Archive for Thursday, December 14, 2006

As old board departs, new evolution stance takes shape

Moderates set to take control of state education policy

December 14, 2006


— Science standards that support evolution could be back on the books in Kansas in as little as two months.

"It's likely we'll have a discussion of the proposal and act on it in February," said State Board of Education member Bill Wagnon.

The 6-4 conservative Kansas State Board of Education that put in place standards critical of evolution met for the last time Wednesday.

Come January, the board will shift to a 6-4 moderate majority, which has voiced support of evolution.

Wagnon, who expects to be voted chairman of the moderate board, said he would ask for a briefing at the Jan. 9 board meeting on evolution-supportive standards that have been waiting in the wings.

And, he said, the board will probably vote to put those guidelines in place in February.

"I've been keeping in touch with Steve Case, and he has promised to have an edition ready," Wagnon said.

Case is the science researcher at Kansas University who last year was chairman of a committee of scientists and teachers who developed science standards to be used as guidelines for teachers in the state public school system.

But after hearings that drew national attention, supporters of intelligent design got the conservative board majority to reject those standards and replace them with ones that criticize evolution.

In August, however, voters in the Republican Party primary turned out one of the conservative board members, while another decided not to run and was replaced by a moderate.

That gives moderates a 6-4 majority starting in January.

Case said he is eager for the work of the science committee to be ratified by the new board.

"We believe these are the best possible science standards for the students and teachers of Kansas," he said.

But Case said Kansas' seesaw battle over science standards is probably not good for the education system. While decisions on what to teach are left to schools districts, the standards are used to develop tests that gauge how well students are doing in science.

Kansas science standards have been changed in 1999, 2001 and 2005 as the board has gone back and forth between conservative and moderate leadership.

"We need to find another way to develop standards," Case said.


KS 11 years, 6 months ago

Wagnon needs to go. That should stir a pot this morning. Have a nice day.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Yes, get rid of Wagnon. How dare he do his job properly! Heck, for that matter, get rid of the whole board of education. Better still, abolish education. That way kids can learn about the young, divinely created earth (which happens to be flat) from God (aka the Bible), and from their (equally illiterate) pastor. We don't need all that intellectual egghead stuff. Just because our economy is based on science and technology (that almost no one understands anyway), and understanding evolution (among other things in science) leads to practical, lucrative, helpful results (new crops, medical techniques, etc). We need to get back to the way GOD wants us to live. Dying of the Black Death and throwing our waste into the streets.

Removing tongue from cheek now... :)

Yes, this seesawing needs to stop. A politically motivated religously conservative minority gets whipped up by their religous leaders to vote for like-minded candidates, who set out to turn back centuries of good scientific research by dumbing down the school science standards, ridiculing good science to the impressionable school kids (no matter the faith they are being raised by THEIR parents, if any) just because their origin myth (which isn't even believed so literally by the majority of their OWN religion, Christianity) conflicts with it.

Then the moderate majority (Christian and otherwise) wakes from their stupor at the national and international embarassment of having these luddites setting education policy for Kansas, and vote against these turkeys at the next election.

Then they go back to sleep, secure that they stopped a horrible (and unconstitutional) travesty to the education system, motivated by a minority Christian fundamentalist activist movement, who are still around and still devoted to their dogma and pushing it on everyone else's kids (proselytizing is a requirement, afterall, and when best to catch them than young?). So voter apathy lets the motivated minority control the next school board again, and the cycle starts over.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 6 months ago

As a Republican AND a true political Conservative,... I think Wagnon had it right. The stuff with these fundamentalist so-called christians were trying to pull with ID is not conservative.

Pushing content in PUBLIC SCOOLS is NOT consistent with political conservatism.

That is one of the reasons why the Dems picked up control of the house and senate federally. Abandonment of political conservatism in favor of social wahabism from floks like the Kansas Talibahn by the Republican party.

Extreme Whackos are extreme whackos.... regardless of party affiliation.

KS 11 years, 6 months ago

For those of you who still refuse to believe in a God, I wish you well. You better make sure you are right, because you only get one chance. Just when did they stop teaching "logic" in the public schools?

rhd99 11 years, 6 months ago

Connie Morris, you blew it. You spent OUR money on frivilous trips that had nothing to do with education. By the way, did you spend that money on strip clubs? Oh, I forgot Bob Corkins hired a male stripper for you on your nights on the town. Quick, call the National Enquirer, boy I have a scoop here: Bob Corkins hires strippers for Connie Morris while she is on alleged "Official state business". Get lost, Morris & get a life!

wlpywd 11 years, 6 months ago

why isnt ljworld reporting on the Mountain Lion? and how can missouri have 10 confirmed and we dont believe poop proves it for us...

wheatridge 11 years, 6 months ago

gr8dane - and when best to catch them than young? Is that when you were caught?

americorps - "as I am concerned; I am; I do; my faith as my right; I am; I belive and I do not; In fact, I think; I belive; I belive" . . . ; Really, you don't sound like a "bond-servant".

Roadkill_Rob 11 years, 6 months ago

KS wrote:

"For those of you who still refuse to believe in a God, I wish you well. You better make sure you are right, because you only get one chance."

How do you know? Is it b/c someone else told you that since you were a little kid when you were impressionable? I'm serious here...I really want to know how you know for sure.

rhd99 11 years, 6 months ago

KS, by the way, mixing religion into a public school venue, isn't that unconstitutional? You bring it up here, & that is okay. Trying to bring it into the public school system, however, like they did in Pennsylvania is a lost cause.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

It is good to read that Kansas is starting the slow, ponderous journey into a more enlightened modern age. Creationism ("intelligent design") belongs in churches, not in public school.

I object to the article's sentence that reads "Science standards that support evolution could be back on the books in Kansas in as little as two months." It is not possible for science standards to support evolution: they can support the teaching of evolutionary theory, but not evolution. Evolution is a fact: evolutionary theory defines and describes that fact. Writing that a school board's standards "supports evolution" is as silly, and as ignorant, as writing that a school board's standards "supports gravity" or "supports heliosynthesis."

BOE 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by Desertphile on December 14, 2006 at 2:46 p.m.

" I object to the article's sentence that reads ' Science standards that support evolution could be back on the books in Kansas in as little as two months.' "


Maybe they should just get to the heart of the matter.

"Science standards that support teaching science could be back on the books in Kansas in as little as two months."

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

I read the standards. I cannot find a a single instance of criticism of evolution in them.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

KS, God is completely irrelevant to this topic. Most educated religious people accept evolution fine, so it's a fallacy of false dichotomy to claim you can believe in God OR accept science like evolution. Many of us can do both. Yes. Us. I'm a devout Christian (albeit a moderate, aka non-fundie). Like the majority of Christianity, I have no problem with evolution. From learning about it, and the vast evidence supporting it, I know it's a scientific fact, one MY Christian faith does not require me to deny.

So don't drag God into this with threats of hell (even subtle ones that don't directly mention it) if we "believe in" science.

It's a scientific fact that lifeforms evolve, today and in the past... so IF God DOES exist, and IF God created, as I believe God does and did, evolution is part of that Creation, a natural process like any other.

Creationists are the ones denying/rejecting the great power and wisdom of God, as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention calling God a liar, leaving all this evidence and observation of evolution, if it's not REALLY true.

Evolution is science. It's good science. And it's neutral about God, like science in general is supposed to be. It belongs in science classes in public schools. Creationism doesn't. It's religion, not science. It's unconstitutional.

Many of us Christians support freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state required to maintain that freedom. And for very good reasons.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

Apparently intellectual honesty is not part of this discussion, either.

Again, I state that I found absolutely no criticism of evolution in the BOE's standards.

Yet this argument seems to be about criticism of evolution in public school standards.

I would like someone to point out the specific criticisms in the standards.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

gr8dane, did you read the standards, or are you basing your opinion on what you read in the media?

budwhysir 11 years, 6 months ago

Look folks, right now the board of education is under the gun to determin if we can cover travel expenses for outgoing members.

This is not a subject that we should make them work on. After all with all of the important tasks at hand like keeping our kids safe, canceling school on snow days, putting numbers to how much all day kindergarten costs, and trying to locate land to build new buildings, we can not expect them to have time to do everything.

I for one would like to see additional taxes posed to the tax payers so that we can have emergency meetings of the school boards to determin the best way to run our schools.

By the way, does everyone know that all day kindergarten costs 1 million per year and the university just received enough scholarship funds to promote all day kindergarten for 23 1/2 years.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

wheatridge said: "gr8dane - and when best to catch them than young? Is that when you were caught?"

No, the fundamentalists have never "caught" me, and I'm far too educated and strong in my Christian faith to let them do so now. I'll probably remain a Christian instead. One who accepts evolution as the scientific fact that it is.

I am thankful I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist environment. If I had been, chances are I'd either still be ignorant and dogmatically against science, or I'd probably be an atheist. I've met many ex-fundies who are now atheists. My experience suggests fundies set their own kids up to become atheists. They grow up, learn a little science, realize they were lied to with the whole black-and-white, "science is wrong" attitude of fundamentalism, but still have the binary "one or the other" mindset, so they figure if the faith they were raised with is wrong, all religion must be wrong and atheism is right.

Whereas the kids of more moderate Christians (the majority) grow up, learn why evolution is a demonstrated, observed, well supported fact, and go "cool, I'm glad that doesn't conflict with my faith like it does for those fundies/creationists", and they can keep their faith just fine. That's the way it went for me, and most Christians I know. Even my elderly devoutly-Christian parents accept evolution fine, and don't understand why so many in the USA have a problem with it.

Of course, extremists of any faith consider the moderate majority to be "false" believers, for "compromising", and other nonsense. Just as in earlier centuries, they said the same things about people who "compromised" on the bible's clear teaching that the earth is flat, and all that "evidence" otherwise was put there by Satan to lead us astray.

Creationists of today are like the flat earthers of the past. Rejecting new discoveries (and the evidence for them) that go against their scripturally-inspired worldview. Now, very few creationists today still insist the earth is flat... and because of their general insistance that the bible is the LITERAL word of God, they now jump through all sorts of hoops of apologetics and convenient re-interpretations to deny it EVER said that, even though it clearly did and any half decent scholar or theologian will admit it.

Anyway, that's getting off onto a tangent, and I'm sure there are some literalists who will chomp at the bit to refute me. Such arguments are as silly as anti-evolution arguments, if not more so.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

It is impossible to criticise evolution: facts of nature do not care how much people wail and whine and moan against them. Ergo, it is impossible to teach criticism against evolution, in public schools or outside public schools. Since there is no such thing as a criticism against evolution, those who complain about such criticism "not being allowed" are just being silly and foolish.

However, it is possible for scientists to criticise parts of evolutionary theory--- AND THEY DO. All theories are modified when new information is acquired, and evolutionary theory is no exception. Such criticism occurs within the scientoific community, and it is not appropreate in schools.

At the moment there is almost nothing to criticise regarding evolutionary theory: it has packed on so much evidence, supporting the modern synthesis, that there isn't much left to discover regarding evolution.

Yet we see Creationists demanding that "alternatives" be "taught," and wailing about how "criticism" is being "ignored." That's because there are no known alternatives to evolutionary theory--- any alternative that shows up, if ever, will itself be evolutionary theory: evolution is an observed fact, even if no theory to define and describe that fact were known.

None of this has anything to do with gods. Silly people who claim otherwise ought to, well, grow up and face reality like adults. Since evolution is an observed fact, and since evolution has been observed to occur, and since evolution is observed to still be occuring, the ignorant people who insist their gods are in opposition to evolution (and/or evolutionary theory) are demonstrated wrong. If the gods object to evolution having occured and to occuring, surely the gods would have stopped evolution from happening.

Frankly, people who reject the fact that evolution occured and occurs need to either get educated on the subject or shut up. Conversly, people who object to parts of evolutionary theory (which is not evolution) ought to produce evidence that supports their objections---- odd how they all, without exception that I am aware of, utterly REFUSE to do so.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

I would agree with logicsound04's refutation of parkay's sarcastic comments, for the most part. They (parkay's comments) were based on ignorance (willful or otherwise), and common creationist misconceptions of what science ACTUALLY says. I would correct logicsound on only one nitpicky point: humans ARE apes. We are a subset of apes. Whether we evolved from common ancestors with the OTHER apes, or whether God created us essentially as we are today, we are apes, by definition and by traits associated with apes.

Obviously, I accept the former, that we evolved from common ancestors with the other apes, because that's what all the evidence says, and unlike the creationists, I'm not one to call God a liar. But the point is, we ARE apes. The evidence clearly says we're related to the OTHER apes. Since discovering genetics and studying the genome, the evidence is overwhelming. Denying it is like denying the earth is spherical.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Desertphile, exactly. Scientists continue doing science, ignoring the RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL movement (Creationism, including the ID variety) attacking them, for the most part. Are they criticizing evolution? No. The process is nearly universally accepted as being factual and observed. The theory is accepted as a good, if incomplete (like any other theory in science) explanation of that process.

Some of the SUB theories WITHIN it are newer and less well supported, and sometimes proven wrong by testing and new evidence. This is PART OF SCIENCE. It's how it works. The theory changes, advances, as we learn more. And yet the core of the modern theory still includes Darwin's initial theory, pretty much still accepted, still supported by the evidence, still unrefuted.

But this is how science works. And even when you point this out, creationists wave their hands and go "see, science admits it's WRONG about evolution! They are changing the theory!" Yes. They are. Like they change every OTHER theory, as we learn more about the thing the theory explains. That our EXPLANATION changes does not mean the thing in question doesn't actually exist. We have several COMPETING theories of gravity. We know less (and are less sure of it) about how gravity works than we do about evolution. But you don't see the creationists going "this means gravity isn't, you can't even settle on one theory!"...

Evolution doesn't even have any competing theories. No rivals. Much less one that fits the evidence BETTER than the currently accepted one. Although some of the SUB theories (some competing with each other) within it can change, and some become more accepted than others over time, often when new evidence or testing discredits one.

This in no way means evolution is questionable. It just means we don't yet fully understand every aspect of it. Maybe we never will. I don't think science considers any of its theories COMPLETE or ABSOLUTE.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago

"Again, I state that I found absolutely no criticism of evolution in the BOE's standards" -- Godot

You need to reread the life sciences section of the the science standards Godot especially concerning evolution. It is criticized as not having actual scientific evidence and even refers to irreducible complexity here. Please note that irreducible complexity comes from creationist arguments and is meant as an "attack" on the theory of evolution. However these terms have nothing to do with science so it is irrelevant to evolution but nevertheless it is present in the standards. The standards claim that evolution is being strongly debated in "scientific circles" which is complete BS. There is no debate from a scientific standpoint concerning evolution. It talks about how the evidence for evolution is circumstancial and refers to "gaps" in theory with the implication that the theory is wrong. It even tries to distort actual data by refering to a "Cambrian explosion" where it says the fossil record shows "sudden spurts of life" that would not possible through evolution. H*ll Godot you can't even get through that section without encountering mountains of criticisms directed at evolution. How can you even say that?

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

Kodiak, post the sentences to which you refer, and, please, do not paraphrase

Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago


you know, i wouldn't want to stop teachin evolution in schools.

i think that would be just wrong.

i for one wouldn't want to deprive many of you of what pleasure you seem to derive from thinking your a descendant of a primate.

and, after all, after watchin politics on tv and readin this board, i have no problem whatsoever believing at least a quarter of human beings and ALL politicians was raised by chimps!

sounds good, lets keep teachin it.

navin says thumbs up to evolution.



bondmen 11 years, 6 months ago

Follow the yellow brick road Kansas. Teach your captive students that progress occurs only when the fittest survive.

Darwinism taken to its logical extreme: kill the gentle and the unfortunate.

Follow the yellow brick road Kansas and don't be surprised when your captive students get the true message and its real meaning. Death makes things better!

Hitler's fascination with Darwinian thinking went back to his childhood too.

Follow the yellow brick road Kansas and don't be surprised when its color changes and turns red instead.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Navin is apparently not educated enough to know that humans are primates. Not just "descended from" them.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

I see bondmen is at it again. Jabbering his creationist misconceptions of what evolution is, what the theory says, and what it means. Only someone ignorant of what so-called "darwinism" is would sum it up as "kill the gentle and unfortunate", and claim that understanding the naturally occurring PROCESS of evolution means abandoning human laws, customs, morals, compassion for others, etc.

Oh yes. And of course, drag Hitler into it. Even though this is as silly as claiming that teaching theories of GRAVITY in public school science classes will lead to the chaotic downfall of society because Hitler used Newton's discoveries in his rocket program...

Creationists are so embarassing. To me as a Christian. To me as a HUMAN BEING. Shows we haven't evolved as far as we think. Some of us still sit and fling poo.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Godot, have I read the standards? No. Have I only listened to "what the media" say about it? No. I've listened to what the experts have said, experts who HAVE read the creationist standards and compared them to the proper standards, the ones written by actual scientists and education officials. Do I remember those summaries, point for point? No.

Do I need to, to realize they are the shameful attempt of a religiously-motivated group of fanatics to, against the constitution, dumb down the science taught to public school children and set them up to learn creationist nonsense? No. That's obvious from the fact that the board dominated by religious conservatives ignored the proper standards written by people who know what they're doing in favor of one written for them by a CREATIONIST GROUP.

"Standards" written to subtly avoid mentioning their creationist god to make it harder to challenge under constitutional issues, but which clearly are religiously motivated. One way this is obvious is the way they redefine, among other things, science so as to leave it open to supernatural explanations. That's on the list of "things to do" from the Wedge Document. Replace the "materialistic" stance of science, eventually with one bowing to the supremecy of (their) God.

And that farce of a "hearing"... Scientists did the right thing by boycotting it. The "fair and impartial" board conservatives who held that showed they were anything but. The ID creationist people were there, showing they supported the standards they wrote (big surprise), along with their "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan.

Board member Kathy Martin started the hearings with "Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts." At their conclusion she claimed that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory.

Did they BLATANTLY write that into their "standards"? No. They were savvy enough to realize they had to be more subtle there. It's all in wording. Making evolution out to sound "less accepted" by the scientific community, less supported by the overwhelming evidence and observation than it is, etc. Leave it open for individual teachers and schools to teach creationism, or "critical analysis of evolution", at their discretion. At least at first.

That's how these guys work. They try to get the wedge in the door. And then push for more. And more.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


Sorry haven't responded yet. Here are some statements from the standards....

"Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence." -- Kansas Science Standards

"Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence also indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. However, in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution" -- Kansas Science Standards

"The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:

i.Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view. ii.A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and iii.Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development." -- Kansas Science Standards

"Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board's objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is "secular, neutral, and non-ideological." -- Kansas Science Standards

I could go on and on Godot but you get the general idea here. Here is the link if you want to keep reading it... Documents/Science/sciencestd.doc&tabid=144

Need I say more or am I being too silent?

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


The following statement is complete BS and and a statement that should have been taken to court because it is false.

"Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution." -- Kansas Science Standards

There is no "significant debate" here and it specifically states that evolution has "criticisms" that will be incorporated in the standards. How can you sit there and read that Godot and then turn around and say...

"Again, I state that I found absolutely no criticism of evolution in the BOE's standards."

I think you need to reread the standards Godot and stop accusing people of being ignorant.

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

Evolution doesn't even have any competing theories. No rivals. Much less one that fits the evidence BETTER than the currently accepted one. Although some of the SUB theories (some competing with each other) within it can change, and some become more accepted than others over time, often when new evidence or testing discredits one.

Good point; the evidence clearly shows there was an "Eve" in Africa and we are all descended from her. Thank the skygods for a good mutated forebrain that has helped us all the last few thousand generations.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

prioress, that's a common misconception. "Mitochondrial Eve" was actually a series of "Eves". They were just genetic bottlenecks where the species population was reduced so much that all subsequent humans were descended from one specific female. It does NOT mean they were the FIRST female human, nor the only one around AT THAT TIME. Plus, as I said, there wasn't just the one Eve. Such genetic bottlenecks happened several times. And it was a lot longer ago than 6000 years ago. Try closer to 200,000.

Calling these females "Eve" was a cutesy name, but I bet the scientists who coined it regret their whimsy, by the way it has let people misconstrue their discovery, especially creationists.

"No, I would not necessarily consider this evidence against evolution anymore than I consider the mitochrondrial Eve evidence of the Biblical Eve. In any small population, over a few generations one female will become the ancestor of everyone in the tribe. This means that the Mitochrondrial Eve is nothing more than the lucky female for the larger population. She is not the Biblical Eve at all." - Glenn Morton (former member of ICR)

You can learn more at:

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Oh yeah, before I forget again... Kodiac mentioned that often used creationist chestnut, the "Cambrian Explosion", as if it's a serious PROBLEM for evolution... I just read an interesting article about that recently, from a university near me:

Finding an answer to Darwin's Dilemma (on why multicelled life only really took off 575 million years ago):

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

prioress, that's a common misconception. "Mitochondrial Eve" was actually a series of "Eves". == Thanks; Prioress always likes to learn something new. It promotes deeper understanding. I'm always amused by the ID crowd's "homocentric" attitudes about common descent. We are talking, symbolic apes, no doubt. We are also descended from everything on our side of the tree with a backbone. The ID folks deny the existence of the tree's trunk, then get all feisty and ignorant arguing about the last few branches at the top.

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

gr8tdane chose this paragraph from the introduciton to the education standards as evidence of "criticism" of evolution:

""Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution." -- Kansas Science Standards"

Is that it? Is that what all this hoopla has been about? You must be joking!

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


I suggest you read the following link for more of the specific criticisms of the standards. They actually point to some specific examples of the so-called "criticisms" of evolution and refute the statements as either being confusing or just plain wrong.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


Now I have to ask the question of whether or not you have read the entire standards because it is apparent that YOU are not reading what the standards say. That statement you picked is a general statement at the beginning of the standards and is only the tip of the iceberg. I chose it because it directly contradicts your own statement. Remember you said

"Again, I state that I found absolutely no criticism of evolution in the BOE's standards." -- Godot

You asked and it has been shown to you. If you going to criticize or belittle something, I suggest you do a little more in-depth research and know what it is you are talking about....instead of saying oh you guys are ignorant because you haven't the standards and then saying oh is that all you guys are objecting to. It doesn't matter how little or meaningless you think a false statement is, it is still false and it should not be taught as being science.

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

"Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. ......." Is that it? Is that what all this hoopla has been about? You must be joking! ===== Well, for starters, the first sentence is a lie. Scientists fight like dogs about how evolution works, but that's different from concocting a fairy tale about a skygod to account for what we do not yet understand. Language is power; that's why the ID folks fight so hard to get subtle messages inserted into government documents.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 6 months ago

Ks, I am going to laugh my head off if after we both die you wake up to see zeuss and thor doing tequilla shots while winged valkyries do pole dances....While commendable , your zealosness for YOUR god and the denunciation of any other deity makes you a bigot.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

Thank you "Kodiac" for posting a section of the previous Board of Director's sinister and blatently false assertions regarding what they claim are "scientists" who reject the fact that evolution occured and occurs. Their use of the sentence "Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some" is deliberately deceptive; it is a lie; it is false; it is meant to further their occult political agenda.

It is not a case of "many scientists" accepting the fact that evolution occured and occurs: it is a case of almost complete unanimity among scientists that evolution occured and occurs. There are a few scientists who have dearly cherished religious convictions that require them to reject the fact that evolution occured and occurs, but they have never be able or willing to produce any valid arguments against what scientists observe with their own eyes.

Not that the majority is right: one person who is correct trumps ten million people who are wrong. Creationists need only produce evidence to support their occult beliefs, and the world's scientists will cheerfully accept that evidence. Creationists have had over 10,000 years to do so--- and we're still waiting.

Most of the "scientists" who reject the fact that evolution occured and occurs are not scientists: they tend to be engineers from a dozen different engineering venues. Their opinions regarding evolution, therefore, are worth no more than any non-scientist.

Evolution is an observed fact: nobody can legitimately assert it did not and does not occur.

Evolutionary theory, which defines, describes, and yields predictions regarding the fact of evolution, is not a fact and never will be. Tens of thousands of scientists throughout the world work tirelessly to disprove parts of evolutionary theory (because the only way to know if something is true is to prove it false and be unable to do so): now and then when a scientist succeeds into doing so, she or he is honored, wined, dined, speeched, and applauded by her or his scientist peers. Thus every time evolutionary theory is modified it becomes stronger, and scientist's confidence in evolutionary theory becomes greater.

The previous Board of Education did not make a mistake in their false assertions: they lied deliberately. They should have been punished: they actively sought to injure and inhibit the education of their student victims. Taring and feathering might or might not have been an appropreate response to such perfideous behavior, but at the very least they should have been sued by the parents of the victims.

In the USA every citizen is granted the civil right to a basic education: a democratic republic rests upon an informed and educated citizenry. The previous Board of Education sought to deny Kansas citizens that fundamental American right.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

prioress, exactly. It's ironic that the anti-evolutionist movement itself "evolves". The ID strain just being the latest attempt to "adapt" to rulings against previous versions of creationism based on separation of church and state. So they try to be more subtle about language, at least publicly, and try to avoid mentioning they believe the "designer" is God (and their fundamentalist variety, at that).

After court cases that went against them, they try to avoid directly changing school policies and state standards to "teach creationism", but use buzzwords, "teach the controversy" (implying there is one when there isn't), talking about ID as if it's actual science, even though about all it is is manufactured (and false) "criticism of evolution".

The rank and file members of the movement (like the school board creationists) make thoughtless quotes for the media showing they are creationists, even while the wordsmiths working for the ID thinktanks are trying hard to come up with more sneaky things for them to say to try to hide what it's really about and disguise it as legitimate science.

Like you said. Language is power. They know direct creationist assertions keep getting shot down, both in science based on the evidence, and in the legal arena. So they are instead trying to use their political power to SLIDE their agenda in the back door, disguised as "open mindedness" and "academic freedom", knowing that the average patriotic American will defend such misguided attempts if you appeal to "democracy". "Oh, but all sides should be heard, then let the kids decide for themselves!" Bah. That would be fine if creationism were at all scientifically valid. It's not. If you teach it, don't do it in a science class.

If creationism is mentioned in science class at all, it should be why it's wrong, all the evidence disproving it. But even that is more fitting for college level courses about philosophy and/or history of science, not high school biology. Just teach science to the kids. Make sure they get the essentials first. Including evolutionary theory.

If they want to hold to the creationist beliefs taught by their parents, that's their right. But they should at least understand what evolution actually IS, and why it's an accepted scientific fact. At least, if they are going through the public school system, where they should get a decent education (and I realize the system is failing many, and these battles with creationists aren't helping there).

If their parents are adamantly opposed to them learning science like evolution, there are private (creationist) schools and home schooling options. I personally think such options do a grave disservice to their kids, but it's their choice. But if they go through the public system, there are certain standards. And that SHOULD include learning real science, not creationism.

Except when creationists get a majority on a school board and push their own religious beliefs on everyone else's kids.

Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by gr8dane (anonymous) on December 14, 2006 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Navin is apparently not educated enough to know that humans are primates. Not just "descended from" them."

well thanks marlon f$%^&* perkins!

no humor in the academics huh? support the evolutionists, admittedly offhandedly, and BANG they shoot you in the head. sheesh.

next time i'll just add 'non human' in front. didn't think my use of the term was such a brain teaser to discern, but obviously it was enough to make me an automatic dunce. i'll be more accurate so as to not offend your obviously superior intellect next time dane.

i withddraw my support for evolution (that's humor).

one little innocent oversight an someone defaults to "uneducated." sheesh, loosen your jockeys and have a cocktail or forty.

but anyway, thanks for the correction. BTW, i hear they're lookin for another high powered herbologist or biologist to be the new croc hunter.

interested dane? you may want to start off with a show of you swimming among the sting rays...or barracuda! :)



Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

If the evolutionary scientists were secure in their belief that their theories were valid, beyond question, they would welcome debate.

Yet, these revered, god-perceived scientists, who proscribe the content of science education, insist that government education should not allow any debate of their pre-conceived observations and conclusions.

These secular scientists have succeeded in repressing any views that question the supremacy of their theories.

That is the new Purple Kansas of 2006.

Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago

you know i'm bettin these evolvers are a boat load of fun to throw back cold ones with down at the local honky tonks or vfw.

they're a load of laffs here i can tell ya.

the way they talk, i bet they're real popular with the ladies! most women i know just really dig that 'in reality i can't prove it in a para or two, so i'll just talk random mutation and natral selection mumbo jumbo with a tone that everybody's an idiot that don't believe me.'

music to women's ears!

course I do mean real women, you know; those that'll bring ya to your knees. not those pretending to be men, raised watching too much xena warrior princess, and thinks they can kick mens butts, but in actuality couldn't bench press a 20 oz co-cola.

you know the sort.

ah, women...and beer. empirical proof there is a God.

politicians and lawyers. evidence evolvers might just be right.



culture warrior, let em attack. i'm quite sure my existence and happiness ain't hinging on what they can or cannot prove with regards to our descent from pooh throwin monkeys.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Don't quit your day job, navin (if you have one). Stand up comedy is not your forte. Your "support for evolution" was pretty blatant sarcastic mockery. And it would have been more effective if you actually knew enough about the topic.

Now, go on playing wounded friend of evolution. I doubt anyone else was any more fooled by it than I was. Humour is fine. I've been known to crack a smile on occasion. But your back patting clownery isn't amusing. It's embarassing. You're dismissed.

  • Croc Hunter Dane

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

I see Godot has thrown his hat in the ring, stepping down from pretending to be a questioning third party, and come out firmly for is creationist beliefs.

Godot said: "If the evolutionary scientists were secure in their belief that their theories were valid, beyond question, they would welcome debate."

Nice fallacies. Based on several falsehoods, though. You're right they ARE "secure in their belief that their theories are valid". But they are RIGHTFULLY SO. They've had 150 years of testing to prove their theories wrong. And they've encouraged any and all (including creationists aka evangelical christians) to do so also. NONE COULD. The ATTEMPTS ended up developing the theory of evolution into a large, accurate body of sub theories, facts, laws, tested hypotheses, etc. Which is the GOAL of science. The evidence and observation overwhelmingly supports evolution.

So yes. They are "secure in their belief that their theories are valid". And they've earned that. What have YOU guys done? Played "nuh uh! I say you're wrong!" games and lied to everyone. Lies that when exposed to standards even weaker than those applied to evolutionary theory, show them to be blatantly false.

Not that it makes you stop spouting them to anyone who will hear.

Back to your comment. "they would welcome debate"... They DO welcome debate. With anyone who can back up their assertions with EVIDENCE. That's how science works. You want to challenge the established theories, you need to back it up.

You can't just go "I have another idea, I can't back it up scientifically, but out of fairness I should be given equal footing. Let's be democratic, guys!"

Science goes by the evidence. Not "equal time" and "democratic fairness". If you can support it with evidence, you can convince them. That's as fair as it gets.

That's why creationism failed before Darwin even came on the scene. That's why creationists are trying to make evolution fail with trumped up "problems and flaws" instead of supporting their own religious alternative belief. They know they can't.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Then Godot went on to blather: "Yet, these revered, god-perceived scientists, who proscribe the content of science education, insist that government education should not allow any debate of their pre-conceived observations and conclusions."

Who ELSE do you think should "proscribe the content of science education", if not scientists? Car mechanics? Stock brokers? Art teachers? I'm not slandering those fine professions. I'm making the point that scientists are best qualified to decide what is science, and how well supported and accepted it is, and how it should be taught.

Nor is elementary and high school the place to "question and debate" every single aspect of science, which they'd have to do if you got your way, "to be fair". You try to make out evolution as if it has some controversy about it in the scientific community, when it clearly doesn't. So why would we have a controversy about it in science class?

Science class is for kids to LEARN science, not DEBATE science. You can't really debate something until you UNDERSTAND it. And judging by how many otherwise decent people are fooled by creationism today, too many of them aren't getting a basic UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE in school.

(Note I didn't comment on your highly emotive remarks yet, "these revered, god-perceived scientists". I don't think scientists are the ones with god complexes. You creationists are.)

Then Godot added: "These secular scientists have succeeded in repressing any views that question the supremacy of their theories."

Actually, it's you guys who have repressed any views against the "supremacy" of your own, for decades. Scientists are doing NOTHING to repress YOU from believing WHATEVER you like. They just don't want you LYING to impressionable school kids, against the constitutional separation of church and state no less, that your unsupported beliefs are SCIENCE. They're not.

I'm a Christian. And I have no problem saying they're right. Creationists can't defeat science on its own ground, with its own method, with evidence, so they try to do an end run around the whole process. Indoctrinate the kids, and the NEXT generation of scientists will be creationists by default, or so they figure. That's why they're trying so hard to get candidates on school boards, among other political positions.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Posted by Godot: "The fervor with which the people who call themselves scientists who have been prominent in promoting the notion that the Kansas BOE standards were "anti-evolution" demonstrates that they are the ideologues."

Well, gee, those "standards" WERE blatantly "anti-evolution". And they were written by admitted anti-evolutionists (the ID creationists). So it's not like the "scientists" had to try all that hard to show they were. Pointing out this obvious fact certainly doesn't make them "ideologues". It did show the creationists who wrote them and the creationists who adopted them are, though.

Then Godot said: "If they were confident in their stance that all life is the result of mere random chance,"

Right there. Another common misconception of creationists (and the average everyday person, thanks to them spreading their misconceptions around). The belief that evolution is "the result of mere random chance". If you understood evolutionary theory, you wouldn't say something so foolish.

Evolution is the OPPOSITE of "mere random chance". Randomness is involved, in the mechanisms that create diversity in a population (like mutation, and the way offspring of sexually reproducing species randomly get half of the genes from each parent), for instance.

But the main mechanism of evolution, the one that lets a species ADAPT to its habitat, is Natural Selection, which is the opposite of "mere random chance". Hence the word SELECTION. If it were all random chance, any trait would be as likely as any other to be selected. This is obviously not the case.

Continuing Godot's paragraph: "just another process of DADA, then they would welcome debate, they would welcome the discussion, because they would know that the children would easily be won over by their powerfully substantiated arguments."

Once again, you missed the point. There IS NO debate in the scientific community. There just is NOT, and not because of draconian tactics by an orthodox scientific priesthood, as you claim. Evolution won it over a century ago, based on the evidence, and the fact that there is no rival theory since divine creation was knocked out of the running, disproven (if you use literal biblical versions of it) or totally unsupported by evidence, untestable, unfalsifiable, and thus not science (like the really really vague assertions of modern ID creationism).

But, even if there WERE debate in the scientific community (where such debate belongs), it does NOT belong in the schools, which have limited time and resources to teach them BASIC SCIENTIFIC LITERACY. Not go into all the details and disputed parts they should go to college to learn about.

But that's moot because evolution is NOT as "disputed, debated" as you guys claim it is. Just because YOU try to stir up a debate doesn't mean your side has any valid scientific evidence to support your assertions, much less your "alternative theory" (disproven religious belief).

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04, you nailed it. navin is juvenile and ignorant. That's why I dismissed him. (Although I admit his "advice" to me was amusing, more for presumption than content)

But it's obvious he's a teenager, here to troll and make tempers flare. If these forums had an ignore button, he'd have been clicked at his second post.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Godot then said: "But, no, they must stifle debate, refuse to participate in reasonable discussion, call anyone who asks for proof of their beliefs an idiot, and tromple the free speech rights of others in order to maintain the superiority of their faith, the perversion of Darwinism."

There IS NO DEBATE to stifle. You guys have no evidence, no valid arguments, not even a THEORY for scientists to look at and test. Creationism failed long ago, and is still failing. That's not going to change, no matter how hard you WISH it.

No one is trampling your FREE SPEECH. Do you see anyone outlawing your right to tell your creationist beliefs? To put up websites about them? No. You just don't have the right to teach it to MY kids as SCIENCE in public schools.

You just want to MANUFACTURE a "debate" so you can claim you have a valid case for insisting your RELIGIOUS BELIEFS be taught, against separation of church and state, in public schools, to everyone else's kids.

More hypocrisy from you: claiming WE are the ones who call "anyone who asks for proof of their beliefs an idiot". You are the one who cannot supply proof (or evidence, which is what science deals with, not "proof" which only exists in math and law), and call us names (like oh, hellbound, atheistic, liberal, lost, sinful, satanic, foolish, dogmatic fanatics stifling debate, etc ad nauseam) when we insist you supply it before we'll let you call it valid SCIENCE and teach it to everyone's kids in government run (and tax-supported) public schools open to citizens of all faiths (and none).

If I call creationists names, it tends to be along the lines of "dishonest", etc. Usually because I just caught them in a pretty blatant lie, which they stick to even after we show it's false.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Godot again (quoting Desertphile first): "Life is not the result of random chance: life is the result of evolution." "What did life evolve from? or, better put, "From what did 'life' evolve?""

Ah yes, the creationist mixing up evolution with abiogenesis.

Desertphile's quote used "life" in terms of types of lifeforms, species, etc. The variety we see today is the result of evolution. The variety of life we see in the fossil record. If it was meant otherwise, feel free to correct me. But that was the way I took it.

Godot (intentionally, dishonestly and strategically, or through ignorance of the distinction) assumed he was talking about the ORIGIN of the FIRST LIFE. Creationists are always doing that.

Evolution has nothing to do with how the FIRST LIFE formed. Science has other theories for that. Abiogenesis being the commonly accepted one, that life formed naturally on the early earth as a natural process of amino acids growing longer and longer until they became subject to evolutionary mechanisms. But our knowledge of that time and process (and the evidence for it) is more limited, compared to the mountains of evidence and observation and testing that support evolution, which is what happened to that life after it formed.

When there are self-replicating lifeforms subject to the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, etc), it evolves. It's an ongoing process. Every generation. It happens naturally, automatically. It doesn't require the lifeforms in question to DECIDE to evolve, or to know HOW to do it... and it doesn't require a deity to hold its hand through each step. That doesn't mean a deity doesn't exist, and didn't plan the universe to work that way. Science is neutral about that.

Many/most Christians (and other faiths) accept evolution as factual, but believe God designed the universe to work that way, and many believe God may have stepped in at times to help it along, to get the DESIRED results (us, for example), while admitting we have no evidence (yet) for that.

It's a scientific fact that lifeforms evolve, today and in the past... so IF there's a God, and IF God created, as I believe God does and did, evolution is part of that Creation, a natural process like any other.

Only bible literalists (and some fanatic atheists) argue with that, and make up the false dichotomy that you have to believe one OR the other, because it conflicts with their interpretation of Genesis. An interpretation most Christians don't share.

God may not NEED evolution to create us, but all the evidence says that IF God exists, evolution IS the way chosen. Claiming God created us another way is to insist God is a deceiver who lied to us by placing all this evidence (not to mention letting us SEE evolution happen now).

To say that God and evolution can't mix is to say that God is make believe. Because we KNOW evolution happens. But luckily, no creationist can yet support their assertion that the two cannot mix.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

I see that 'Godiot' somehow has come to believe that scientgists 'believe' something about evolution--- that's just plain silly. One does not 'believe' in evolution: one need merely look and see that it occurs, and one can watch and study HOW evolution occurs. 'Belief' has nothing at all to do with evolution, nor science.

If there was an alternative to evolutionary theory, why have the Creationists (and scientists) refused to reveal this alternative? Why are they keeping their 'alternative(s)' secret? Every time Creationists are asked for the 'alternative(s)' they insist exist, they shudder into silence, left speachless and bewildered.

Evolution is an observed fact: get over it already!

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

The fervor with which the people who call themselves scientists who have been prominent in promoting the notion that the Kansas BOE standards were "anti-evolution" demonstrates that they are the ideologues.

If they were confident in their stance that all life is the result of mere random chance, just another process of DADA, then they would welcome debate, they would welcome the discussion, because they would know that the children would easily be won over by their powerfully substantiated arguments.

But, no, they must stifle debate, refuse to participate in reasonable discussion, call anyone who asks for proof of their beliefs an idiot, and tromple the free speech rights of others in order to maintain the superiority of their faith, the perversion of Darwinism.

Evolotion happens. It has been improving life on earth since the beginning of time as life forms adapt to the ever changing landscape of life and thought. The only exception to the evolutionary process can be found in the fascist tendencies of the dogmatic, evolutionary scientists who insist on misrepresenting the arguments of those who dare to question their authority.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

I see that 'Godiot' is in fine putrid form, insisting scientists 'believe' evolution (which is like claiming scientists 'believe' gravity). Belief does not apply.

Nobody is preventing anyone from speaking out of their ignorance and occult beliefs regarding evolution and evolutionary theory: no free speach rights are being "trompled" ("trampled," I assume). One can go into any church or any pub or any insane asylum and wail their impotant rage against science, facts, and good education all they want--- nobody is stopping them.

Creationism does not belong in public schools, no more or less than astrology, phrenology, and conversing with demons. It is not a violation of anyone's "right to free speach" to not mandate necromancy, psychometry, and sheep-entrails-reading in public schools.

'Godiot' also claims scientists claim life is 'the result of random chance.' No scientist makes that claim; no scientist in the past 100 years and more has made that claim. Anyone who claims scientists claim life is the result of random chance is.... well, to be polite I will not say.

Life is not the result of random chance: life is the result of evolution.

It's bloody amazing how evolution-deniers insist they are authorities on the subject when they display a dismall derth of understanding about evolution and evolutionary theory. If they would take their occult blinders off, they could spend a few hours researching the topic: they would then know how silly they sound.

Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago

gr8dane: "Don't quit your day job, navin (if you have one). Stand up comedy is not your forte. Your "support for evolution" was pretty blatant sarcastic mockery. "

naw, yuh think? you ARE a genius dane. glad your quick on the up take!

"Humour is fine. I've been known to crack a smile on occasion."

i'll bet its a real rare occasion. only proves my point.

"But your back patting clownery isn't amusing. It's embarassing. You're dismissed."

i'm sorry you got embarassed. i'll be nicer so your little cheeks don't get all flush next time.

you need a girlfriend dane. step away from the computer, buy something other than an envirmentaly freindly vehicle, go to the gym, play the man part and get yourself some honey. that'll make you feel like a man's man. you'll soon realize this stuff you've convinced yourself of as so important that the world will come to end if folks don't believe it, ain't really ka-ka in the big picture.

that way you don't have to play the faux scholar, convinced falsely that your belief system gives you some holy right to be a rectal cavity.

oh, BTW if you're a girl, xena warrior princess is only fantasy and you must be covering your anger at having one humongous a$$.



Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

"Life is not the result of random chance: life is the result of evolution."

What did life evolve from?

Godot 11 years, 6 months ago

or, better put,

"From what did 'life' evolve?"

Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago

logicsound04: "if whether or not evolution is real or not isn't such a big deal to you, then go away and stop antagonizing people like an immature little bully."

well logiscoundo4, you didn't go a long way into proving me wrong about the anemic sense of humor of the turnip-like evolvers.

look on the bright side though, you got to vent about evolution and homer's sexuality in one quick swipe. im proud for ya.

"I won't make any assertions as to what YOU need to do, other than this..."

ah heck. i always look forward to advise. if it's useful i use it, if not, i don't. i thought most folks operated that way. feel free to tell me what to do. i do reserve the right acourse to forego your suggestions.

have a bottle of merlot and a hot bath logicsound04. quit think your gonna save the world from your computer. you'll live longer than stressing your way through life worrying about what a dim lightbulb like navin says. doctors orders.



Navin_R_Johnson 11 years, 6 months ago


all right maybe you hate merlot and hot baths.

"Evolver" is pet name logicsound04, sort a like "creationist" or "sugarshorts," get it?

if i am evolving, and i very well may be, (i also acknowledge that it is certainly debatable), at least I ain't in the humorless crowd. you folks is 100% prime time unfunny. therefore easy to scoop into the nets. sort of reminds of of democrats.

now before you go saying "navin, your so droll, you're obviously a right wing nutbag;" ain't the case, republicans have made a mess a things for sure. i like helping the poor folks, think government should help those that need it, especially youngsters, and we should only go to war when absolutely a neccessity.

the only good republican is dick cheney! and I only like him cause he shot a lawyer. (now, i'm just kiddin, i gotta add disclaimers here, cuz some a you folks is so tight in the underwear you'd think i'm serious).

now i'm prone to thinking evolution is right as some a the more level-headed folks here portray. but, to me, its most of you evolver folks who seem so uncertain in your views. the most viscious name callers and first to cast the "ya'lls all idiots" flag reside squarely on your side. to wit, read-up. that ain't a traditional sign of confidence. confidence buries opponents in objective truth, emperical facts and solid reasoning.

it oughta work like this: if creationist A asserts Y, then evolver B ought to assert Z and put em in their place.

as it is, its just pooh-throwing and screamin like monkeys in a cage. in ther words, just a downgraded form of political discourse.

that kodiac fella seems astute. ya'll ought to let him talk. he don't get emotional like some a the other chimps.

ya'll all really ought to stick to scientific responses and stay away from the hysterics, it makes you look like pooh heads who are still trying to convince themselves this stuff is the truth.

if it IS the truth, then do like the Chrisitans is suppose to do, and walk the walk.

the truth will always prevail. dissmissives make you look like you only WANT to believe something is true, not ACTUALLY believe it.



gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Godot ended with: "Evolotion happens. It has been improving life on earth since the beginning of time as life forms adapt to the ever changing landscape of life and thought. The only exception to the evolutionary process can be found in the fascist tendencies of the dogmatic, evolutionary scientists who insist on misrepresenting the arguments of those who dare to question their authority."

Cute. Ridiculously hypocritical, but cute. You guys are the ones acting like fascists, outlawing the teachings of evolution and other science you don't like for decades, then when the courts step in and enforce freedom of religion to keep religion out of science class and put science back into it, you try to slip creationism in AS science, and sneak creationists onto school boards to FORCE it in with majorities. Who's dogmatic and fascist now? Look to the recent history of the Kansas school board, in 1999 and 2005, hypocrite.

Creationists (and fundies in general) love projecting their own sins onto others and rebuking them for it. Fanatics can do a multitude of sins and justify it with their faith and zeal. You are taught to believe you're doing it for God. I believe you'll have to answer for it to God someday.

But this is, of course, all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Evolutionary theory is science. Creationism is a minority RELIGIOUS view. Evolution belongs in science classes in public schools. Creationism does not.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

I'm still chuckling over Culture_Warrior calling me "misinformed". "Boring" I can take. That's very subjective. What's boring to one isn't to another. And I'm sure I AM boring at times. But "misinformed"... And he can't tell me what I'm "misinformed" about, or why. Typical. Sour grapes.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

That's just sad. Look what William Dembski is up to. Mocking Judge Jones and the panel for the plaintiffs of the Dover case with fart jokes and silly voices:

(No doubt navin will mock my humorless evolutionist soul and my need to get laid again, for not appreciating this fine farty flash animation. Good thing no one takes him seriously but his fellow creationists.)

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago

Kudos to gr8dane.

I have always enjoyed reading your posts gr8dane and find you to be quite a breath of fresh air. I really like the way you go right to the heart of the matter and identify the problem and then present your ideas, opinions, and/or information about that matter. You do it very well both logically and without emotion.

I have noticed that some of what I consider to be some of the more informed individuals concerning evolution/intelligent design/creationism discussions on this forum will stay away from you mainly because I think they do not want to take you on. Maybe that is only a perception of my part but I do find it interesting that when you show up, certain individuals disappear.

To borrow some words, I consider you to be a beacon of sanity on this forum. In fact, you being a christian who seeks to dispel the myths and uncover the truth about our reality, gives me some hope with my own cynical outllook of religion in general and the existence of God.

I thank-you for your presence. I really appreciate it.


gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

navin threatened to make me blush. Kodiac succeeded in doing so. :)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm just trying to do what I believe is right. My faith and love for God is important to me. So too is my love of good, honest science, like evolutionary biology And I hate to see it slandered and attacked by religious fanatics (whether they claim to be of my religion or not) because much of science goes against the literalist dogma they are taught.

They attack it because they're taught it's their DUTY to. I guess I defend it for the same reason. It's my duty. My duty to science... and my duty to show they do NOT represent my Christian faith. They have their own variety, and they are a minority, much as they act like the majority, and claim to be the TRUE Christians (and belittle those of us who don't share their doctrines, biases, and interpretations of the bible).

I'm sorry I intimidate some folks... but on the other hand, if all they'd post are the same tired slogans we hear from creationists that have been debunked before, maybe it's for the best. I know I've done my share of debunking them.

I hadn't actually encountered creationists (and felt more motivated to learn about biology because of it) until this last decade, coming on the Internet... Most educated Christians outside of the USA (here in Canada definitely included) don't have a problem with evolution. There is no big trumped up "controversy", no rhetoric about it being contrary to the faith. As I've said in these forums before, even my elderly (and very devout) parents accept it just fine, without a conflict with their faith.

I'd seen creationists on American movies and television, and figured this was a stereotype of some nearly extinct curiosity down there. Didn't realize how strong the "movement" still was until I came online and met many Americans. And was shocked at just how strident and active they are. They're really scared. Both of modern science, and the "secularization" of society.

Me, I'm all for secularization of the government and public society. Lets us hold to our own personal faiths without interference or pressure to conform to someone else's. But the evangelicals/fundamentalists seem deathly AFRAID of it, seeing it as a threat to them. Perhaps it is. Perhaps with true freedom of religion, they can't keep their hold on people, or gain converts as easily...

I dunno. That's for theologians and philosophers to decide. Me, my faith is strong enough to let others decide their faiths (or none) for themselves, and strong enough to let science do its work without seeing it as a threat.

Sorry. My post seems to have become a bit of a sermon. blush Just some thoughts and impressions.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Culture_Warrior, big surprise a biased creationist would say that. rolls eyes

Actually, that you would call navin a "beacon of truth" says more about you than about me or navin. And none of it good. Nuff said.

Desertphile 11 years, 6 months ago

Thank you "gr8dane" for expressing the facts so very well with such erudition.

Yes, evolution is the venue of existing life forms: Creationists insist that scientists claim otherwise. Creationists do that deliberately, out of the desire to deceive and obfuscate.

The facts of the case are very clear: the previous Board of Education sought to inflict their occult beliefs upon their young victims. They used lies, falsehoods, and deception to achieve that evil end.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Well, Desertphile, the six creationist members sought that, anyway. The other four tried to talk them out of it, but the creationists had a majority and didn't need to listen to reason. They just forced their selfish changes through, not caring they were hurting the kids in their charge and Kansas in general. After that farce of a "hearing" which they thought would give the whole disgusting thing more legitimacy and acceptance. That sorta blew up in their faces, didn't it?

And I don't expect the creationists to give up. In Kansas, or elsewhere. They are generally pretty stubborn fanatics, and will keep trying to push where they can, preach their misconceptions of science and their paranoia against secularism and scientific naturalism.

And sadly, while they vehemently reject evolution, they themselves evolve, slowly but surely, getting sneakier in their methods. Education is still the best way to fight them, though. Perhaps that's why they want to pervert that so badly.

And we have to stay vigilant. Because they are waiting for us to relax so they can slip in under false pretences, like their "stealth candidates" who don't advertise as creationists... until they get a majority, or in a position of power.

That's how they got in a SECOND time on the Kansas board of education after being overturned the first time. And they'll keep trying. They believe it's their duty to save us from... ourselves, I guess.

By getting rid of evolutionary theory and all the rest of science they don't like. Eventually by outlawing atheism and secularization, MAKING everyone join their faith, see things their way, get SAVED from ETERNAL HELLFIRE, the whole spiel. Redefining science to allow supernatural (ie divine) explanations, destroying the naturalism of scientific method, is just a necessary step in that in their minds.

So yeah, they'll keep trying.

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

And I don't expect the creationists to give up. In Kansas, or elsewhere. They are generally pretty stubborn fanatics, and will keep trying to push where they can, preach their misconceptions of science and their paranoia against secularism and scientific naturalism.

Good point; The RRR is already plotting to "take the board back." We are only 18 months from the August, '08 primary election, which will probably determine the fate of the next board. If people snooze through this period, there could be 6-7 votes to hire "Corky" back as commissioner in January 2009.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

I guess the ironically named "right_thinker" doesn't believe in all the rest of science, and the technology it led to, that wasn't known a thousand years ago either. Oh wait, creationists are hypocrites who single out evolution and the bits of other fields of science that go against their creation myth, and accept all the OTHER relatively NEW discoveries.

Which makes his "where were the evolutionist?" tactic so much dishonest fluff, unless he remains consistant and attacks all the other things not known back then, too. And stops using all the modern technology and anything derived from it.

Is that gonna happen? Not bloody likely.

A good way to demonstrate this:

Hilarious Doonesbury strip about why creationists are hypocrites:

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Darn, the link doesn't work anymore. They took that Doonesbury strip down, or moved it. I should have checked that first. It was good, too.

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

I guess the ironically named "right_thinker" doesn't believe in all the rest of science, and the technology it led to, that wasn't known a thousand years ago either. Oh wait, creationists are hypocrites who single out evolution and the bits of other fields of science that go against their creation myth, and accept all the OTHER relatively NEW discoveries.

My pet peeve, let me tell ya. If the ID crowd wants to reject science, fine, but reject it all and use medieval medicine, ox carts, eschew modern hospitals and all other technologies, etc. Science is a marvelous web of discovery and many areas are linked by common threads.

bondmen 11 years, 6 months ago

Anti-ID Judge John E. Jones has become somewhat of a celebrity of late, traveling and speaking about his judgment against the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board on December 20, 2005 (see 12/23/2005). He has stated that he felt his opinion should set forth the case once for all that intelligent design is not science but religion in disguise, and wanted to write it such that it could be used by other courts in other states so that they would not have to argue from scratch. He has been declared an "original thinker" and has been praised by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the year.

Now it turns out that 90.9% of his 6,004-word opinion about whether intelligent design is science was lifted "virtually verbatim" from ACLU documents. A new study released today on Evolution News details the comparisons and discusses its implications. The entire study can be downloaded from Uncommon Descent

The question is is Judge Jones a towering intellectual or narcissistic putz?

So sorry to pop all you evo-devo believers' micro brain bubbles!

See 12-12-06 for a most adept green summary of this entire nefarious affair.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


Can you tell us how judges write their opinions? Can you give us the common legal practice that all judges follow when issuing their opinion. The above links are a publicity stunt by the Discovery Institute who have history of intentionally misleading people concerning evolution/creationism/ID. Incorporating factual information about a case usually from the winning side is a common procedure for judges which in fact can be quite large. In fact the beginning of Judge Jones opinion says...

"This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law which are based upon the Court's review of the evidence presented at trial, the testimony of the witnesses at trial, the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with supporting briefs, other documents and evidence in the record, and applicable law."

See where it says "the parties proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with supporting briefs". That is Judge Jones telling you he is attributing statements made by the winning side of the case which is in fact the ACLU.

Please tell us that you didn't base your wonderful insightful analysis of "evo-devo believers" on this misinformation. Please tell us you didn't make yourself look like a complete moron based on this publicity stunt. Did you bondmen?

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


Also wanted to point out to you that you also changed the wording as well. I was puzzled as to why any announcement would say "lifted" and then say "virtually verbatim" because "lifted" implies plagerizing. The actual announcements however say "copied" not "lifted" which makes more sense. You do understand that if they had said "lifted" or more directly "plagerized" then they probably would have had a defamation lawsuit on their hands. Instead they skirt the issue by saying "copied" and "verbatim" vs "plagerized". This way they can lead you to believe that it was plagerizing when it fact it was not. They are simply trying to make Judge Jones look bad by trying to exploit a common legal procedure with court opinions that will mostly contain factual information presented by the winning side of the case.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Das_Ubermime, yes, I'm quite aware of fundamentalists/creationists in other nations, including my own (Canada). Many here, even many Christians, think they're nuts or delusional or simple-minded. We get the occasional letter to the editor, or actual news story about them, usually when they get stirred up because it's in the news down in the USA.

And I've been reading recently about the creationists (calling themselves the laughable name of "Truth in Science") in the UK getting more gutsy about "donating" creationist materials to the schools, and the backlash of scientists speaking out against it. I know Australia has its own vocal (but still minority) contingent of creationists also. I've also read articles mentioning creationist activity in Germany, Poland, Kenya and other places.

It's also very strong in Muslim nations, of course, with their own distinct way of doing things (although most of their arguments against evolutionary biology are regurgitated and rewritten Christian creationist nonsense, sometimes given their own slant).

And yes, as the Christian evangelicals in the USA get more frenzied in their attacks on science, the ones in other nations will pick up that zeal and fervor. That link you posted demonstrated that. That's actually what that prof's proposed study was about. I'd read that story already, and wasn't surprised that of the five members of the board that rejected his grant, none were in a field related to biology, and several were non-science completely, like English Lit and History.

But only in the USA do they have so much power and money and numbers and political influence, and whole sections of the country that they have held sway over for a century or so, stifling science education so people grow up ignorant enough to fall for their nonsense, even if not fundamentalists (or even Christian).

Recently, of 34 developed nations surveyed on acceptance of evolution, the USA was nearly last, just above Turkey (which has its own strong Muslim creationist movement, including government officials trying to make the schools less secular). Here's a story about it from Fox News. I had a better link, complete with a diagram of the countries, but I can't find it. (this came out last summer),2933,207858,00.html

That's a sad record considering the US is the last of the "superpowers", a powerhouse economically and scientifically. Your economy relies on technology and science so much, evolutionary biology included... and only half of your population accepts it. Or less, depending on how much they accept and how you ask the question.

You do have a point about "those extended periods of religious revival", though. An excellent book is Chris Mooney's "The Republican War on Science". He has chapter 11 (updated from the printed copy) available free online, and it's about the origin of the "Intelligent Design" movement and touches on that:

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

prioress said, "My pet peeve, let me tell ya. If the ID crowd wants to reject science, fine, but reject it all and use medieval medicine, ox carts, eschew modern hospitals and all other technologies, etc. Science is a marvelous web of discovery and many areas are linked by common threads."

Yes prioress, I've been pointing out that hypocrisy for years too. They hate science and the conclusions it leads to, but like the toys and tools improved techniques it lets us build and use.

Especially ironic when they use those tools (like printing presses, computers and the Internet) TO ATTACK SCIENCE.

Of course, they use the copout that "Oh, we LOVE science. Just not your icky atheistic science! Evolution isn't REAL science. Scientific Creationism is!"

When I saw creationists in chatrooms badmouthing science most blatantly, I had a response typed up that I used:

:wishes fundies wouldn't keep attacking science... from their COMPUTER, chatting with people across the planet instantly. Sitting in their heated/cooled home with running water, with the car parked outside, which they use to go to the doctor when they get an ouchy or illness... Hypocrites. :)

Your comments about "web of discovery" and "linked by common threads" reminded me of a great television series I loved, which demonstrated that. Connections, with James Burke.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

That second paragraph should say "but like the toys and tools AND improved techniques it lets us build and use." Rough day at work. :P

bondmen 11 years, 6 months ago

Evolution is a religion because belief in it requires not just a little faith but great faith!

Science on the other hand is verifiable, testable and observable. Science requires experiments which are repeatable. None of these requirements are met by the evolution hypothesis - none! This is not a small problem for the true believers it is an insurmountable problem which places evolution in the religion category.

Who are the current high priests of neo-Darwinism? Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins and Niall Shanks are a trinity of standard bearers outfitted with appropriate religious cloth, clerical collars and pointy hats. No view of origins but evolution dare be thought of or written about without a full court press from the education and state legal establishment to ban the speech and the books.

Students with a mind to investigate and discover need not consider any alternatives to who, what when, where and why not already prescribed by the high priests of evolutionism!

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Ah yes, the "evolution is a religion" and "evolution requires faith" lies.

Tell me, bondmen. What "faith" does evolution require? I bet you can't. Not without more of the lies you've been brainwashed with already, like the ones you just posted, that evolution is not verifiable, testable, observable, repeatable...

It's, in fact, all four, and quite easily, with overwhelming evidence and testing supporting it. So again, I come back to: WHAT faith? It's got the evidence completely supporting it, with NO evidence against. It's your creationism that has no evidence for it, and quite a bit of evidence against it.

At least, the evidence is against specific, ie "biblically based", forms of creationism. The evidence is against the earth being 6000 years old, against the world wide flood myth, against that world being flat as they believed then, against life being divinely "created" much as it exists today, etc...

The most vague form of creationism, the "intelligent design" variety, is strategically refraining from mentioning God or the Bible (most of the time), and thus making it hard to refute their beliefs scientifically, based on the evidence. But that's what science does. Tests theories against the evidence, TRIES to prove them wrong, as it tried with evolution (it passed with flying colours). ID creationism, at its most vague, refuses to state anything but the UNTESTABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE, UNOBSERVABLE, UNREPEATABLE (and thus unscientific) religious belief that "life is too complex to form and evolve naturally, so someone (we're not saying, at least openly, that it's GOD) had to design and create that life".

Basically, it's Reverend Paley's 200 year old "Argument from Design", injected with steroids (pseudo-scientific lingo like "information theory, irreducible complexity", etc, and a stronger sense of incredulity toward the wonders of life happening NATURALLY). Darwin was well familiar with Paley's argument, and refuted it in his book Origin of Species.

Actually, Paley's argument was itself a repackaging of even older versions of it. It may not be science, but it's a good rhetorical device. That's why the creationists keep recycling it. Too bad it's not honest... or science.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Behe, Dembski, Johnson, the Morrises, and the others are the "high priests" of a psuedo-science religion. Not the ones you mentioned. They are just scientists trying to defend science from your hysterical religious attacks, because you ignorantly believe science is an attack on your FAITH.

Your second last paragraph ended with a textbook example of such hysterical paranoia. No one is trying to ban your speech and books. (except when you actually lie about, misquote or slander someone, like you often do with scientists)

But they ARE refuting your long ago disproven BELIEFS (disproven by science and the evidence). As THEY have the SAME right to free speech and writing, to be able to do that. And they are defending proper education for the kids. Preaching your anti-science religious views to everyone else's kids in public schools is NOT within your rights of free speech, and is in fact illegal, rightfully so.

Then you whine about the "high priests" of science only allowing THEIR "view of origins". That itself is a creationist term. "View of origins". Because your own "alternative" (to science) religious belief is a "view of ALL origins". It's not just evolution that clashes with it. It's big bang, abiogenesis, the old age of the world, and older age of the universe, and all the other things science has discovered in various fields (cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, and yes, biology) that go against YOUR religious myth that serves as your "view of origins".

You just lump it all under the label of "Evolution!" and lead your hysterical charges and slander against it, spreading propaganda against science and the naturalistic scientific method itself, wanting your RELIGIOUS belief system admitted into the science club as an "alternative", even though it's not science, and was long ago refuted by the evidence. And you're hypocrites again. You want YOUR creationist "view of origins" accepted as science, but not the creation myths of any other religions. Would you give "equal time" to all the native American origin myths? The African ones? Etc? I highly doubt it.

But again, we come back to: IT'S NOT SCIENCE. If you want to BELIEVE it anyway, fine. Believe it. Believe the world is flat too, like the bible says, if you like. But if you try to get such absurd and disproven ideas pushed into science as "alternatives", expect scientists to fight you. This duty to good science doesn't make them "high priests" of a dogma, as you guys keep saying.

Science goes by the EVIDENCE. And the evidence well supports evolution. And there IS NO current scientific alternative, much less one that explains the evidence better. No matter how hard you try to get your religious beliefs forced into science with dishonesty, legal tricks, political persuasion, preaching and propaganda, money, etc.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

No one is trying to keep out alternative theories of species origin (which is what evolutionary theory explains). There just aren't any (yet). You just want your REFUTED religious one to be the DOMINANT one again, the ONLY one, and you have to topple the upstart new king of the hill first. The fact is, at present, there ARE no alternatives to evolution. That's just the way it is. Nor does there need to be. Evolution works. Creationism didn't. It was discarded. Centuries ago. Before Darwin came along, even.

Evolution is "king of the hill" for good reason. Darwin was just the first to come up with a good explanation for it (one you guys still can't disprove), but the evidence clearly showed it happened, and there were previous attempts to explain it that weren't so fortunate.

Science admits "alternative theories". When they're actual legitimate, testable, supported theories. That excludes creationism quite well without need of any "high priests of orthodox scientific dogma" or whatever other slander you want to charge.

IS there "orthodoxy"? DOES it make it hard for new theories and alternatives to "get into the club"? Yes, sometimes. Scientists are human, and can get stuck in one mode of thinking. The scientific method is designed to minimize such human flaws, but they still have an effect. That's why scientists with new theories, or alternatives to older theories, need to dot their i's and cross their t's, and support it with good evidence and testing, that can stand up to rigorous peer review. Many make it.

But that's why creationism can't get in. And that's why the "new breed" of creationists are trying to FAKE it, with scientific degrees, and scientific lingo, and manufactured "evidence" (that hasn't stood up to testing, yet, either being disproven, or being found to be untestable, unfalsifiable).

prioress 11 years, 6 months ago

If one origin myth is taught, teach all the others too. Personally, I like the Eastern origin myths. "It's turtles all the say down, my son."

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Even if they succeeded, and they won't, they would just be what they/you claim the current bunch of ACTUAL scientists are, high priests of their psuedo-scientific RELIGION.

But more likely, even if they succeeded in taking over, by force or politics or attrition of the "naturalist" scientists (by taking over the schools and using them to peddle creationism on the next generation), this wouldn't be the whole SCIENTIFIC community, just the US contingent of it, and maybe the Muslim creationist countries would join, and a few others. The rest of science would go on, and the creationist countries would fall into barbarism and witch hunts.

It's already begun in the USA. With the end of the cold war, the US government has reduced its funding of scientific research, and while the US is still the goliath on the scene, the gap between it and hungry other countries is shrinking. It's becoming obvious enough that Bush even recently admitted this trend, and how it must be reversed. Time magazine did a story about it in their Feb 13, 2006 issue, "Is America Flunking Science?"

It's gotta be getting bad, if even Bush and his cronies will admit it. They're one of the most partizan administrations in a while, conducting their own witch hunts and persecuting those who don't mouth the party line, etc. Including scientists for speaking about evolution or global warming or other things they want to deny.

I'm surprised Bush hasn't sacked his own science advisor for publicly stating ID creationism is not science, after Bush's ignorant media soundbites that it was an alternative theory that should be taught in schools alongside evolution. Maybe he realizes he needs a few token scientists around.

Anyway, I see I've stretched this out into a four post reponse. Good thing I've run out of things to say (for now).

bondmen 11 years, 6 months ago

For readers ready for some science and clear thinking by educated people without evo-devo blinders, give these articles a look using the brain our Creator God gave you:

Even other evolutionists seem to be embarrassed at a book that 'oversells' the alleged practical value of evolution to the public.

Chloroquine used to be effective against malaria, but when widespread resistance broke out, this was regarded as 'evolution'. So what does it tell us now that the resistance is disappearing again?

A critic misunderstands what creationists actually believe about natural selection, and downplays the difference between operational and origins science. The response also explains the propositions needed for science to work.

The 'oldest bee' looks very much like a bee. But its hind legs are a bit narrower, so evolutionists seize on this to support their belief.

The present understanding of most Christian and non-Christian scientists stands in marked contrast with what the Bible actually says.

Evolutionary enthusiasts today claim that you can see live dinosaurs hovering around the hummingbird feeder. What are the facts?

Prominent Darwinist and anti-Christian, Professor Richard Dawkins, says he hates to be agreeing with Hitler on the point, but applying eugenics to breeding humans is a pretty good idea after all.

Evolutionists claim similarities prove common ancestry, but using similar features brings honour to the Designer.

Is the 'erets (earth) flat?

Who invented the flat earth?

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


If you only listen to one source, you're only getting one perspective on which to shape your views. Garbage in, garbage out, the GIGO principle from computer science.

Regarding your points: 1) Never read the books, so I can't comment. Neither, I suspect, have you, but it doesn't stop you. I will say that evolutionary theory is vital to the field of biology, much as plate tectonics is to geology (both of which contradict a literal reading of Genesis, even if only the biologists have your knickers in a twist). But, hmm, someone may be going too far, stretching to make a point, and his fellow scientists call him on it - something you rarely see in religion.

2) This is such a stupid point, it could only be put forward by someone who has no idea how evolution even works. And you don't have to travel to Africa to see it, it's happening right now in our hospitals and homes.

If you introduce a threat into the environment such as Chloroquine, a species such as Plasmodium falciparum (the bacteria that causes malaria) will have the individuals most susceptible to the threat die off, and those who live will, on average, be more immune to the effects of the threat, and pass that immunity on to their offspring. Since bacteria have a generation every couple of hours or so, this process happens relatively quickly.

thus, in a relatively short time, all of the bacteria either have inherited the resistence to the threat, or are dead. The threat is no longer useful against the bacteria, and so we stop using it, and try a different method. Then, over the next few decades, random mutation and genetic drift means that some of the descendents of the survivors will lose that immunity, as its presence no longer confers an advantage. Thus, when we try to use the same threat many thousands of generations later on, it is again effective against that species of bacterium.

Really, this is biology 101 type information, and thank god the WHO and CDC isn't yet in the hands of fundamentalist kooks like you. And your "source" is wrong on one particular piece of information - the genetic structure of the bacteriums DO change, that's how they inherit the immunity (or fail to).

The rest of your points are similarly vapid, and I've got better things to do than refute your inanities. Creationism is related to fundamentalist Christianity, which is at it's base fiercely anti-intellectual. It's anti-science, and anti-human, and resents each hard-won addition to the scope of human knowledge as on one more threat against their belief system. And that's why their most advanced "arguments" are so easily refuted by anyone with a passing familiarity with the scientific method.

fossilhunter 11 years, 6 months ago

Bondman - From one of your links: "Before we analyze the facts about theropods and birds, we need to put on our biblical glasses. God's Word tells us that He created all creatures as distinct kinds. Winged creatures, such as the various bird kinds, were created unique and fully formed on Day Five, while land animals, such as theropods, were created unique and fully formed on Day Six. Therefore, no evolutionary relationship exists between theropod dinosaurs and birds."

"Biblical glasses"?! "Bible says....therefore...." -- Yup! Sounds like real science to me!!

fossilhunter 11 years, 6 months ago

Oooopps!! Just saw who the scientist was that wrote that article. With those credentials, I stand corrected. I'm sure he knows a lot more than the guys working with fossils in the labs.

"Ryan Jaroncyk is a sports store owner in Ohio, USA, a keen creationist and a freelance writer who frequently contributes to the CMI website."

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


That's exactly the problem with these folks - they're just like Communists, just with a different ideology. And like the communists, they believe that every single person is equal - just so long as you believe in the Bible. Therefore, you scientists are being discriminatory when you say, "there is much more evidence for X than for Y" - who are YOU to decide what is and isn't true for other people? Don't you know that some uneducated yokel who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is JUST as right as you are?

Actually, he's MORE right than you are, because he publicly proclaims his belief. YOU don't do that. You just sit in your labs surrounded by evidence, and performing experiments. By gawd, we don't need experiments, the Bible tells us everything we need to know!

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago

"they are both small flying insects and they share a common Creator."

A common creator who, by the way, in spite of being all-knowing and having all of eternity to work with, has exhibited significantly less creativity in designing flight systems than we humans have displayed in the last 100 years.

For instance the "flapping" mechanism by which most if not all biological flight is generated. Meanwhile, we've also come up with:

  • lighter-than air
  • hot air
  • pushing & pulling screw propulsion
  • jet propulsion
  • rocket propulsion
  • ion propulsion
  • scramjet propulsion
  • rotary-wing aircraft
  • magnetic levitation
  • etc.

Hmm. Either we're really smart, or God's really dumb. Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of an omnipotent tinkerer minutely adjusting every property of every living thing is actually LESS glorious and powerful than one who can set the initial parameters and let the system run on its own without further intervention.

Kodiac 11 years, 6 months ago


This is from your clear and educated "creators" of the link you have provided....

"Creation Ministries International exists to promote the reality that God has revealed 'true truth' to us in the Bible. This includes the Bible's account of Creation-Fall-Flood in Genesis, which is real history and very important for the Christian faith, as should be obvious from the above. The global Flood is crucial to understanding why there are countless dead things (fossils) buried in water-laid rocks all over the world-fossil-bearing rocks are not the tape recording of any imagined long ages. We take seriously the example of the Apostle Paul in refuting arguments that stand against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5) and the commandment of Jesus Christ that we have a duty to love God with all our heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37). We must apply intellectual rigour to our faith if we are to be faithful to our Lord and Saviour's instruction."

Do we really need to say anything more here? The last statement sums it all up....A statement of faith not science. Blinders anyone?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 6 months ago

"This is just spectacular. It is almost as if the author doesn't even realize that almost all insects are small and capable of flight."

Good one Das.

Although different insect 'kinds'

"Once You have seen one kind, you have seen all Kinds!"

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

bondmen doesn't give up. "For readers ready for some science and clear thinking by educated people without evo-devo blinders", and then he posts a bunch of BS creationist links. Yes, they don't have "evo-devo blinders" (aka they aren't based on reality, which says evolution is a fact). They have "creationist blinders" on instead.

I'm not going to bother knocking them all down one by one. I've been to most of the creationist websites before, and I'm "educated and clear thinking" enough to use the brain our creator god gave us, and see right through their anti-science twaddle. I glanced at the first link, and I have no doubt it's misquoting Jerry Coyne, another thing creationists are well known for doing.

But the second one: Chloroquine used to be effective against malaria, but when widespread resistance broke out, this was regarded as 'evolution'. So what does it tell us now that the resistance is disappearing again?

This shows either an ignorance of how evolution works, or dishonesty (if they do understand). Obviously, when a disease causing organism evolves resistance to our "cures", we tend to stop using them since they are ineffective. The organism no longer has evolutionary pressure on it to reward the trait giving them resistance, and sometimes the initial non-resistant variety (which is usually still around in small minorities) has other advantages... so they can return to dominance when the condition that was hindering them (our drugs) is removed. bondmen's website gives this example as if it's a problem for evolution. It's actually just as much a part of evolution as the initial drug resistance.

HIV researchers find the same thing with the various drugs we've used to fight that horrible disease. They are terrible at reproducing themselves, causing lots of mutations in the HIV virus. This lets them evolve and adapt resistance to our drugs fast. But they also revert back fast if the drug is removed from the system, and/or the patient is put on another drug (which the virus starts adapting to).

When several drugs have been adapted to, researchers found sometimes that they are no longer resistant to the old drugs, which can be used effectively again (until they again adapt to them). Either because some of the original strain was still around and "sprang back" when the drug was no longer killing them off, or because their fast mutation rate made them lose the resistance, and selection didn't filter those changes out because the drug was no longer killing them off. Either way, it's quite compatible with evolutionary theory.

Again, creationists (like bondmen's website) acts like this is a PROBLEM for evolution. It's not. It's completely normal and also part of evolution.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Actually, I'm reminded of something. bondmen's post reminds me of very typical creationist tactics during public debates. Spew out point after point, points that are apparently damning evolution or are a problem for it... Fire them out fast. Because such manufactured points are usually made up, or a misrepresentation of the actual evidence, or misquotes of scientists, etc. And for each point, it takes a lot more time and effort to explain the science and show why it's not a problem the problem for science the creationist says it is.

It's easier for the creationist to fire off 20 apparently damning arguments against evolution, and when the scientist's turn comes up, he/she has (maybe) enough time to explain scientifically why ONE or TWO of those are false. Creationists have hundreds of these claims ready. They've heard them refuted before. They know the science behind why they are false arguments. It's not about honesty or good science. It's about defending their dogma, and attacking their enemy, "secular" science and discoveries that refute their religious myths.

Even if you debunk their arguments, and even if they acknowledge that (rare but it happens), they just move on to the next one on the list. And even the ones you debunked will be trotted out again with their next opponent (or even with you again in the future).

Does that mean we shouldn't refute their claims? No. That's part of the reason why so many people have fallen for the creationist propaganda already. To those with little education in science, they are constructed to SOUND GOOD. The creationist him/herself usually has no intention of learning, except learning how to argue against science more effectively... but it's important to refute their claims for the borderline people they are hoping to convert.

Even scientists themselves are realizing creationists are a threat, to science, and to society. bondmen mocked several earlier who are effectively fighting back. More are doing so, and taking the time and effort to help the public understand what it is they do, instead of just ignoring the creationists and hoping they'll die out on their own like the flat-earthers, an earlier incarnation of creationist...

They will die out eventually. But as the scientific evidence against creationism and the global flood myth and for evolution/big bang/abiogenesis and the rest continues mounting, they get more desperate and more full of zeal and sneaky tactics.

It'll probably continue getting worse before it gets better. But the pendulum will swing the other way again, toward honest science and moderate religious people who don't see science as a threat.

Stepping down from my own pulpit now. :P

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Oh, forgot to mention... their scattergun approach, firing off 20 false arguments against evolution in the time it takes the scientists to debunk one... it works better in a real time debate, not a text forum like this where any of us COULD go through bondmen's claims one by one and debunk them...

But most of us don't have any interest in doing so, apparently. :P I can only speak for me, but it looked like a list of links all tidily put together by someone, and given out to the rank and file creationists, who are probably told "There, use those, that'll shut up those evolutionists! And convince people it's wrong!".

It's too bad even a basic scientific literacy, and the time to actually read the link itself, will let you debunk them. I have no doubt they're all like that. But I don't have the time or motivation to go down the list and knock them off one by one. Or explain to bondmen why they are false, since he won't even be listening, he'll be downloading the next list of links to paste in here.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 6 months ago

"Namely, when the homo sapiens male gamete intersects with the female gamete (from my view preferably when the producers are together married) when does life begin?"

Unh well THAT does not occur. A "Gamete" is produced through the meoisis of 2 haploid cells, one haploid a sperm and the other the egg. The haploid has half the number of of chromozones, and through fusion they make the gamete. The gamete is a fully functioning cell in reproduction, the sperm and egg are not "fully functional with half the number of chromozones.

As you can see both the sperm and egg were "alive" before, and through this process makes an ADDITIONAL LIFE. Life does not occur at that time, since it is already living, it just transform into an additional copy of whatever the living sperm and the liveing egg came from.

That is why it is called REPRODUCTION! IT is also NOT abiogenesis, and it is a process in evolution.

Very simple and directly answers the question you adked. As for a "Female gamete" and a "male gamete", it does not work that way. The proto fetus is not going to react to another one.

bondmen 11 years, 6 months ago

gr8dane, Das_Ubermime, ASBESTOS, Kodiac, werekoala, fossilhunter and scenebuster - please show me and the other readers the extent and depth of your science understanding (which clearly speaks to the veracity of your evolution belief) by answering a very simple question. Namely, when the homo sapiens male gamete intersects with the female gamete (from my view preferably when the producers are together married) when does life begin?

Now this is a very simple question easily answered by any scientist worth his salt so to speak. So bondmen asks one and all - what sayeth you?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 6 months ago

You need to learn your scientific terms if you are gonna dis on the science. ie KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! This is why you guys on the ID/Creo side need to shut up! You do not know what you are even hollering about.

SO please SHUT UP!

werekoala 11 years, 6 months ago


Holy wild tanget batman!

This is exactly what we've been going on about. You post 8 or 9 BS arguments, we call you on them. Rather than in any way try to defend your previous positions, or admit that they were worth less than the electrons it took to post them, you immediately leap to a completely different topic.

Ah, yes, if I were to be pro-choice (which is where it sounds like you're going with this), CLEARLY evolution never happened!

And thus, since I am (hypothetically) pro-choice, your earlier BS arguments were true too. So what if the facts are completely false, it feels good. "And reality has a well-known liberal bias" anyway, right?

It's all a conspiracy by those dastardly Darwinians to get kids to have more sex by teaching them about evolution and safe sex, in order to ensure your sons and daughters wind up gay or pregnant, or preferably both so they can get abortions before joining the ACLU to plot attacks with Al-Qaeda!

Sheesh! This is why science education is necessary folks - if we can save just one child from the ignorance and inability to use their native reasoning powers that are displayed by this unfortunate, it will be worth every penny.

gr8dane 11 years, 6 months ago

Bahaha... bondmen wants us to "prove" our scientific understanding, by answering his biased anti-abortion "when is a fetus a life?" question...

I'm certainly not touching that one. Nor is it at all relevant to the topic. I could get into how it's an absurd, invalid question, but others here are better able to do that, and really, it's just a red herring.

It's also challenging us to "prove" we are biologists, which most of us probably aren't, myself included... I never claimed to be a biologist. I've just studied what the biologists say, about evolution and other things, enough to know the creationist arguments are absurd, ignorant and dishonest. I may not be a biologist, but the biologists are saying basically what I am. I got it from them.

Creationists sometimes attack at this point and go "you're a puppet, mindlessly repeating what you're told" (hmm, ironic, since that's what they're doing). But that's hardly true. I'm not just repeating "dogma", as they are. I studied it enough to grasp it to some degree.

In a way, I can thank the creationists. It was arguing with them as they bash science that got me interested in learning what biology REALLY says, and I found out I enjoy the topic a lot.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.