indicated that I knew of no one who thought it was 100% literal. After that, to say that I agree the Bible is 100% literal is an outright lie. I can only assume you are attempting a distraction from something you don't want to address. And that is the differences between knowing someone existed during Bible times who believed the earth was flat with a straightforward, not just believed by someone existing during that time, but actually written, "evening was, morning was", literal statement.

And I back that conclusion up with you having FAILED to give an example of how it would be written if it did mean a literal day. Either you are closed minded to consider an example, or you are unable to provide one. Saying I'm being "overly literal" is incorrect, if there is no other way to have written it. You may not believe it and can very well criticize me for believing something you don't believe, but you can't fault me for being "overly literal" in believing what it says. You can give no alternative for wording it differently for a literal interpretation. However, it is easy wording it differently if it WASN'T to be taken literally.

xenophonschild 8 years, 9 months ago

Who cares? The xtian bible is a tired joke, as is xtianity itself.

Einstein killed it; why don't you let it die a quiet, dignified death? Or actually read the damned thing! Read about your god approving murder, rape, slavery, child abuse. Read about the wholesale slaughter of entire cities, thousands of innocents, who tangentially offended your god.

Go handle some poisonous snakes and prove your faith, like you bible mandates.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

I have to be careful here because noone "asked" for my opinion but I will give it anyway for Gr's benefit. It is apparent that gr is playing game here. In fact her exact quotes are....."I'll play along with your little game."

That summarizes ALL of Gr's postings. She is playing a game and EVERY statement she has made is TOTALLY meaningless and simply rhetorical crap.

There is NOTHING more to be gained by letting Gr play her little game.

So onto much more important matters, time for my ALE manuever or did I jist do that?

Gets a Ad Astra for gr8 dane. Asks HGA what he wants?

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Right, Kodiac. And that last nonsense post from gr pretty much slammed the lid on the case.

I'm not even going to attempt to respond and untangle her mess, including the red herring about me needing to write how the bible SHOULD say something if it really WAS six literal days, basically wanting me to prove her own beliefs, which she claims not to even have when she says she's not a literalist, but still wants me to prove them right (maybe knowing I'm better at grasping logic than she is), and the whole argument was absurd and could only be written by someone with that literalist frame of mind in the first place, even though she denies it with these silly semantics games... Gah.

I realize that's a strange run-on sentence, but that's all I could get out of gr's absurd posts, as she went in loops. And she probably goes in a lot more loops in her head that don't even make it into her messages. It's almost like she's the hellspawn offspring of a lawyer demon and a fundamentalist minister, and thrives on confounding people with such silly verbal games.

It's why I didn't say much to her first couple of messages where she played all innocent, insisting I'm the mind reader who should explain her own beliefs to everyone. I figured it would lead to such obvious disingenuousness... I ended up responding eventually anyway, giving it undeserved worth by a serious response, and giving gr more chance to rant at how "close-minded" we are (for not being close-minded toward science like she is).

Anyway, on to the ALE!

gr 8 years, 9 months ago

I think the average reader would conclude I hit upon yet another touchy spot.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

LOL

Well Gr if that is the way you want to delude yourself then more power to you. I think the average reader would conclude that you are confusing, hard to understand, close-minded, and illogical. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it, you should be able to tell that yourself when other posters on different topics tell you that they have no idea what you are talking about or that you aren't making any sense.

I'm going to take your last comment as an admission that you agree with evolution and have abandoned your "overly literal" interpretation of the Bible.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I think the average reader can see gr is a nutty and dishonest fanatic. The average creationist might feel a need to delude themselves that gr is right, though.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

Kodiac, getting into dangerous territory there... especially considering the sexual taboos and attitudes about the human body that fundies tend to have. :-P

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane,

Actually I was trying to imitate Gr there. I figure she would be flattered since imitation is considered to be a form of flattery. And in the spirit of Gr I can only say this, I never made any references to sexual taboos or said anything specifically about the human body. Infuriating isn't it.....

The new Gr Kodiac

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

Wow,

I just noticed my comment was removed. Guess I offended someone. Oh well, I try to be good but I guess you can't always please everyone all of the time.

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

I thought it was pretty tame, but I can see why they removed it.

And fundies actually get quite mad when their own tactics are turned AGAINST them.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane,

I guess you could "conclude I hit upon yet another touchy spot" with Gr.....

Now I wonder if this will be removed as well....

gr8dane 8 years, 9 months ago

If it does get pulled, probably wouldn't have if you hadn't added the last line. g

Dunno how many people are still reading this, anyway. Even Larry seems to have moved on to new places to spamvertise his religious right conspiracy blog.

Kodiac 8 years, 9 months ago

gr8dane,

Well you are probably right. Time to move on. Apparently Gr has as well.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.