So…Danae must be planning to get a job with the Discovery Institute
info
Format for printing
Pirate mode
Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2383/npclZ0Ns/
Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Monday, June 06, 2005
Comments:
Ditto here, except that, instead of e-mailing yet another copy of it to PZ (I'm sure several people sent it to him if he didn't see it on his own already), I decided to post the same cartoon to my own blog...
--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com
Ethan, I am guilty as charged.
Great cartoon! What's strange is, this is the exact same conversation I had with my boss, a Young Earth Creationist, back before we agreed to disagree and quit talking about it.
I asked him what he thought a Biblically-acceptable scientific method would be. His answer was essentially what the toon says -- in his perfect world, science would be conducted exactly as it is now, except that any conclusion or observation that contradicts anything in the Bible would necessarily be thrown out, and the experiment re-run until it coincided with a literal reading of the Bible.
I was too aghast to say anything, which in the context of this cartoon makes me a horse, which is a promotion from my usual horse's-ass status
Jeff
I just popped into the campus store to pick up some yogurt an granola for lunch. The young lady at the counter was half asleep on a closed book ... Darwin on Trial, P. Johnson. I guess the good news is that the book was closed and she was half asleep. If she keeps that up the damage to her brain should be minimal.
If I catch her reading it I may have to ask her why. Maybe she is studying to become a 'pre-conceptual scientist'.
A wasted young mind is a terrible thing.
I asked him what he thought a Biblically-acceptable scientific method would be. His answer was essentially what the toon says -- in his perfect world, science would be conducted exactly as it is now, except that any conclusion or observation that contradicts anything in the Bible would necessarily be thrown out, and the experiment re-run until it coincided with a literal reading of the Bible.
**smacks head against the computer screen**
Why the hell can't people think, 'well maybe not all the sciences are wrong, dozens of science branches and thousands of scientists are wrong.. Maybe I am wrong, maybe my bible isn't as accurate as I thought'.
I don't think I'll live to see that day.
-----
"As with all of ID, the important thing is first to have the concept. Production can then follow as a matter of course.” -Dembski
If anyone can manage to read this from a high school student and not weep, then curse those who fed such lies to them, you're a stronger person than I am:
Evolution
“Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.”
The theory of Evolution may be considered logical by some, but is completely void of evidence or factual support. While there is a plethora of reasons why evolution is actually unscientific and illogical, I will only share a few. The four points I will make regard: a lack of support from fossils, the gene pool, spontaneous generation and the second law of Thermodynamics.
First of all, the theory of Evolution calls for the macro evolution of species from one to another. From single celled organism, to multi celled, to bacteria, eventually reptile, ape, and finally human. The problem with supporting this idea, is that no connecting-link fossils have ever been found. Some have been created by fraud, but there is no true fossil record of “in between species” such as the half ape half man animal that would be necessary in supporting such a claim.
Development of a new characteristic in an animal would need to come from it’s DNA. Code for wings, scales, hands and all would need to be contained in the original gene pool of the first microorganism, this is simply not possible. Furthermore, fish’s DNA does not include instructions for toenails or the like.
The theory of Evolution calls for life to arise from a nonliving thing: spontaneous generation. Francesco Redi, an Italian, laid this theory to rest in 1668 when he covered a jar of meat with a screen like fabric and discovered that maggots appeared on top of the cloth, not from the decaying meat as previously thought. A single celled living organism simply can not arise from a gathering of nonliving chemicals.
Science’s own law refutes the theory of Evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things are in a state of decay, not one of improvement. The earth is falling in to more chaos, not more order such as evolution suggests.
The theory of evolution is not possible because of the lack of fossil evidence, the inability of unknown characteristics to arise from a closed gene pool, falsehood of spontaneous generation and the second law of Thermodynamics.
This leads me to believe in the theory of Creation, Biblical Creation. A world created by a supernatural, supreme God. But that my friends, is another paper, another post.
http://www.dictionary.com/evolution June 2, 2005
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC /Spontaneous_Generation.html June 2, 2005
(information taken from Mrs. Bohren’s Honors Biology class, 2004 Concordia Academy)
Where is that evolution essay from?
Not the worst 5-paragrapher I've ever read, but it needs some editing, just on a strictly formal level. Amusingly, they cite a article on spontaneous generation from the "Biotech Chronicles," a site which includes "a brief history of biotech discoveries which continue to influence the field today . . . essays on genetics and DNA research . . ."
I wonder how much damage has to be done to formal & informal science ed before we have too large a brainpower gap to fill by importing people? Honestly, what do people think? How much a remedial role can college play, etc?
Actually, I got a rather depressing piece of writing from a high school student myself. Look at this (scroll down to the comment dated 6/2/05).
I'm contemplating posting a reply on my blog on Wednesday or Thursday. (I won't have time to write it tonight.) I've even started writing the reply.
Any suggestions?
--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com
Trackback: Pre-conceptual science
PZ also posted this ... those Midwesterners always get the hop on us West-coasters ... Notice the similarity between Danae and Wells?
PZ also posted this ... those Midwesterners always get the hop on us West-coasters ... Notice the similarity between Danae and Wells?
"Pre-conceptual science," a/k/a the Queen of the Sciences?
Trackback: Conclusions first and research second!
Over at pharyngula, PZ Meyers has posted an interesting comic featuring a common theme that most creationists/ID supporters seem to possess: Making their conclusions first and then deny any evidence to the contrary. This reminds me....
Over at pharyngula, PZ Meyers has posted an interesting comic featuring a common theme that most creationists/ID supporters seem to possess: Making their conclusions first and then deny any evidence to the contrary. This reminds me....
I wonder how much damage has to be done to formal & informal science ed before we have too large a brainpower gap to fill by importing people? Honestly, what do people think? How much a remedial role can college play, etc?
There's a real possibility that we're already past that point. While we still have great science & engineering programs at the graduate level, a lot of the folks who used to come to the US for those programs and then stay now come and then leave (Shades of Madeline Kahn ... but I digress). As the best and brightest see in the IS an increasingly decrepit infrastructure (intellectual and physical), increased hostility toward the different, and also see increased opportunity in their home countries, both for domestic growth and multinational's offshored research and development, they go home.
"Pre-conceptual science," a/k/a the Queen of the Sciences?
Named Cleopatra?
The Queen of the Sciences isn't a science. If it were, you'd see that the first trillion integers are all smaller than 1,000,000,000,001 and conclude from this overwhelming set of facts that all integers are smaller than 1,000,000,000,001.
Darwin on Trial, P. Johnson. I guess the good news is that the book was closed and she was half asleep. If she keeps that up the damage to her brain should be minimal.
If I catch her reading it I may have to ask her why. Maybe she is studying to become a 'pre-conceptual scientist'.
Can't say I blame her for falling asleep, I'm trying to read it (to find out what on earth their arguments are) but if I'm not falling asleep from boredom, I'm tempted to throw it across the room in frustration. Ever notice how most of the creationist/ID books in the library are donated?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Critical thinkers needed
Previous entry: Pharyngula enters the Terrible Twos
You know you're spending too much time reading this blog when....
you saw this cartoon in the morning newspaper and immediately thought of PZ.