LJWorld.com

b_asinbeer (Anonymous) says…

By signing this petition, we now know why they're associate professors, and not the real deal….tough luck.

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

Can any evolutionist provide evidence of a species becoming a new species through adaptation and natural selection? I am not asking for evidence of change within a species- i.e. bacteria becoming immune to an antibiotic. That is only evidence for change within a kind and can not be portrayed as evidence of evolution. I am asking for hard science based research, not emotional speculation about yet to be discovered missing links, that can take evolution beyond theory. I would also like to know the mechanism that evolution uses to overcome the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Krishtalka says: “That’s just a PR campaign,” he said of the petition. “There is no debate among all scientists. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact of nature. Intelligent design is nothing but creationism under a new name.”

If he had continued, he would have said that without evolution his science becomes an expensive form of stamp collecting. I must be a scientist, I know that I am. I am, I am, I am…..

Top flight science, that's all there is to it.

Oh, I went to the evo exhibit at Dr. K's museum a few weeks ago. So who is engaged in the PR, Dr. K?

weirdchemgirl (Anonymous) says…

1 - I would like to make note that they make no supposition on this petition about an alternative theory - only that scientists should continue to question things. This is what scientists do. In fact the petition states at the very top of it, and almost any scientist would agree with the statement - “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” No scientist would ever challenge that careful examination should continue. This petition makes no claim about any other theory that exists as being scientific or not. Perhaps public relations should get out of the science business and let the rest of us get back to work.

3- there are plenty of full prof's and emertius and highly recognized faculty members that will encourage research that challenge any hypothesis.

2- It's interesting that the University of Kansas will make no comment about professors being published in newspapers about questioning Darwinian theory but provide no such backing for those that support it.

mcoan (Anonymous) says…

Science is about a preponderance of evidence which proves a theory. I agree that ANY and all science must remain open to new evidence and debate about that new evidence. Being closed-minded about new evidence does no one any good.

One thing about science is that it is often later proved wrong by new evidence…it happens all the time. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any scientist who would disagree with that.

But without new evidence, science must continue down its existing path. That's how it works. And the existing path includes teaching students what the current preponderance of evidence is and how that evidence led to a settling of the debate.

If the creationists have new evidence to justify opening what has generally become a settled debate about evolution, I encourage them to publish it so scientists can test it and begin the usual healthy debate.

How about it creationists…what's the new evidence you can use to justify re-opening the debate? For example, do you have new evidence to prove that God created the Big Bang? That would be REALLY helpful.

Oh, that's right you have no evidence to refute evolution. Therefore, until you do, the debate over evolution will remain settled among the majority of professional scientists.

You can't put forth a theory (creationism) and except those who rely on evidence to start questioning the previous theory and its evidence: you have to back up your theory with testable evidence.

If you have no evidence, then FAITH is all you can use to support a theory. And, by definition, that's not science, that's religion. Science requires evidence, not faith.

And the new evidence against evolution is…….

ksmattfish (Anonymous) says…

Why do the IDers act like there is no outlet for their ideas? Don't they go to church? Teach your kids intelligent design in christian churches, and teach your kids science in science class, then let them make up their own minds. What have you got to lose if intelligent design makes so much sense?

Watch out what you wish for fanatic christians. It appears to me that the fanatic muslims are much more willing to bust balls over this sort of thing than you are. If the christian creation myth breaks into science class, in a decade or so your grandchildren may be learning all about Allah too. One good creation myth deserves another, or a dozen. It would be hilarious if while your were busy worrying that your kids might accept science, they converted to islam.

May you all, fanatics and true believers alike, be touched by his noodley appendage.

Souki (Anonymous) says…

Barclay expressed a desire to “know the mechanism that evolution uses to overcome the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).”

The answer: It doesn't.

Living systems grow increasingly complex as a result of increasing entropy.

Read Evolution As Entropy by Daniel R. Brooks and E. O. Wiley.

txcspdrmn (Anonymous) says…

More than 500 scientist on the list eh? That's very impressive - but how many of them are named Steve?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/article…

DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…

There is a difference between questioning evolution for scientific reasons and for religious reasons. This is clearly for religious reasons, has no place in our schools, end of story. If people are so secure in their religion then why do they feel the need to shove it off on everybody else? Obvioiusly they are not……

mefirst (Anonymous) says…

I say open Evolution up to criticism. In doing so, by default, you open Intelligent Design up to criticism. Funny, you don't hear anyone calling for that…open criticism of Intelligent Design. The argument is framed simply as using ID as a means of critiquing evolution.

A second grader could poke holes in the theory of ID. But then again, it's hard to argue against the very solid argument of, “well, it's that way darling, because that's the way God intended…” That argument covers just about everything, but is based on nothing but faith.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

*chuckle* Okay, I'd admit that an assistant professor of alternative medicine has more scientific training that I.

But as has already been amply demonstrated, the odds are overwhelming that there are more doctorate holders in science in Kansas named some variation of Stephen or Stephanie (Steve, Steffie) that disagree with ID than just 3.

MoreThanUltimate (Anonymous) says…

Funny how this has come to light so soon after this…

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11461592/

hmmmm…

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

If people are so secure in their belief of evolution, then why do they feel the need to shove it off on everybody else?? See, any comment can be turned around to fit the other side's views.

I see nothing wrong with both teaching the theory of evolution and also teaching students to question everything. You should never just blindly believe everything that's told to you.

At one point in time there was no cure or treatment for rabies. Yet someone questioned that current theory, and now people no longer have to die from it.

At one time it was believed impossible to go into outer space or visit the moon. Yet someone questioned that theory, and found a way to do it.

All kinds of advancements have occurred because someone questioned the accepted theory.

Even if evolution is never debunked, what's so wrong with questioning it? If you're so sure it's true, what are you afraid of?

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

MoreThanUltimate - I was at that meeting. It was interesting watching the science department from the Dover Public Schools get a standing ovation from 500 scientists for standing up to ID. Scientists get it.

Barclay - you keep asking for fossil evidence of evolution and I keep giving it and you never acknowledge. Please, once and for all, how can whales with vestigal legs not be concrete evidence for evolution?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar…

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

crazyks:

Your message is so full of misinformation that it hardly is worth responding to. As wendt has pointed out usually those who question evolution are those who haven't studied it or understand little about it. You use words like “beliefs” and “blindly” or “shove it off” which clearly shows your bias and your desire to misinform. Evolutionary theory has created all kinds of advancement itself and you are blind not to recognize it or understand that. It isn't fear of being debunked crazy, it is all about misinformation and suppression of the truth. The examples you should actually look at that is more representative of the attacks on evolution is Galileo and the concept of being the center of the universe.

I also find it curious that the Lawrence Journal World would give you the website for the scientists against evolution but not mention the response to that list. Several posters here have already mentioned it or provided the link for it. It is a list of names that have some variation of Stephen on it that support evolutionary theory. It was formed as a tribute to Stephen Jay Gould and contains over 400 names. This list is said to contain less than 1% of the scientists that support evolution which would mean that there are over 40,000 scientists who support and use evolutionary theory.

pilch (Anonymous) says…

Barclay it is called the gibbs free energy constant as far as the 2nd law. Go back and take thermo or P-chem

txcspdrmn (Anonymous) says…

“Even if evolution is never debunked, what's so wrong with questioning it? If you're so sure it's true, what are you afraid of?”

There is nothing wrong with questioning it. That's what science is all about. Scientists are constantly testing the predictions made by evolutionary theory against the real world.

It is a testament to the strength of the theory that it explains so much of the observed variety in living things, and that its application has led to great advances in many fields, especially (and ironically in the current context) medicine

True, there were flaws in Darwin's understanding of the mechanisms of heredity, but as Mendelian genetics and molecular biology emerged, they only served to confirm the strength of the underlying theory that species evolve, and that the main driver of this evolution is natural selection of heritable traits.

The only thing that the scientific community is afraid of is the damage being done to the scientific literacy of the general public by the manufactured “controversy” being promulgated by those who would insert a particular religious view into the public schools of the United States.

txcspdrmn (Anonymous) says…

Kodiak:

Your numbers are a little out of date. There are now over 700 of us “NCSE Steves”. Assuming that 1% of scientists are called Steve (or Stephanie, or Esteban), that is tehe equivalent of an open list of some 70,000.

concerned_citizen (Anonymous) says…

Souki:
Read Evolution As Entropy by Daniel R. Brooks and E. O. Wiley.

a controversial work and hardly the last word.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Ah txcspdrmn,

Thanks for updating me. I actually was going by my recollection of a book written years ago so I should have qualified it by saying that it was outdated or behind the times.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Barclay — waiting for that response to the fossil evidence….1 hour and counting…Google faster.

MoreThanUltimate (Anonymous) says…

fossilhunter

Wish I could have been there to see it, too! I'm so glad to see that scientists and educators are standing up to this nonsense. Finally, these ID quacks are being put into place by those who have reason and knowledge to do so. Funny how the overwhelming majority of scientists don't buy into this, yet those ignorant of science buy into this scam hook, line and sinker. When will the public get it? Probably about the same time they understand what this administration and the republicans are doing to science in general!

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

I am with Dr. Leonard on this one. I would hope nobody considers 500 signatures representative of all Scientists who have a stake in this debate.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Barclay…..2 hours….

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

What a laugher. MDs expounding about evolution. Most MDs know about as much about evolutionary science as I know about bunion removal (which is not much).

This is a shame and it is the fault of science education for not training them.

MDs are the engineers of human biology. There is far more to science than simple-minded engineering and technical manipulation.

Some MDs are true scientists, but calling most MDs scientists is like calling a plumber a hydrogeologist or a materials physicist. Don't get me wrong. I love plumbers, but I would not consider them scientists.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

fossil,

Barclay is up to his old Veritas Academy tricks again. He has been presented with evidence multiple times but he still keeps asking for evidence as if he has never been presented with it.

Either he is extremely dumb or is a simple prevaricator. Probably both.

hobb2264 (Anonymous) says…

According to Dr. Krishtalka;

“it’s possible to compile a list of signatures of people who believe the earth is flat.”

I doubt if you will be able to compile a list of people with PhD's in the sciences though. What an ignorant remark from someone who is supposed to be an intellect. Kind of like saying “Evolution is a fact of nature”. Spoken like a true unbiased scientist. In other words, just another soundbyte for the LJW to print.

500 PhD's….admittedly in the minority. These people are willing to put their professional reputations on the line because of what they think. Maybe…just maybe…they are righ…or maybe we shouldn't explore the evidence further and instead just accept evolution as a fact of nature. Really, what good can come out of skepticism of the status quo….kind of like believing the earth is flat.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

nightmare -
He's thrown stones, written editorials and called people out. I'm tired of ID weenies getting away with this. I'm pumped after attending the AAAS “Evolution on the Frontline” town hall meeting this weekend. If we let these guys get away with this, then they will get their way.

Barclay - refute the evidence, please.

blessed3x (Anonymous) says…

When will everyone learn? Don't dare question evolution or the secret evolution police will drag you into the street and you'll never be heard from again.

don't question science! cower in your houses and be afraid!!!

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Blessed - by all means, please question science! Use science to question science. No one that has any knowledge of biological science or paleontology has seen 1 scrap of evidence that contradicts evolution, and a mountain that supports it.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Well I am sure glad Blessed3x is finally getting the message. Now if we could just get everyone else tote the company line, we'll be sitting pretty….

Mr_Christopher (Anonymous) says…

Hey after they start teaching intelligent design in science how much longer will it be before they claim the Bible Code is also science?

William Dembski thinks the Bible Code is legit. What a dunce!

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft98…

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Typical dramatic commentary by someone who is both ignorant of the evidence supporting evolution and can't offer any kind of logical rationale to support their position.

Souki (Anonymous) says…

concerned_citizen:

I don't think Evolution As Entropy is a particularly controversial work — although you're right in saying that it is not the last word on the subject. In science, nothing is the last word. And Evolution as Entropy does present a cogent and fairly accessible argument that evolution isn't anti-entropic.

Which is what Barclay inquired about.

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

Hobbs - I believe what Dr. Krishtalka is trying to say is anything is possible. Admittedly, using the world is flat as an example is probably a bit extreme, but the fact of the matter is that if you believe enough in a cause you can find people, Ph.Ds or not, to stand behind you. I concur with nightmare on this one. The layman, who is on the fence, doesn't realize the scope of a typical MD's knowledge of evolutionary science and will back the agenda of the IDs based on the MD's credentials as a medical doctor. This list is purely strategic and holds no water.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

Evolution is constantly questioned by scientists and has been for 150 years. This makes evolution among the most solid scientific theories. It has survived 150 years of scientific assault.

ID creationism has also been vetted by science. This hypothesis was rejected by science because it failed to explain factual observations about the natural world.

I am sick and tired of people who know nothing of science or evolution leveling criticisms that are not scientific. You can choose to ignore science, but cease with the uninformed criticism.

Science is not about fairness and equality of ideas. It is about observation and hypothesis testing. Ideas that fail are rejected. Period. ID creationism is a scientifically-failed idea. Get over it, you wishful-thinking, heel-clicking Dorothys.

MoreThanUltimate (Anonymous) says…

How can there be a debate of evolution using ID?

No scientist worth their salt objects to debate of current thinking. Science educators fit into this catagory as well. The only objection to debate of evolution by the science community is ID must be a valid scientific theory that can be backed up with real evidence to the contrary. The ID community does not have any valid scientific evidence to support ID theory. They only have evidence in their mind they feel is valid ( And I would even debate they really believe what they say!). Almost the entire scientific communtiy agrees that there is no debate of evolution in science. There is only debate by those who wish to pawn this junk science on everyone else that does not have a backround to make an informed and correct conclusion to get creationism back in the classroom through the back door.

Case Closed.

crazyks (Anonymous) says…

Kodiac,
Well, actually, I didn't use the term “shove it off” first…I was misquoting another posting. Yep, I did that on purpose. To show that any comment used to justify your position could just as easily be used by the other side.

Where did I say that evolution hadn't created (nice choice of words) many advancements? I also never said that ID had “created” advancements. I merely stated that many advancements have been made in history because someone didn't let themselves be stifled by current norms. They questioned the status quo. I never said which belief system was the cause of those advancements.

And evolution is a belief, just as creationism is. You believe that evolution is true, don't you? Just as theologians believe that creationism is true. What's the difference? A belief is a belief, no matter what it is. Some people believe in aliens, while others do not. It's still a belief, isn't it? If you don't “believe” in evolution, why promote it?

Suppression of the truth? How exactly is evolution going to be suppressed when it's the only theory that's stated in textbooks?

And you should never blindly follow any theory, whether it's evolution or anything else. You should also never blindly follow any religion, just because that's the one that all your family belongs to. You should question everything. Curiosity is the main reason that advancements are made.

Children should be taught, first and foremost, to be curious about the world, regardless of what they've been taught.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

wendt,

Unfortunately, most physicians do not receive a science education. They do learn facts generated by science, but often the scientific process is not taught to them. This is why the combined MD/PhD program was created: to combine the practical skills of an MD with the critical thought and observational skills of a scientist.

Most MDs are simply technicans trained to fix the human body like an auto mechanic. Medicine is a trade, not a science.

Again, don't get me wrong, I love MDs and auto mechanics etc., but they are not scientists.

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

Wendt - Would you say an MD is at less risk of compromising his/her professional integrity by aligning his/her self with ID vs. evolution? Could this be why they were approached to sign this petition?

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Crazyks -
Quote: And evolution is a belief, just as creationism is. You believe that evolution is true, don't you? Just as theologians believe that creationism is true. What's the difference? A belief is a belief, no matter what it is. Some people believe in aliens, while others do not. It's still a belief, isn't it? If you don't “believe” in evolution, why promote it?

Evolution is not a belief. Scientist do not say “I believe in evolution.” That would be the same as saying “I believe in gravity.” Scientists have empirical data that shows that evolution is a valid process through which life changes. There is ample evidence. It is testable. It is “falsifiable”. It is science.

The same can not be said for ID creationism.

badger (Anonymous) says…

You can question the evolutionary theory of the origin of species without resorting to junk science and religious philosophy, and you can advance the cause of science without succumbing to flawed logic.

I think we'd all be a lot happier if ID proponents stopped pretending they just want to question evolution fairly under the auspices of science, and admitted that they have a specific alternate theory that they want to advance. Let them make the case *for* ID, instead of 'proving' it must be a viable theory by bringing forth questions in evolutionary theory.

There are a lot of questions evolutionary theory doesn't answer. There are a lot of questions most scientific theories don't answer. Nature of the beast. But just because I can point to a cloudy day and say, “It's not universally true that the sky is blue,” that doesn't mean it *is* true that the sky is green. I can take pictures right before a tornado and demonstrate that the sky can (provided certain criteria are met) become green, but for the majority of people in the world, “The sky is generally assumed to be blue” is a reasonable truism, with a great deal more evidence in its favor than against it.

But is it? How do we define blue? Sky? Generally? Assumed? What do the terms we use mean? Where did our definitions of them come from? How do sunset and sunrise and cloud cover affect it? The sky isn't blue when you look at it from the other side. What does that mean, and how do you account for those data while still advancing towards a stable, reasonable, workable theory about the sky?

Those are all reasonable questions, and they belong in a discussion of the merits of the Blue Sky Theory. However, the interests of science aren't remotely advanced by the intrusion into that discussion of the Green Sky Theory adherents, who insist that their view, which doesn't stand up at all to a thorough review of all the data, is validated because questions remain regarding the BST.

The evolutionary theory of the orgin of species is questioned constantly. Without any sort of law or mandate, I was taught in high school and again in college that there are holes - and that these holes neither invalidate evolutionary theory nor prove any other theory, but rather that they set up areas for further investigation and reinforce the thought that we do not yet have a fully functioning, comprehensive theory regarding the origins of life, that accounts for all data, just a reasonable truism with more data favoring it than against.

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

I am not a scientist nor very familiar with the scientific process beyond what I learned in 9th grade biology. I can, however, give my perspective as an outsider looking in. My significant other's Father is the former Secretary of Education for the State of VA. About a month ago I asked him what he thought about the ID/Evolution debate in Kansas especially as it pertains to public education and recent decision of the KSBOE. He rolled his eyes and chuckled. Now, if this was just a teacher or the average Joe, then his reaction wouldn't be that significant, but considering the office he held and the sterling reputation of public education in VA, those taking the side of ID should consider how the rest of the country is viewing this entire debate.

MoreThanUltimate (Anonymous) says…

Crazy

You defy logic when using ID to support your position. Questioning authority or a theory is good provided that the questions or arguements raised are valid and truthful. ID just isn't a valid arguement against evolution on many points it tries to raise or tries to refute.

Theology is belief by faith, not by scientific method. You cannot prove the origin of the bible. You cannot prove who wrote the bible first. You cannot prove which bible is the true bible to follow. You cannot prove the existence of G-d. The evidence to support these questions doesn't exist to support a scientific answer to these questions. Evolution does have this sort of overwhelming evidence.

Evidence of evolution surrounds us and can be used to show the validity of evolution through scientific method. ID cannot and has not been successful in stating a valid arguement or provide evidence that a vast majority of scientists can say is a good question, good theory or good proof. Religion cannot be proved by scientific method, only debated by scholors as to its' origin and its' meaning. That is where your stance has a fatal flaw.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

wendt,

Indeed some MDs are scientists, particularly those who do research publish scientific studies. However, many MDs do not have the dynamic mindset of a scientist and instead see medicine as a set of tools, which it is.

I will again point to the MD/PhD program. This joint program is an attempt to give MDs the critical experimental analysis skills of a scientist. The very existence of such a program is a tacit acknowledgement that traditional medical education trains technicians, not scientists.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

I will re-post my previous comments for your enjoyment:

I am sick and tired of people who know nothing of science or evolution leveling criticisms that are not scientific. You can choose to ignore science, but cease with the uninformed criticism.

Science is not about fairness and equality of ideas. It is about observation and hypothesis testing. Ideas that fail are rejected. Period. ID creationism is a scientifically-failed idea. Get over it, you wishful-thinking, heel-clicking Dorothys.

fossilhunter (Anonymous) says…

Oh Barclay….I answered your question….come out come out wherever you are….

hobb2264 (Anonymous) says…

Ben-ness,

Have you actually looked at the list? Whether you believe MD's truly practice science (and I believe, like some others, that they do), by looking at the list I see that the overwhelming minority are MD's. There are biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, microbiologists, engineers, and among that group a handful of medical doctors.

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

Wendt - Thank you for the elaboration.

hobb2264 (Anonymous) says…

wendt said:

“Physicians are approached to sign the petitions, probably by their pastors, because they are an intellectual catch”

Smart enough to get a doctorate, but not so smart to think for themselves…is that what you are implying? Or are you implying that pastors are out actively recruiting scientists to put on this list. Both ideas are hilarious…but keep them coming I need a good laugh today.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

wendt:

“Why would you want to be a reseracher when you can be a physician and make much more?”

The chicks, man! No, because of a love a research and knowledge and science.

Of course MD training is rigorous and involves alot more than many other trades. I would also argue that learning the scientific method and its implementation takes alot more than a seventh-grade science course and even more than an undergraduate science education.

ben_ness (Anonymous) says…

Hobb - I have looked at the list. The credentials are very impressive. However, much thought and craft was put into the creation of this list. While it does promote a dissent from Darwinian thought it doesn't specifically endorse the theory of ID either. While many of these people are from reputable institutions the list is still quite small and the opinion of the minority - unless you are in KS. My assumption would be that you wouldn't find these names on a list explicitly endorsing intelligent design.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

wendt,

I think it is comforting to think of my physician as an auto mechanic or plumber or other tradesman. They know how to fix my car/sink/body. I do not. I certainly don't want my physician experimenting on me.

Kodiac (Anonymous) says…

Hey Crazy,

Guess I don't have to really say much since most of your post has been dealt with especially with the comments concerning beliefs.

As far as advancements was concerned, I was merely pointing out to you what I thought would be obvious I guess I will need to elaborate. You said in you first posting “All kinds of advancements have occurred because someone questioned the accepted theory.” You also said in your second posting “I merely stated that many advancements have been made in history because someone didn't let themselves be stifled by current norms”. So the way I read your original comment was that you were implying that evolution being the status quo or “accepted theory” or “current norm” stifled advancements of which you implied again in your second posting. Maybe I was not understanding what you were trying to say but it seems to me that you making an implication about evolution. I was simply saying that evolutionary theory has not stifled science, on the contrary it has “created” new fields of science and has in general, advanced understanding of our world.

It is apparent again after reading your second post that you have little understanding of what evolutionary theory is and what science is overall. I suggest you follow your own advice Crazy and become curious about the world.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

The list is useful. Now some more in-depth analysis of the demographics of the list can begin.

Questions such as these can be addressed:
1) Are the signatories practicing scientists?
2) Do the signatories work in academic or industrial science?
3) Are the signatories recipients of research funding from federal/private sources?
4) Do the signatories publish their work in high-impact journals (or publish at all)?
5) What are the religious/political affiliations of the signatories?

Answers to these questions will provide some depth to the analysis instead of just a list of doctorates willing to sign a sheet of paper.

At first glance, the list is not impressive. I recognized none of the names (aside from Dumbski and Behe). Many of the institutions listed are second-rate, lower tier institutions.

My first take is that these are second-rate individuals who are willing to allow their religious/political leanings to interfere with their scientific training.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

wendt: “The Scientific Method is pretty powerful and pretty simple. Yes, a seventh grader can understand it.”

I'm not so sure about this. A seventh-grader might be able to grasp the concept, but implementation and depth of understanding is a different story.

I point to the broad lack of understanding of the scientific method as evidence of this.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

nightmare,

What is the difference between evidence and test? I'd really like to know yer views here. Because the best I can tell, yer definition of scientist vs engineer, MD, plumber is that scientists are all theory, no application.

Is it true that science is necessarily a matter of teasing data to find an R-squared of > 20%, but < 70% ? If the correlation exceeds 90%, then you've become an applied…… what? engineer? MD? plumber?

Oh, BTW, the difference between a bigot and a theoretical scientist is mostly a matter of social context. Just ask Freud

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Wendt, thank you. I just got on here, and at the beginning it looked like I was going to have to get serious. Thank you for saving me the trouble.

Don't you just love the way they see Asst., or Assoc. Prof, or any other label on a list, and go to dog it as being inferior? If they only knew how many AP's are working all of their spare time trying to support evolution, on top of the extreme work load they already have, teaching the highest level courses. Pull up the KU Timetable, just see who's teaching the 500 level course and above. OR any of the courses for that matter LOL. And don't go labeling MD's as not being scientists. I can feel the fists balling up at those words. but they don't have time for this prattle from idiots, they have to try to teach regular health matters to the general populace everyday don't they. Without shaking their heads in disbelief.

Fossilhunter…too fun.