Comment history

Speaker: Science above the fray

The truth is that no organization has done more to mix science and ideology than Eugenie Scott's own NCSE. The NCSE has a full-time position called "Faith Project Director" and a news release said,

"Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

San Francisco, CA- A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment.

"'In this stunning example of hypocrisy, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in science classes are clamoring for public school teachers to expressly use theology in order to convince students to support evolution,' said Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, who is co-counsel in the suit with the Pacific Justice Institute ......

"The lawsuit also alleges that the website is being used to further the religious agenda of a private organization, the National Center for Science Education (NSCE), which has a "long history of religious advocacy" on the evolution issue. According to the suit, the NCSE, which helped design the website, provides religious "outreach" programs and "preaching" on evolution to churches, all aimed at convincing people of faith that there is no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution."
-- from

November 18, 2006 at 11:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ed board chairman: Sebelius an 'elitist'

Sebelius is a stupid fathead. That's like me blaming the demise of Southern California's aerospace industry on the University of California's disaccreditation of Christian-school biology courses that use "creationist" biology texts.

The last I heard, the aviation industry in Wichita, the "Detroit of the general aviation industry," was still doing fairly well.

October 16, 2006 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Judge in Dover I.D. case touts legal independence

>>>>>>"Judge Jones is hiding behind the judicial independence"

Do you mean, "judicial AUTHORITY"? <<<<<<

NO, I do not mean judicial "authority." The topic of his speech was "judicial independence." There can be judicial authority without judicial independence.

Sheeesh, what an asinine comment.

October 4, 2006 at 9:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Judge in Dover I.D. case touts legal independence

Judge Jones is hiding behind the judicial independence issue in order to avoid confronting legitimate criticism of his decisions.

And just because some of his critics call him names does not necessarily mean that their criticism is not legitimate.

September 27, 2006 at 2:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moderates see Corkins ouster, science switch

I am really disgusted with the prejudicial labels in these news reports. Democrats are just "Democrats," but Republicans are either "conservatives" or "moderates." Furthermore, there is nothing moderate about being pro-censorship.

Also, the current standards had to be revised at great expense because the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association denied permission to use their copyrighted material because the standards criticized Darwinism. If the criticism of Darwinism is removed, will the standards go back to using the NAS and NSTA material?

I think that the legislature should just abolish the Board of Education, which can't make up its mind. Who needs it? Iowa has the right idea -- no state science education standards. Why not just follow the textbooks? If the schools are not going to use a biology textbook that is critical of Darwinism -- such as a Christian-school biology textbook with the references to religion taken out -- then what's the point?

August 10, 2006 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Seattle applauds Kansas vote

This is just an editorial -- it is inappropriate to suggest that the whole city of Seattle applauds the Kansas vote.

August 10, 2006 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Election hailed as pro-evolution

jonas said --


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

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

His bias is no laughing matter.

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

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

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

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

August 9, 2006 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Election hailed as pro-evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>The holocaust never happened. <<<<<<

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

August 9, 2006 at 7:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Election hailed as pro-evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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


-- and --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 9, 2006 at 12:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Election hailed as pro-evolution

jonas said --

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

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

Yes. Judge Jones said in a commencement speech that Christianity is not a "true religion" -- see

He also said that he planned to watch the prejudicial and historically inaccurate movie "Inherit the Wind" for "historical context" about the Scopes trial -- see

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have read a lot of it and have commented extensively on it -- see

August 8, 2006 at 11:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )