Pharyngula

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Goodbye, Kansas

It's a sad day for American science. We've lost Kansas.

Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools, in violation of the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion.

All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no.

For the next few years, a lot of schoolkids are going to get taught slippery twaddle—instead of learning what scientists actually say about biology, they're going to get the phony pseudoscience of ideologues and dishonest hucksters. And that means the next generation of Kansans are going to be a little less well informed, even more prone to believing the prattlings of liars, and the cycle will keep on going, keep on getting worse.

This, for instance, is baloney.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

The proponents of these changes don't have any idea what the fossil and molecular evidence says, and they are misrepresenting it. There is no credible evidence against common descent and chemical evolution; those concepts are being strengthened, year by year. What does this school board think to gain by teaching students lies?

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Rewriting the definition of science seems a rather presumptuous thing for a school board to do, I think, especially when their new definition is something contrary to what working scientists and major scientific organizations say is science. As for removing the limitation to natural phenomena, what do they propose to add? Ghosts, intuition, divine revelation, telepathic communications from Venusians? It's simply insane.

The clowns of Kansas don't think so, of course.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do," said board chairman Steve Abrams. Another board member who voted in favor of the standards, John Bacon, said the move "gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today."

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said changes probably would come to classrooms gradually, with some teachers feeling freer to discuss criticisms of evolution. "These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists," Calvert said.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory, praised the Kansas effort. "Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed," institute spokesman Casey Luskin said in a written statement.

Casey Luskin is a toady for the DI, so what does he know? There is a straightforward body of evidence for evolution to which students should be introduced—evidence that high school curricula barely touch on as it is. Adding a collection of false and confusing claims about what scientists say is only going to diminish the legitimate science that can be taught. And teaching absurdities, such as that science deals with the supernatural, represents a load of garbage that instructors at the college level are going to have to scoop out of the brains of these poor students. At least, that is, out of the diminishing number of students who will pursue genuine science, rather than the dead-end vapor of Intelligent Design creationism.

Goodbye, Kansas. I don't expect to see many of your sons and daughters at my university in coming years, unless the teachers of your state refuse to support the outrageous crapola their school board has foisted on them. I hope the rest of the country moves on, refusing to join you in your stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum.


Since I got a useful list of the pro and con members of the board in the comments, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up top and spread the word.

Here are the Kansas good guys. When they come up for re-election, vote for them.

Pro-evolution, the heirs of the Enlightenment:
Janet Waugh
Sue Gamble
Carol Rupe
Bill Wagnon

Here are the Kansas bad guys. Vote against them whenever you can.

Pro-intelligent-design, the wretched sucktards of Ignorance:
Kathy Martin
Kenneth Willard
John W. Bacon
Iris Van Meter
Connie Morris
Steve Abrams


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3329/vHar7Env/

Comments:
#47828: — 11/08  at  09:57 PM
I checked this place every 10 minutes, knowing you'd say something about it. It is unfortunate, we'll have to see how dover turns out.

-----
"As with all of ID, the important thing is first to have the concept. Production can then follow as a matter of course.” -Dembski



#47830: — 11/08  at  09:59 PM
We have NOT lost Kansas.

This happened there six years ago, and the IDiots were voted out at the next election. They went back in with stealth candidates once the voters stopped paying attention. The people of Kansas will bounce the clowns off their school board this time, too.

-jcr



#47831: — 11/08  at  10:02 PM
One wonders if the national mockery will result in a flip next election cycle. I have my doubts Kansans will be so fortunate a second time.



's avatar #47834: PZ Myers — 11/08  at  10:16 PM
And bounce 'em right back in again. Meanwhile, it's the kids who are turned into shuttlecocks in the middle.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#47838: — 11/08  at  10:50 PM
I know that on the KSBE, four members voted for rationality. Three of them are Janet Waugh, Sue Gamble, and Carol Rupe. Does anyone have the fourth? These four should be thanked and congratulated, emailed kudos and encouraged to keep up the good fight.

Their opponents, of course, should be pilloried as the dark ages goons they are.



#47839: J — 11/08  at  11:01 PM
Hopefully Kansas will bounce back. But the fact that there is still a debate is kind of disheartening, and that the real victims are children's minds. I'm entering science as a physiology major so this evolutionary/IDiotic debate has caught me by the neck-- and the more it goes on, the more I admire the way science pursues knowledge.



#47842: Shinka — 11/08  at  11:24 PM
I have to say, though I find this decision appaling, as I've wrote about in my blog, I can't seem to find the evidence in the new science standards that supports this particular part of the article:
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."
I'm sure I'm just missing it, but I would like to see exactly the language in the document that supports this.



#47843: Kristine Harley — 11/08  at  11:34 PM
The standards probably won't go into effect until 2007. There is a lot to do before then. We have to find ways to hold the IDiots feet to the fire. They win at blabbing, but actions speak louder than words.

Here's an idea that I've been tossing around: what if all medicines and treatments were labeled with the sticker, "This product was brought to you by the theory of evolution." After all, won't all those homeschoolers want to know the "ideology" behind the manufacture of their children's medicine? Naturally, in the name of "balance" they would clamor for labels for ID medicines, but of course there aren't any ID medicines.

Maybe that would drive the point home. I don't know. Wacky idea?



#47844: — 11/08  at  11:35 PM
I say let them go. We'll run a grand experiment in the vein of the old-timey not-all-that-moral work done in the 1920s. We let them teach their kids absolute bunk for a decade or two, and see what it does to test scores/admission rates/etc. At the end of it, we can point to the result and see who's right. The one downside to this would be that creationists aren't exactly known for paying attention to data. But hey, it never hurts to try.

Rrawr!



#47845: — 11/08  at  11:48 PM
Science course standards are approaching "apalling" pretty much all over. On Monday a first-grade teacher informed me that cold water sinks because it weighs more than does warm water. Not just denser, but heavier. It's getting pretty scary.



#47847: Jeremy — 11/08  at  11:54 PM
Actually, from what I read in the Fark thread on this, Kansas' education standards are completely meaningless and teachers teach what they want to teach. So teachers that taught strict evolution will continue to do so and teachers that taught creation or ID or other baloney will also continue to do so.

I'm not sure that's true (and it didn't really sound like it could be that simple) but that's what somebody said.



#47850: Jeremy — 11/08  at  11:58 PM
Megan: That's a first-grade teacher. Don't worry about it. The kid isn't stuck with that definition for the rest of his/her life. It will be corrected.

My geometry teacher's son once told his kindergarten teacher that she had drawn a trapezoid, but she told him she was wrong. Turned out that she meant to draw a square, drew a trapezoid, and either didn't see it or didn't know what a trapezoid was. Probably the latter because she asked my geometry teacher about it at parent's night and drew a trapezoid for him and told him the story.



#47853: — 11/09  at  12:11 AM
"Maybe that would drive the point home. I don't know. Wacky idea?"

Science, evidence, reason, these things mean less than nothing to a fundie. They are active evils to be exterminated. It's the wide and crooked path away from salvation. They truck in authority (TM) and it's not the kind of authority involved in going to the doctor. It's the kind involved in calling the priest because little Johnny is having seizures and is "clearly" possessed.

If you put the label on medicine, they'd either scratch it off (and lose the dosage information and all of that too) or stop using it. I don't really care of consenting adults opt into misery, pain, and death that way but their children would suffer for their convictions too.

Oh yeah, and it would be more grist for the "We're persecuted!" mill. Persecutors always need to feel persecuted.



#47860: ekzept — 11/09  at  01:01 AM
as soon as anyone has a link to the text of the new standards, and to the online minutes and determinations of the meeting of the Kansas State Board deciding this, this reader would appreciate a link.

thanks.



's avatar #47863: — 11/09  at  01:08 AM
I understand that as from 2007 creationism will be taught in science classes as the scientific alternative explanation for evolution. In Kansas, creationism is officially science. How they did it? Without any scientific evidence, without the support of any academic institution, against the opposition of the whole biology research community?

As from now, do we have an "official" science and an "alternative" science? Here in Israel, the medical establishment gave up fighting alternative medicine and in each hospital you can find a department that offers alternative or parallel (non scientific) medicine like herbal teas, yoga, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, etc. Hospital directors say (in private) that alternative medicine is unexpensive and requires no complex instruments, take make sure that it is harmless, and the "clients" go home satisfied and happy.

Maybe this attitude should be adopted, and "alternative biology institutes" should be openly established within the universities. In fact, we have some of them under all kind of names. It is not the end of the world. It is compromise.

As for jaimito, I find compromise always insincere and fake, I couldn't do it. I am for integrity, truth and intellectual honesty. Creationism is religion and no science, but in Kansas today it has proved that it is real and that it is strong. The question what we do with it.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#47864: Federico Contreras — 11/09  at  01:40 AM
"Maybe this attitude should be adopted, and "alternative biology institutes" should be openly established within the universities. In fact, we have some of them under all kind of names. It is not the end of the world. It is compromise."


No. It is pandering to ignorance and contributing to the success of charlatans. For evil to triumph, the inaction of good people is enough. So fight pseudoscience and baseless belief wherever you find it, because it it the stuff of nightmares.

Coming from Israel, I would imagine you are familiar with how far people will go to prove they have the better imaginary friend.




#47868: — 11/09  at  02:18 AM
Damn it. How many times are Kansas going to fall for that crap? Kansas is always refered to when people talk about bad science teaching, and it looks like it's with good reason.



#47875: — 11/09  at  05:48 AM
YESTERDAY:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

TODAY:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com



#47876: Tom — 11/09  at  06:08 AM
Here's the contact information for Kansas' Board of Education:

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html



#47877: — 11/09  at  06:55 AM
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.



I love it…Since Kansas science curriculum no longer has to follow naturalistic or materialistic methods, I propose that a Kansas chemistry teacher incorporate the Arts of Black magic into his/her daily lesson plans. That should stir up some of the fundies.

MOM:: Well Johny what did you learn in chemistry class today?

SON:: Mom, it was great, Mrs. Willson had us combine tongue of newt, dried elderberry and invoke a druid chant to create a vortex into another realm.

MOM:: Oh..dear



#47878: — 11/09  at  07:05 AM
...And I'm not kidding. If I were a chemistry teacher in Kansas, I would be preparing my 06/07 lesson plans with a good dose of Archaic Black Magic. If they want to redefine the basic definition of science to include the supernatural, then they have to let me play er..I mean teach in that realm also.



#47879: Orac — 11/09  at  07:07 AM
This is truly depressing. I'm going to have to e-mail Pat Hayes my condolences...

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#47880: ajmilne — 11/09  at  07:09 AM
Notwithstanding complaints above that it might not be terribly good journalism, somehow, the absurdity of the 'redefining science' bit above just puts it all in perspective for me. A Douglas Adams moment if ever there was one:

In a place called Kansas, in the meanwhile, a group of neotenous apes declared solemnly that an invisible sky fairy created them in its own image--which, if there actually were invisible sky fairies, would probably have insulted them--and that this was science, because they said so.


The very, very small bacterium evolving in the yawning pockets in their gums--itself a distant relation of theirs and of the apes--the same very, very small bacterium which would eventually become the very, very nasty little beastie which would wipe out all neotenous primates above the age of 15 lacking a full set of teeth--took no notice of their declaration.


... with apologies to Adams' heirs and fans.



#47883: — 11/09  at  07:42 AM
This reminds me of the time in the 1800's when a midwestern legislator introduced a bill to change pi to 3 because he thought that mathematicians had just made the number up, and he wanted to simplify things for school children.



#47885: Jeffrey Harmison — 11/09  at  07:53 AM
I am glad that Kansas is doing this. Evolution is not a fact...and having a few little unconnected bone fragments here and there doesn't make it true...despite all the glitzy computer animation produced by Nature/Discovery Channel.

Very bold and brave to stand up....good job folks!


wink



#47886: — 11/09  at  08:00 AM
I've always wondered why those who embrace Darwinian biology don't want any skeptical opposition of evolution being discussed in public schools. What is dogma? If Darwinian evolution is such an incontrovertible scientific fact, then why did the Darwinists have to come up with punctuated equilibrium? There are gaps in the evidence for the theory. The open discussion of the gaps in evolutionary theory would serve as a way to teach critical thinking in schools. Assume Darwinist evolution is scientifically correct. How do you win over people who think otherwise without permitting presentation of another position? Darwinism rules in the textbooks, but surveys show most people don't believe it. Darwinian biologists lost their argument long before Kansas. Science recognizes all knowledge is not known. The scientific approach is limited by the fact it can only present a hypothesis and determine if evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. It can eliminate what is false, it can't determine what is true. Science is built upon inquiry, testing ideas, open discussion. If any other theory aside from evolution is bogus, it should become readily apparent, given that the schools allow its case to be heard.



's avatar #47888: PZ Myers — 11/09  at  08:07 AM
You don't get it: we encourage informed critical analysis of evolutionary biology. We bring up legitimate debates within biology all of the time.

ID is not credible.

This really is like legislating that we have to teach the flat earth theory in geology, the phlogiston theory in chemistry, and all about N rays in physics. Those are subjects we will discuss (and dismiss!), but it's damn silly to legislate the bad examples into the curriculum.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#47890: — 11/09  at  08:12 AM
It's a sad day for serious debate. We've lost civility.
I turned to S.A. for honest input and debate on the KS decision. It was very disappointing forum.
In the name of science, PZ Myers ironically adopts the position of ideologue by attacking those who dare to disagree. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with real evidence. Attacking them personally is the marked sign of someone with nothing more intellectual to say.
Here is a sample of the intellectual words chosen by M. Myers:
...slippery twaddle, phony pseudoscience, ideologues, dishonest hucksters, less well informed, prattlings of liars, baloney, don't have any idea, misrepresenting, teaching lies, presumptuous, insane, clowns, toady, false, confusing, diminish the legitimate, absurdities, garbage, dead-end, crapola, stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum...

Further threads seemed to delight in how many times the word "idiot" could be used. Showing a bumper sticker of those who disagree as "toothless hicks" or from the "land of oz" does not improve their position. It also ignores the scores of PhD's who have doubts of Darwin's theory and those who find evidence for ID. Let's debate at a level worthy of science, not with the name calling and stage antics of a bad Geraldo Rivera show.



#47892: — 11/09  at  08:20 AM
Maybe the Kansas School Board could include information from this site in their curriculum.

http://www.venganza.org/



#47893: — 11/09  at  08:26 AM
The arguments presented by Bill are flawed, to say the least. The idea that bogus theories will be debunked in the high school classroom sounds reasonable only to someone who is oblivious to the realities of high school science. Students who are struggling to grasp the basic concepts of science, as well as only beginning to develop the ability to critically analyze information and ideas, are not going to successfully wade through the material presented to arrive at an independent, informed conclusion. Especially since this is only one section of a biology course, which will last only two semestersat most.

The laughable suggestion that curriculum should reflect the results of surveys of popular opinion would horrify anyone if applied to all subject matter. Science would not be alone. Geography, history and literature (including the Bible) would all undergo significant revision if their contents were edited to reflect popular belief and ignorance.

The scientific approach does indeed provide a forum for challenging established ideas, or "dogma", as some are choosing to call it. That forum is NOT the high school classroom, nor education standards. It is in the laboratories, meetings and publications of scientists. And if an idea cannot make it there, then it must either patiently gather compelling evidence or be shelved. The courts of popular opinion have no jurisdiction here.



#47894: Alon Levy — 11/09  at  08:36 AM
Why, of course pi = 3 - intelligent division says so. Only godless remainderists cling to the view that there are numbers that require so-called infinite decimal expansions.



#47896: Dr. Virago of Quod She — 11/09  at  08:46 AM
Yet another sad day for my home state. I wonder if my brother and sister-in-law will finally take my niece out of public school over this. (Though I imagine in their yuppie suburb of KC competitive schools are likely to ignore these "standards" or at most teach kids what's wrong with all this. They want their kids to get into the best colleges, after all. Not all of Kansas is so damn, well, Kansan.) And PZ, you may still get Kansas kids -- they'll just come from private schools, perhaps, ironically, from Catholic schools, especially the Jesuit ones, where they still teach real science. (They teach religion, too, but in a different class!)

PS -- long time reader, first time commenter.



#47898: Evolving Squid — 11/09  at  08:51 AM
I wonder when they'll change the cirriculum for medical schools to bring back the theories regarding humors, and faith healing.

I think part of the deeper issue is that HISTORY is not being well taught, because clearly these people didn't learn about the dark ages and what it was like back then.



#47899: — 11/09  at  08:53 AM
As someone who went to high school in Kansas (and I have relatively good memories of the education I got there) and went on to pursue a career in biology, I felt very sad when I heard this. But I think that the greater damage will be done to the children of Kansas, and not largely because I think they'll be taught creationist garbage. I think most biology teachers will likely still teach appropriate material, despite the new standards. However, I think students applying to colleges and universities are being harmed, for precisely some of the attitudes articulated above. If Kansas high school students are dismissed as toothless hicks when they apply to schools outside of Kansas, that'll be the true tragedy.
Pat Burkett



's avatar #47903: jinx — 11/09  at  09:12 AM
Kansas as defined by The Devil's Dictionary X.



#47905: — 11/09  at  09:21 AM
This reminds me of the time in the 1800's when a midwestern legislator introduced a bill to change pi to 3 because he thought that mathematicians had just made the number up, and he wanted to simplify things for school children.

That's a really poor oversimplification of what really happened. Petr Beckman's A History of Pi details the story, and Wikipedia's entry on Pi provides a summary.

To be even more brief, a mathematical crank got his nigh-impenetrable and uttery wrong essay on 'squaring the circle' introduced as a bill in the Indiana Legislature. It did pass the House, but was postponed indefinitely in the Senate. The essay doesn't explicitly offer a value of Pi, but several statements would require different values of Pi ranging from 3.2 to 4. An argument for adopting the bill in the House was apparently that the author had copyrighted his "discovery", and would allow the Indiana schools to use it for free.



#47908: — 11/09  at  09:24 AM
Louis - just a few civil comments in reply:
...slippery twaddle, phony pseudoscience, ideologues, dishonest hucksters, less well informed, prattlings of liars, baloney, don't have any idea, misrepresenting, teaching lies, presumptuous, insane, clowns, toady, false, confusing, diminish the legitimate, absurdities, garbage, dead-end, crapola, stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum...

Well, if it s the truth...

Further threads seemed to delight in how many times the word "idiot" could be used. Showing a bumper sticker of those who disagree as "toothless hicks" or from the "land of oz" does not improve their position.

Maybe not, but it is hilarious.

It also ignores the scores of PhD's who have doubts of Darwin's theory and those who find evidence for ID.

Funny thing, it has been more than ten years, and all they ve got to show for it are a couple of crummy articles sneaked into obscure journals by shady methods, a few books that have been totally discredited, and a political machine that engages in lies and fraud. Evidence - we don t need no stinkin evidence!

Let's debate at a level worthy of science, not with the name calling and stage antics of a bad Geraldo Rivera show.

Aw, Geraldo Rivera can be fun! Anyway, a trial just finished in Dover, PA. Do a google search and enjoy watching the IDeologues getting their asses as well as their hats handed to them in a federal civil forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



#47909: Orac — 11/09  at  09:26 AM
Evolving Squid:

You don't have to wonder when they'll change the medical school curriculum to bring back ideas about humors and faith healing. It's already happening. Some of the more dubious and religion-based alternative medicine concepts, like energy healing, Qi, etc., have already found their way into nursing schools:

timetolean.blogspot.com/2005/06/speak-of-deviltherapeutic-touch-update.html

Worse, more and more medical schools are adding alternative medicine topics to the curriculum without necessarily teaching the critical evaluation of the evidence (or mainly lack thereof) for the efficacy of these modalities.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#47913: — 11/09  at  09:46 AM
There's no need to slander Oz with such a map comparing it to creationist-loving Kansas! Oz contains many great scientists and engineers.

Tik-Tok the Clockwork Man was from Oz, after all, who do you think built him, Jerry Falwell? No, he was made by Smith and Tinker. Smith was an artist so talented he painted a river that he fell into and drowned, and Tinker was such a good engineer than he built a ladder that reached to the moon.

Johnny Dooit was also an expert enegineer - he built a boat that sailed on the sand to get Dorothy and the Shaggy Man to Winkie Country. (It wrecked because he forgot to build brakes.) He wore a leather apron, had a broad stuck-up nose and merry twinkling eyes.

And think about the Tin Woodsman, a marvel of bioengineering if there ever was one. Nick Chopper, cursed by the Wicked Witch of the East to chop off a part of his body every time he swung his axe, you'd think he'd despair and turn to Jesus, hating gays and killing brown people, but what did he do? He went to Ku-Klip, who built him replacement cybernetic parts! Ku-Klip also built Captain Fyter, a brave soldier who had a similar affliction, and, from the discarded parts of both, the fully artificial person Chopfyt. (Admittedly he did not merely use science, he did have some help from the Wicked Witch's Magic Glue.)

And education is a high priority in Oz. Why there's Bookman. There's Grunter Swyne, the Professor of Cabbage Culture and Corn Perfection. Professor Nowitall and his brilliant student, Mr. Highly Magnified Wogglebug, Thoroughly Educated, who became Ozma's Public Educator (and Public Accuser, a prosecutor-like position at times). Would Mr. H.M. Wogglebug, T.E. approve of the measures taken in Kansas? Nonsense, he would say, and make some spectacular pun.

I say up with Oz! Queen Lurline made it, I believe it, and that settles it! Ozma forever!



's avatar #47920: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:00 AM
At least Casey Luskin is right about one thing. They will be teaching more about evolution: they'll be teaching crap in addition to the truth.

On behalf of all Kansans, I apologize.

At least I was there to give a loud groan of dissatisfaction.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47923: Sam — 11/09  at  10:03 AM
Oh please, God, let us all read a Kansan blog about this. Er, I mean, did I say God? Maybe I meant...Oh hell, I'm so confused.

http://utlm.blogspot.com



#47924: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:04 AM
ah, a move that's bound to be popular with the kids: include several from the Harry Potter series as textbooks in chemistry.



#47926: — 11/09  at  10:05 AM
I'm somewhat perplexed at the extent of furious emotion engendered by the decision to allow schools to teach one THEORY alongside another THEORY.

The notion that transspecies evolution is "the right answer" would've come as an astonishing surprise to Darwin himself, who agonized over the eight revised editions of his admittedly flawed theory.

Of course, that's not to say the flawed theory may not one day prove to be correct, but it's still just a theory based upon the observation of intraspecies adaptive evolution. It seems churlish of me to say so, but the leap of faith required to adopt this "evolutionism" answer is pretty much the same as that required to adopt that other unmentionable theory, doesn't it?

I guess both are religious icons, one for those who worship at the altar of secular humanism (and the supremacy of the human intellect, which is kinda funny, reading this stuff) and the other for those who choose to believe in "divine intervention" of some sort.

Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!



#47929: — 11/09  at  10:12 AM
Don't worry, this problem will take care of itself.
Because, you see, these dimwits don't fit.



#47930: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:12 AM
well, i think the sensible thing to do for kids in Kansas is to offer free biology classes outside of the public schools, taught perhaps by university profs, and have kids understand what's real and what isn't. whether the kids want to take on any science teacher that pushes ID is up to them, of course. but, being teenagers, i bet some would just love to take on not only such science teachers but the high school administration and the district.

good lesson in civics and protest besides.



#47934: — 11/09  at  10:15 AM
Sorry, Amazed, but you're just spouting crap.

Look up the definition of scientific theory, because it is different to the colloquial meaning, and then you will find that:

* Evolution is a scientific theory.
* ID is an unscientific hypothesis.

Learn the difference, and why it is significant. Also, read PZ's latest post.



#47935: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:18 AM
... having a few little unconnected bone fragments here and there doesn't make it true ...
"What is truth?" (attributed to Pontius Pilate)

"What is sin?" (attributed to Dr Felix Hoenikker)



#47936: — 11/09  at  10:19 AM
If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do peopole get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?



#47938: — 11/09  at  10:19 AM
Ayn Rand once said: "Errors of this magnitude are not committed innocently". These aren't simple misguided fools promoting this crap. I see a campaign to undermine the clarity and objectivity of science. Why? So they can tell us global warming is not a danger, drilling for oil in the arctic does no harm, vehicles with high CG are safe, and maybe sell us The Endangered Species Cookbook.



#47939: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:22 AM
The scientific approach is limited by the fact it can only present a hypothesis and determine if evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. It can eliminate what is false, it can't determine what is true.
gosh, and i thought all those CSI types on TV were real scientists, boo-hoooooooooooooooooooh!



#47942: Yugan — 11/09  at  10:27 AM
What's sad is, those potato-brains on the Board of Education are weakening the US. Education in America is lousy enough already without their sabotaging kids' nascent ability to think and to learn. Everywhere else in the world, students learn rigorous scientific concepts, but in Kansas, they are fed mush. Garbage in, garbage out. Cut funding for musical education and you get rap. Undercut scientific reasoning, and.... you'll get more like Bush in high office.



#47944: — 11/09  at  10:28 AM
"If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do peopole get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?"

Sorry to go all Godwin, but if the theory of the Holocaust is considered proven why do people get all excited when it's questioned? That may be hyperbole, but only just. The ID movement is an anti-science movement. Its goal is to end scientific inquiry by saying "God did it" whenever we can't yet explain something fully. It is not a coincidence that there is no academic research supporting ID, because the ID hypothesis actively prevents research. I repeat, ID is a movement to stop science. That is why scientists "get all excited" about it.



's avatar #47945: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:29 AM
<quote>I've always wondered why those who embrace Darwinian biology don't want any skeptical opposition of evolution being discussed in public schools.</quote>
To be blunt, the "skeptical opposition" to evolution is founded on lies and distortions. Furthermore, biology class is the time to discuss issues in biology. Creationism and its variants, like ID, are far outside of the field of biology. They discuss biology, sure, but in such a flatly wrong way that working biologists dismiss what they say or pay no attention at all.

<quote>What is dogma? If Darwinian evolution is such an incontrovertible scientific fact, then why did the Darwinists have to come up with punctuated equilibrium?</quote>
Punctuated equilibria has nothing to do with "Darwinian evolution," as even Darwin himself noted that the pace of evolution could be irregular. And the reason some paleontologists came up with punctuated equilibria is because that's what the fossil data indicated for certain evolutionary transitions in populations, as in Phacops rana.

<quote>But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular. I am far from thinking that the most divergent varieties will invariably prevail and multiply: a medium form may often long endure, and may or may not produce more than one modified descendant; for natural selection will always act according to the nature of the places which are either unoccupied or not perfectly occupied by other beings; and this will depend on infinitely complex relations.</quote>
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th ed.

<quote>There are gaps in the evidence for the theory.</quote>
True, we haven't managed to exhaustively document all evidence for evolution. So what? That's the nature of science. There are always new things to be learned, but the new things are based upon the foundation of the old things. Evolutionary biology has proved so useful a predictive model that it is appalling to think that colleges will be duty bound to reinvent the wheel by re-teaching students concepts that they should have learned accurately the first time. But that's what's going to happen by allowing creationism into biology class. Creationism cannot succeed on the merits; creationists only make headway by lying about evolution. Therefore, it will be up to college professors to remedy the intellectual mess left by the Kansas BoE creationists.

<quote>The open discussion of the gaps in evolutionary theory would serve as a way to teach critical thinking in schools.</quote>
Not really. Creationists want nothing less than genuine critical thinking. A geniune critical thinker would go to the biology journals to find out the extent and importance of the so-called "gaps in evolutionary theory" (of which you haven't even given any examples). Creationists, however, want children to unconditionally believe lies about evolution. To put it bluntly, they want to raise a generation of credulous idiots.

<quote>Assume Darwinist evolution is scientifically correct. How do you win over people who think otherwise without permitting presentation of another position?</quote>
Presumably by putting the evidence to them.

<quote>Darwinism rules in the textbooks, but surveys show most people don't believe it. Darwinian biologists lost their argument long before Kansas.</quote>
There are no such entities as "Darwinian biologists." I think the word you're searching for is "evolutionary biologist."

And evolutionary biologists have not lost their argument. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and only a trivial minority disagree and have not been able to formulate a scientifically sound and evidence-based argument for it.

<quote>If any other theory aside from evolution is bogus, it should become readily apparent, given that the schools allow its case to be heard.</quote>
What a remarkable view of science. High school students as the final arbiters of bogus ideas in science. Why we don't have to present new views in the scientific journals, we can simply bring new ideas to the students and let them judge. After all, who better to give their learned opinion on the merits of string theory vs. loop quantum gravity than a group that hasn't even learned general relativity yet?

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47948: — 11/09  at  10:36 AM
The article defames the 18th century, which was the height of the Enlightenment. I would make this more like 16th century hokum.



#47949: — 11/09  at  10:36 AM
I think people in Kansas should start citing the standard in lawsuits.

Just imagine the possibilities if accusations of telepathic mind control and hoodoo spells become viable in court!



#47951: Elf M. Sternberg — 11/09  at  10:39 AM
It's better to say that Kansas has lost us, rather than to say than we have lost Kansas. While I admit to some apish admiration of those who stick it out in their home state out of a sense of terroir, the real truth is that Kansas is going to experience a brain drain of Biblical proportions. The school board is apparently unaware that scientists and engineers, like everyone else, have children, and the smart ones don't want their children learning that "supernatural explanations can be incorporated into scientific investigations."



#47952: — 11/09  at  10:40 AM
Further suggestion:

Let the first such lawsuit be filed against pro-ID members of the school board.

I bet they'll become true-believers in natural explanations real quick.

Then, their hypocrisy can be used against them.



#47953: — 11/09  at  10:42 AM
The fourth member who voted against the change was Bill Wagnon. So, let's just round it out here:

Pro-evolution
Janet Waugh -
Sue Gamble -
Carol Rupe -
Bill Wagnon -

Pro-intelligent-design
Kathy Martin -
Kenneth Willard -
John W. Bacon -
Iris Van Meter -
Connie Morris -
Steve Abrams -

You can get their home phone numbers here:
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html

Now me, I think all life on Earth was created from the corpse of the frost giant Ymir. People were licked out of a stone by an immortal cow. I wouldn't exactly call it "intelligent" or "design" either for that matter, but at least I don't have to justify why an all-powerful, all-benevolent god fscked up the world so bad. It was all unintentional really. People weren't supposed to make it this far. See, doesn't that make sense? Only those egg-headed dogmatic scientists get hung up on "evidence". To paraphrase, Science is a one trick pony. It only has one trick; rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, whoa! the sky's the limit!

;->

Now go write some emails.



#47954: — 11/09  at  10:42 AM

If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do people get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?


Nobody gets excited when evolution is questioned. Evolution has been questioned methodically for 150 years, which is why our current understanding of evolutionary theory bears a number of differences from what Chuck Darwin put in his books. And there are competing *scientific* theories as to the mechanisms therein.

What people are getting bent out of shape about is the fact that we're now expected to teach people that something is a competing theory just because someone says it is. ID is not a competing theory - it's non-predictive, not based on observable evidence, and overall just intellectually lazy - saying "god/aliens/a wizard did it" doesn't tell us anything useful or lead to new study, regardless of whether it may or may not be right. Saying "someone designed life" isn't going to lead to new drugs for antibiotic-resistant infections, for example.

The current Theories of Evolution may be wrong. I doubt you'd find any biologist today who would say that our current understanding of evolution is complete and 100% accurate. However, ID doesn't offer a useful alternative, just some supernatural handwaving. That's why people are in an uproar. It's a stealth attack not just on evolution, but on science and natural pilosophy as a whole.



#47955: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:43 AM
Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!
who's shooting? there is no "other side", just ghosts of vitalism there.



's avatar #47959: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:51 AM
I'm somewhat perplexed at the extent of furious emotion engendered by the decision to allow schools to teach one THEORY alongside another THEORY.

It's not teaching one theory alongside another theory. It's teaching garbage about an existing theory (in the scientific sense, which is not synonymous with "wild ass guess") to satisfy a religiously-motivated group of cranks.

Should we not be upset when a school board decides, by majority vote, to lie to students?

The notion that transspecies evolution is "the right answer" would've come as an astonishing surprise to Darwin himself, who agonized over the eight revised editions of his admittedly flawed theory.


1) Speciation has been observed. This would be an astonishing surprise to Darwin, since he believed that speciation would take too long to be directly observed. He would also be astonished by the fact that we have been able to extract and sequence DNA evidence. That's about the only thing you got correct. But the fact that Darwin might well be astonished at the sheer mass of evidence in favor of evolution is hardly evidence against it.

Kepler would be astonished that we are able to launch probes and, using his laws, predict exactly how and when to launch so that we can do fly-bys of other planets and investigate them. Does his presumptive astonishment mean we should stop teaching the laws of planetary motion?

2) Darwin isn't the end-all and be-all of evolutionary biology. In fact, he's just the tip of the iceberg.

3) There were only six editions of On the Origin of Species and your failure to get that basic fact right does call your competence into question.

4) Admitted by whom? I can't think of a single biologist I know personally who thinks evolutionary biology is fundamentally flawed.

Of course, that's not to say the flawed theory may not one day prove to be correct,

Yes, but until it does, we shouldn't teach intelligent design creationism in science classes.

but it's still just a theory based upon the observation of intraspecies adaptive evolution.

Wrong. You'd be wrong even in Darwin's time. On the Origin of Species lists several types of evidence for evolution, and only the first chapter, on the varieties of animals which emerge under domestication, has anything to do with observation of intraspecific evolution.

It seems churlish of me to say so, but the leap of faith required to adopt this "evolutionism" answer is pretty much the same as that required to adopt that other unmentionable theory, doesn't it?

Well, then I guess it's a good thing I just accept plain old evolutionary biology, rather than "this 'evolutionism.'"

I guess both are religious icons, one for those who worship at the altar of secular humanism (and the supremacy of the human intellect, which is kinda funny, reading this stuff) and the other for those who choose to believe in "divine intervention" of some sort.

I've got news for you: scientists are not unintellectual anti-religious reactionaries who will recoil from evolutionary biology by reflex when you throw a little religious language about.

The implication is deeply insulting.

Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!

Why? The creationists deserve to be shot down in flames, and your insulting and inaccurate rhetoric is hardly going to smooth the troubled waters.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47968: Keith Douglas — 11/09  at  11:06 AM
This is indeed unfortunate. What are the legal and other recourses Kansans et al have?



#47972: — 11/09  at  11:17 AM
If any Kansas schools teach psychology, they must allow astrology to be taught, too. I mean, astrology seeks to explain the psychological makeup of a person, right? Shouldn't it get equal time?

The whole thing's disgraceful.

CJSF



#47975: Lya Kahlo — 11/09  at  12:03 PM
I hope those kids in Kansas like working at Wal-mart and McD's.

That's all their creationist "educasion" is going to qualify them for.



#47984: — 11/09  at  12:46 PM
The fear demonstrated by many evolutionists is remarkable, in not wanting opposing views taught. If the theory is plausible, it will stand on it's own. To teach evolution as fact with no dissenting view is intellectually dishonest, and to deny the opportunity for students to learn opposing viewpoints because you have decided they are wrong is arrogant. If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument. This way a child learns to intelligently defend his own beliefs.



#47987: — 11/09  at  01:15 PM
If the theory's plausible, it'll stand on its own in a high school classroom.

The problem is that ID is *plausible*, it's just meaningless garbage.

Guess what? Flat earth is plausible. Ptolemaicism is VERY plausible.

Should we be teaching how everything revolves around the Earth, which is really a flat disk?

'cause, yeah, I don't think so.



#47988: — 11/09  at  01:49 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must defeat the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to think otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all, and you never will be. If you believe it why not just accept it and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies.



#47990: — 11/09  at  01:57 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must conquer the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to think otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all except in some tired subjective way and you never will be; that goes for your children as well. If you believe only in the material why not just accept all you see passively and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies. Oh right, because you have no choice...never mind.



#47992: — 11/09  at  02:02 PM
" If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument."

Oddly enough, most parents aren't biologists. The whole point of school is to teach children facts, logical thinking and knowledge-acquiring skills, thus leaving parents free to teach things like life skills, morals and, yes, religion, as they see fit.

Again, would it be OK to teach Holocaust denial as an "alternative theory" in history, because parents could always "correct the teaching". Why should parents have to constantly police their children's education for lies?

Evolution and ID are not "opposing viewpoints". Evolution is science's overwhelmingly evidence-supported best answer to the question of how life's current diversity arose, while ID is anti-science hokum that answers nothing. Young earth creationism would be an opposing viewpoint. It would be a wrong viewpoint, but at least it has positive content beyond "Stop asking questions! God did it!"



#47994: Jeff — 11/09  at  02:07 PM
There seem to be a lot of comments putting down Kansans in general for this decision, but really, it was the result of a vote of 10 school board members. I'm unfamiliar with much of the history of this case, so how much of an influence did the citizens of Kansas have in this decision? Obviously, they elected the school board, but was this an issue that was part of the platform that got those members elected? Or is this 6 of those members deciding to act on their own beliefs and ignore the scientific community?



#47997: Sean — 11/09  at  02:27 PM
Notice that not one of the "why do you oppose ID" posters are hanging around to defend their posts...thanks for proving my point guys.

"ID, it's not science fiction...actually it belongs in the fantasy section." - UofW Geneticist



#48004: — 11/09  at  02:58 PM
Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!

Like a scientist, I shoot at all sides. ID, with no testable hypothesis, refuses to stick its head up. Evolution, however, has proven impervious to every bullet in my arsenal. And every poorly-thought out and deceptive blank in the ID/Creationists' arsenal.

As a sixth-grader, I was able to shoot down every anti-evolution argument (many of which were straw-men lies) I had ever heard. They'd all be laughable if they didn't injure our children's critical thinking abilities, leaving them vulnerable to propaganda on any topic.



#48007: — 11/09  at  03:06 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must eliminate the possibility of the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to believe otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all except in some tired subjective way and you never will be; that goes for your children as well. If you believe only in the material why not just accept all you see passively and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies. Oh right, because you have no choice...never mind. If you are right there is no such thing as danger.



#48011: — 11/09  at  03:23 PM
“The fear demonstrated by many evolutionists is remarkable, in not wanting opposing views taught.“

Fear? Spare me. There’s a reason ID was trounced in the Dover trial – it’s total bullshit. ID is not an “opposing view”. It’s creationism in a cheap suit. It’s Christian facism at it’s most underhanded.

Since Kansas gets to redefine science, we get to redefine religion.

Religion- n. childish beliefs in imaginary authority figures.



#48013: ekzept — 11/09  at  03:24 PM
To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

wow.

apparently M Miller believes the only reason to teach biology is to provide training for scientists. guess M Miller thinks it's like shop or sports, purely career-related. moreover, M Miller believes that regarding evolution as the lynchpin of biological science automatically implies embrace of so-called "social darwinism".

there is, y'know, a reason why all students should have a solid grounding in mathematics and in the sciences. that so many do not pursue these subjects is sad, and constitutes a social failure of another kind.

there is, too, an unwritten assumption in the posting from M Miller and others, that skill at argument and reasoning is somehow the preeminent intellectual skill schools should teach. that's simply false. it's one of the skills, a skill particularly important for litigation or oratory on the floor of a legislature, but it's by no means the only intellectual skills used in the sciences. there are many of those. and people who don't have those other skills are less educated than those who do.



#48018: — 11/09  at  03:50 PM
I can defeat M Miller's last post with two words: Straw man.

Or, since I'm not feeling so polite at the moment, one: LIAR!



#48019: — 11/09  at  03:50 PM
I was just about to post a similar suggestion to Todd's. Why not teach Aliens populated the Earth? That's Intelligent Design, right there. It would force these morons to take the mask off and just plainly say they're creationists instead of hiding behind ID.



#48021: Arun — 11/09  at  03:51 PM
http://www.kshs.org/research/topics/science/essay.htm

A bit of history of Kansans who achieved some eminence in scientific and technical fields.



#48022: — 11/09  at  03:54 PM
apparently M Miller believes the only reason to teach biology is to provide training for scientists. guess M Miller thinks it's like shop or sports, purely career-related. moreover, M Miller believes that regarding evolution as the lynchpin of biological science automatically implies embrace of so-called "social darwinism".


I didn't say any of these things and I don't believe them. You should spend more time reading the lines that are written than trying to read between them.

there is, too, an unwritten assumption in the posting from M Miller and others, that skill at argument and reasoning is somehow the preeminent intellectual skill schools should teach. that's simply false. it's one of the skills, a skill particularly important for litigation or oratory on the floor of a legislature, but it's by no means the only intellectual skills used in the sciences. there are many of those. and people who don't have those other skills are less educated than those who do.


I have no idea where you got this from what I wrote either. Are you sure you were responding to my post, and not to the little voices in your head?



#48023: — 11/09  at  03:57 PM
What lies did I tell BronzeDog?



#48024: — 11/09  at  03:59 PM
Todd, I believe the next topic for the KS BoE is to require that alchemy be offered as an alternative to chemistry. And they think that a little knowledge is dangerous; how much more dangerous is no knowledge at all.



#48026: — 11/09  at  04:05 PM
This lie sticks out:
If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think.

Evolution doesn't necessarly lead to any of those things. All it is is the theory that organisms will change according to changes in their environment. It has nothing to say about morality. It doesn't even have anything to say about free will or the lack thereof. It's just propaganda to say it does.



#48030: — 11/09  at  04:18 PM
#47984: Elsa "If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument. This way a child learns to intelligently defend his own beliefs."

So we should let the school board decide to teach any old crap as long as we can give our children a "reasonable argument" later? Are you for real?

Couldn't get any better: my security word is "species."



#48035: — 11/09  at  04:34 PM
The keyword in Elsa's post is "disagree."

ID and Evolution are so often presented as just "opinions."

If your school board changes 2+2 to equal 5, does the wise parent just say "well, that's their opinion, and I disagree, but it's really my job to properly instruct my child in math." Of course not.

(You may look at this and say "that's a ridiculous strawman - math is different!" but...well, think about it - there are some gaps in our knowledge of mathematics, just as there are some gaps in our grasp of evolutionary theory. But we don't have furious debates like this because we don't currently have a proof to NP completeness).



#48037: — 11/09  at  04:41 PM
<blockquote>If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument. This way a child learns to intelligently defend his own beliefs.<blockquote>
Considering that science education is going down the gutter (and with it, will go any discipline relying on acquiring data, such as history, math, social studies, government, etc.), that kind of defeats the purpose of sending your kids to school, doesn't it?

How about this: We teach verifiable facts, the most robust scientific theories, and critical thinking methods in school, and then you can teach your kids fairy tales at home.

Before someone parrots the "critically considered" speech about evolution: We aren't discouraging critical consideration of evolution. We just want evolution to be treated as an equal of all the other robust theories out there: Either you put the speech before chemistry, history, astronomy, and so forth, or you don't put it anywhere.

If a student comes up with a possible criticism of evolution, science teachers should be equipped to answer them. Unfortunately, our dismal education system doesn't equip them: The speech is only a wishy-washy "there are no wrong answers" newage trash poking at problems of evolution that are actually either imaginary or trivial.



#48038: Rick @ shrimp and grits — 11/09  at  04:42 PM
I believe the next topic for the KS BoE is to require that alchemy be offered as an alternative to chemistry.


Do not go there. smile (Not all chemists are anti-evolution, you know!)

Actually, I just posted along those lines at my new blog-that-I'm-not-completely-sure-how-to-use.

http://shrimpandgrits.rickandpatty.com/?p=2

And how fitting for a chemist - the word is "nucleus".



#48048: — 11/09  at  04:59 PM
The forces of ignorance and superstition are on the rise globally. Here at least the NSW Board Of Studies has stood its ground against a campaign that has included Brendan Nelson, the Federal Minister for Education who stated that teaching ID was a "good idea". As a high school science teacher I have taken his advice and made sure that my students were exposed to a scientific analysis of this piece of philosophical guesswork. I think this needs to be done. It can be hard to defeat wilful ignorance but simple ignorance usually responds to education.



#48051: — 11/09  at  05:03 PM
Sometimes we need a vulnerable state such as Kansas to embarrass itself so the rest of the country can wake up to the reality that the bible beaters are trying to undermine accepted science.



#48061: Patrick Hothersall — 11/09  at  05:18 PM
As a future physics teacher, it seems to me that it is possible to spin this decision in our favor. If one id forced to teach alternatives to evolution , and since all explanations are equily valid in ID theory, an educator can use this as an opportunity to talk about the panspermia theory.

If one chooses to focus on the science behind the theory, one can potentially create an interesting multidiciplinary unit on all sorts of scientific topics. Just look at the "Did Life Come from Another World?" article to get an idea of what one can choose to cover.

Of corse, you would want to guard against teaching students that this theory is as strong as evolution, and it won't stop a holy roller from teaching that Jehova-1 designed human beings with supernatural powers.

It makes me think, what do you think would happen if we taught that instead of Jesus/God, all life was created by a Hindu goddess or by Jehova-1, transdimentional space monster? Maybe they would think that mixing school and religion is not such a good idea after all.



#48063: — 11/09  at  05:23 PM
Hello,

Guess what? I'm in the mood for name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Yes, I'm a toothless hick (yeah, we're here in Pittsburgh, too!) who is so ignorant that I actually believe that the universe is not the product of atoms bumping into one another over the course of billions of years. And, this despite years of public schooling (and no church upbringing) cramming it down my throat. But, you know what? I'm working as a software developer, which means that I have to be at least somewhat smart, you know, to program computers and all that stuff. Gee, come to think of it, maybe my software will write itself if I just wait long enough for the bits to come together into a functional system. Oh, I forgot! That's basically what you folks believe can happen.

Have a nice day, and don't forget to call me the following:
1. a "fundie"
2. an ignoramus
3. a backwards hick

Anyway, you get the idea! Have a nice day!



#48074: — 11/09  at  05:57 PM
Gee, come to think of it, maybe my software will write itself if I just wait long enough for the bits to come together into a functional system. Oh, I forgot! That's basically what you folks believe can happen.


And all without consciousness. What could be simpler, or actually what could be more complex. Imagine the papers that have been and will be written, imagine the careers, imagine the overwhelming sense of substantial intellectual endeavor, why it's almost a higher calling.

But of course all without choice.

Science drones on about the all the evidence for their theory, I don't see any evidence that can't be spun neatly into a theory of consciousness relentlessly trying to reduce entropy in a universe that relentlessly forces it to increase. This fits the set of facts far better than the materialist view and jives completely with our observations on the promotion of order in the modern world.

The debate is not about the evidence, its about the interpretation you want to put on it; and for that reason the debate will never go away. I'm just surprised more people don't make this observation.



#48076: — 11/09  at  06:01 PM
I see this article was written by a Jew....as usual.



#48077: — 11/09  at  06:01 PM
Ken Boyer apparently never heard of Genetic Algorithms or Artificial Neural Networks.

Shame, really. Carnegie-Mellon does rather a lot with AI.



#48079: — 11/09  at  06:10 PM
The only thing ID will ever be good for is buying a cold beer



#48088: — 11/09  at  06:29 PM
Evolution doesn't necessarly (sic) lead to any of those things. All it is is the theory that organisms will change according to changes in their environment. It has nothing to say about morality. It doesn't even have anything to say about free will or the lack thereof. It's just propaganda to say it does.


I'm not entirely clear as to why you say I lied. I simply observed a logical conclusion of a materialist view of the universe, one I don't think many people (including all of the scientists I know) would really accept. If you don’t want materialist evolution to lead in that direction you will have to come up with a reason why.

Once you introduce the 'supernatural' idea of consciousness or freewill, that is a force, if you will, for order not dictated entirely by the known laws of physics, there is no good scientific reason for not assuming that it has been present and influencing things all along. You may as well try to theorize on the formation of stars without including gravity.

To my eye, consciousness permeates the biosphere, constantly driving it and shaping it. I think this is a simple observable phenomenon. The watchmaker is not blind, it has eyes and ears and noses beyond count all scurrying around our planet. That's what promotes order; we as a species are just another manifestation of the structures it produces. As it happens we have opposable thumbs and reasonable short-term memories and hence the process accelerates around us.

It’s as plain and obvious as you want it to be.



#48091: — 11/09  at  07:06 PM
Jon H wrote, "Ken Boyer apparently never heard of Genetic Algorithms or Artificial Neural Networks."

Actually, I have. I believe that they were created with more than a little human engineering effort as well. It is also evident that natural systems, likewise, have quite elaborate (micro)evolutionary and adaptational capabilities, er, designed into them. Then again, maybe the scientists working on GAs or ANNs were just trying to give these computing systems a head start, since they would've eventually come about on their own...



's avatar #48093: — 11/09  at  07:24 PM
"Kansas, as well as five other Midwest states (Nebraska, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota and Iowa), is feeling the brunt of falling populations. 89% of the total number of cities in those states have fewer than 3000 people; hundreds have fewer than than 1000. Between 1996 and 2004, almost half a million people, nearly half with college degrees, left the six states."

So Kansas is backwater anyway. It will now be worldwide known for two small things: Oz and ID.



#48094: — 11/09  at  07:27 PM
Unethical morons with power. The new age of politics.



#48101: — 11/09  at  07:51 PM
There sure is a lot of name calling but no direct attack of ID or its claims. Just a lot of "every credible scientist thinks" type statements. I am sure most of the posts here would have burned previous scientist who made generally unaccepted claims " by every credible scientist". As a observer if you cover up the word "Darwin" you would think religous nuts were posting the comments.



Trackback: New science standards approved by Kansas BoE Tracked on: StructuredThought (65.19.157.20) at 2005 11 08 23:12:25
Unfortunately, as predicted, the State Board of Education for my own state of Kansas has approved the new state standards that impede the teaching of evolution and promote creationism. The new standards read as follows:...



Trackback: With deepest sympathies Tracked on: Skeptico (66.151.149.25) at 2005 11 09 00:19:17
Science education in Kansas.



Trackback: Los fundamentalistas toman Kansas Tracked on: Las penas del Agente Smith (66.162.134.137) at 2005 11 09 02:11:06
Finalmente, la debacle se produjo (noticia original): Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The...



Trackback: Good news, bad news Tracked on: Rhosgobel: Radagast's Home (72.9.234.70) at 2005 11 09 02:33:28
It's a bit more than four hours after the polls closed in California, and it was looking like I could go to bed happy ... but then I flipped over to Pharyngula, and found this ...



Trackback: Don't Hire Any Lab Techs from Kansas Tracked on: Bloodless Coup (63.66.160.28) at 2005 11 09 08:15:12
Because they might have been taught that the mutating cancer cell from your pap smear is God's Intelligent Design. See also PZ Myers....



Trackback: More on Kansas Dumbassery Tracked on: Homo Sum (63.111.22.74) at 2005 11 09 08:18:18
(I’ve done so many entries on the whole “evolution in schools” thing that you’d think I would be getting tired of it. But, no. I am fuelled by sweet, sweet rage.) Dan Gilmour points to the Guardian article on the Kansas deci...



Trackback: Kansas Enters A New Dark Age Tracked on: Modulator (63.247.135.223) at 2005 11 09 09:55:35
I thought I'd write at length about the Kansas Board of Education decision to abandon teaching science in public schools ...the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.but on something like this PZ Myers is going to be far ahead of the curve:Rewriting the definition of...



Trackback: Goodbye Kansas Tracked on: Cynical-C Blog (66.33.213.28) at 2005 11 09 09:59:25
Pharyngula tells it like it is. For the next few years, a lot of schoolkids are going to get taught slippery twaddleinstead of learning what scientists actually say about biology, they're going to get the phony pseudoscience of ideologues and...



Trackback: No Child Left Behind Tracked on: Axiom (72.9.234.70) at 2005 11 09 11:05:42
Clearly, the entire state of Kansas has planned to completely disregard the federally manadated standards of education as delineated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002:



Trackback: Kansas residents proud to be products of incest Tracked on: The Renegade of Junk (72.9.234.70) at 2005 11 09 14:31:21
The Kansas Education Board today voted to support the teaching of Intelligent Design, or, as it is called in the scientific community, the "Blame it on God" theory, in school classrooms alongside evolution. The theory of Intelligent Design, which bas...



#48103: — 11/09  at  07:56 PM
It's nice to know that I got to hear some of the shittiest news on NPR a mere 30 minutes after I started work. The fact that a state has gone completely stark-raving bonkers wrt their science education policy is an exceedingly ugly precedent to have to think about at 9am in the morning (much less any other time of day), and the senseless act of stupidity committed by the six idiots who decided to get busy promotin' That Ole Time Religion at the expense of science was only mitigated by the fact that a similar bunch got turned out of office in Dover, PA., en masse.

Sometimes it's just not worth turning the Walkman on in the morning.



#48105: The Inoculated Mind — 11/09  at  08:00 PM
I have but one word to say about the Kansas Board of Education.

Astrology.



#48108: — 11/09  at  08:03 PM
Let's not forget that your President supports the idea of teaching ID. Whether the infamous six are idiots of their own making or just simpletons who follow without question those in power remains to be seen.



#48113: — 11/09  at  08:13 PM
If you are a student in Kansas and want to read a compelling book on what has recently happened to your failing education system try:

Why God Won't Go Away : Brain Science and the Biology of Belief.
by Andrew Newberg, Eugene G. D'Aquili, Vince Rause, Andrew B. Newberg

Science cannot determine that gods of any type exist, nor can it determine that no gods exist. However, there may be scientific reasons why the belief in gods remains strong. In the surprisingly titled _Why God Won't Go Away_ Ballantine Books) by Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquilli, M.D., and Vince Rause, we get a fascinating scientific answer to the title question, and a review of the current scientific understanding of the roots of belief. The authors have done research by means of brain scans on those who are having mystical or religious experiences. The brain scans show that something is going on among the neurons that doesn't happen at other times. Most of the scans described in the authors' research show an increase in activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe, an area just behind the top of the head. They call this for operational purposes the "orientation association area (OAA)," because the OAA orients a person in physical space. "To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else; to sort out the you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe." When this area is damaged by trauma or stroke, patients have difficulty maneuvering in physical space; when it is extra active, it seems to be a source of an inexplicable feeling of connection to all creation. A meditator describes the ineffable state in terms that are typical: "There's a sense of timelessness and infinity. It feels like I am part of everyone and everything in existence."

The authors explain that the gene-driven wiring of the brain to encourage religious beliefs exists because it has been evolutionarily good for us. Stimulating the OAA or the autonomic nervous system can produce calm and a sense of well-being which may be not only pleasant but physically beneficial. Beliefs driven by neurology could reinforce themselves by building myths, encouraging ritual, uniting societies and providing social support from fellow believers. They can check worry about eventual annihilation. They can provide a feeling of control.

Those of a religious bent will find matter to argue with inside these pages, even though the authors are very careful not to argue for or against the existence of deities, only that "the neurological aspects of spiritual experience support the sense of the realness of God." Some may also find disconcerting the idea that ecstasy of religious mysticism may have its roots in the structures that bring on orgasm. Others will find the practical answer to the title's question just too pragmatic and pat, but given the extraordinary research as it now stands, it is the best that science can do as it begins to look into religious feeling: "What we know beyond question is that the mind is essentially a machine designed to solve the riddles of existence, and as long as our brains are wired as they are, God will not go away." This book is a wonderful introduction into this fascinating research.



#48115: ekzept — 11/09  at  08:20 PM
ah, i should have known. it's limlerm, operative for Dobson at FotF.
To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense [of] ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states.
... and as for folks other than "super scientists"?
Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place?
no, for lots of reasons. for one, "fitness" only applies to success in reproduction.
Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently...
seeing things differently is fine. forcing that into a science curriculum is altogether a different thing. it would be irresponsible not to oppose it.



#48116: — 11/09  at  08:34 PM
Wow...
"Products of incest"..."idiots"...this is good stuff. Don't actually attack the ideas behind ID; just keep focusing on the childish name-calling. Yeah... that'll win the day. Uh, in philosophy, this tactic is called the "argumentum ad hominem", which is a Latin term meaning "argument to the person". In other words, if you can't argue the facts, insult and ridicule those who hold the opposing viewpoint. So, as long as the randomly-firing neurons are telling your brain to keep making up these clever names, I'll insist instead that your mind -- yes, the one so damaged because of our ancestor Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden -- is merely supressing and reacting against the Truth you know of but can't -- won't dare? -- utter: there is a Creator God, and you will face His judgment someday.



#48117: — 11/09  at  08:35 PM
Since fundies insist on intruding religion into science, it's certainly more than fair game to use science to inspect the reasonableness of christian doctrines.

For example, the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I suggest the following discussion in a high school science class.

Let's see now: If no human sperm was involved, Mary conceived Jesus parthenogeically, from her haploid egg, which means that Jesus had only haploid chromosomes in his cells, making him sterile. This is not a line of thought calculated to thrill fundamentalists.

Or perhaps the Spirit (or the Father?) created a human sperm from nothing to fertilize Mary? But wait a second... it would have had to be around 10 million sperm to be enough; otherwise the egg wouldn't respond.

In this case, what determined which Divine Sperm made it into the egg? Were all the other Divine Sperm somehow less perfect? To paraphrase Orwell, perhaps all Divine Sperm were equal, but One Sperm was more divine than the others.

And precisely which of Mary's genes were dominant, and which genes of the most equal Divine Sperm were dominant? And when the Spirit created all the Divine Sperm, did it first create normal diploid cells, and then allow the process of meiosis to reduce them to the haploid number? If so, just where did this take place?

Also, we assume that God lives in perpetual joy. At the time of conception, did the Spirit experience a divine form of orgasm? How about Mary? Was she sexually stimulated by the event? I sure hope so! One doesn't conceive the Son of God every day!

Now let's take a scientific look at the Resurrection of Jesus.

The New Testament says he appeared with the wounds showing in his hands, feet, and side. Isn't this rather ghoulish? After several days, bacteria must have been rampent, and he must have given off distinctive odor.

How about the ascension of Jesus into heaven?

The New Testament says that he rose into heaven. If he went into outer space, his body exploded in the vacuum. And just where IS heaven?

Do fundies really want a scientific examination of religion?

Unlike science, religion cannot withstand HOW questions.



#48118: ekzept — 11/09  at  08:35 PM
But, you know what? I'm working as a software developer, which means that I have to be at least somewhat smart, you know, to program computers and all that stuff. Gee, come to think of it, maybe my software will write itself if I just wait long enough for the bits to come together into a functional system. Oh, I forgot! That's basically what you folks believe can happen.
actually, software development as practiced does not demand a lot of smarts. yeah, there's a market for it. but noone should misunderstand the pathetic state of that art. the words of E.W.Dijkstra still apply:
Sad remark. Since then we have witnessed the prolieration of baroque, ill-defined and, therefore, unstable software systems. Instead of working with a formal tool, which their task requires, many programmers now live in a limbo of folklore, in a vague and slippery world, in which they are never quite sure what the system will do to their programs. Under such regretful circumstances the whole notion of a correct program -- let alone a program that has been proved to be correct -- becomes void. Wha the proliferation of such systems has done to the morale of the computing community is more than I can describe. (End of sad remark.)
(EWD, A Discipline of Programming, page 202)

moreover computing systems as practiced are really parochial one-thing-at-a-time constructs, with very little tolerance for fault or error, apart from memory corruption. biological systems and their nucleic acid, signalling pathway, and protein controls are actually analog computers, not digital and discrete. so experience with digital computers hardly seems relevant.



#48119: — 11/09  at  08:37 PM
The new Kansas science curriculum does NOT specifically have intellichimp design in it. I know, I downloaded and read it. What it DOES have is three pages of evolution-bashing that are written by the intellichimp design people and are full of errors. What it DOES have is a redefinition of science that allows intellichimp design to be taught. The standard specifically states that the board is not requiring or banning intelligent design in the state's public schools. So, it still sucks, because it dilutes science standards.

Intelligent design is a violation of the Establishment Clause on its face. No "lemon test" or determination of intent is necessary. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. That's a supernatural being...a god.

Somebody asked if Kansas can be sued for this. Since they do not expressly put intelligent design into the new curriculum, I don't think so. I don't know if there's any law against teaching evolution-bashing to our kids.

Kansas MAY get sued by the science associations who have pulled their copyrights from the new science curriculum. The final draft I read still has that stuff in it, if the state board does not remove that stuff, they're violating copyright laws.

The board says they will remove all of the copyrighted text and their lawyers will re-write it.

That's right, lawyers. The final version of the new science standard will be written, not by scientists, but by lawyers.

Anybody who applauds the Kansas decision is applauding a curriculum that says science can include the supernatural, includes evolution-bashing lies, and will be finally written by fundamentalist Christian whackos and lawyers.



#48120: ekzept — 11/09  at  08:39 PM
I see this article was written by a Jew....as usual.
didn't know Darwin was Jewish. learn something new every day.



#48123: Federico Contreras — 11/09  at  08:58 PM

Wow...
[...] Don't actually attack the ideas behind ID. "argumentum ad hominem", which is a Latin term meaning "argument to the person".


What IDiots do is called "argumentum ad nauseam" which means, they will come back with the same tired old shit that they have been using to point out the "gaps" in evolution for the last 200 years.

Scientists have already debunked the claims of Intelligent Design Creationism, and of their "men of science".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wells_j/

No need to keep doing it. The watchmaker and tornado analogies were addressed long before I was born and even I know it. I am not a man of science, I am regular schmoe, and even I know this shit.

In other words, if you can't argue the facts


Intelligent Design Creationism has thus far produced no facts and there IS no THEORY of Intelligent Design, it is at best a completely unsupported hypothesis. How America can't see it is completely beyond me, and I thank my lucky stars every day that I live in Canada.


insult and ridicule those who hold the opposing viewpoint. So, as long as the randomly-firing neurons are telling your brain to keep making up these clever names, I'll insist instead that your mind -- yes, the one so damaged because of our ancestor Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden -- is merely supressing and reacting against the Truth you know of but can't -- won't dare? -- utter: there is a Creator God, and you will face His judgment someday.


If the shoe fits...

Anyway, creationists are ignorant morons. I want to make sure people do not lose sight of that fact. A bit like the crystal therapy / homeopathy and chiropractic wackos, only more dangerous, I never heard of any homeopath wanting their drivel taught in a secular, evidence-based institution of learning.

(haha, my submit word is agnostic)



#48124: ekzept — 11/09  at  08:59 PM
Voice of Reason, your shtick on a scientific examination of important events in formative christianity was an absolute blast. haven't laughed that hard in days.

oooooooh, i want to read a shtick on the Burning Bush of Moses..... wink



#48125: Ion — 11/09  at  09:00 PM
In response to all of this flurry about the state of science education:

I'm a senior chem major right now and I am a product of the first year of the Chemistry Department's overhaul of education. (That was just to give you twitchy buggers an idea of where I'm coming from) For my third year courseload, I was treated to a fully integrated program; my labs were together and everything. This was an attempt to escape Mickey Mouse chemistry. As a result, especially in the Inorganic class, the students became increasingly upset at the sheer volume of cute little approximations loaded into our brains. Now, all of this upset could have been avoided were it not for the obscene amount of bunk crammed into pre-college science education in America. That little model of chemical bonds being cute little sticks? Yeah, it makes learning bonding theory a lot harder.

I think it's time to look beyond this squabble, bite our thumbs at the IDealogues and perhaps start to seriously rethink science education as a whole. There is no reason that my entire third year has to be wasted trying to unlearn the crap drilled into me for the AP chemistry test. I think if we taught science in a less arbitrary manner(My high school, for example, could see no good way to organize the scientific subjects and so taught them alphabetically), we could begin to drive a wedge back between science and religion.

As an aside, in response to a really early comment (I expect page 1), the whiz kid scientists will be damaged if this whole mess actually comes to fruition, but not so damaged that we will permanently deter them. For example, my advisor, Dr. Frank Mallory is originally from Nebraska (which another poster mentioned as one of the nation's brain drains). Not just Nebraska, either, but Nebraska from the long ago and far away (as an indicator for his age, let's just say that he worked for and became friends with Linus Pauling). And yet, he has become a big-leaguer in synthetic/physical organic chemistry for his work on photo-catalyzed reactions. He got tenure before 30 for that work. I would say that his birthplace didn't impair him too too much.

Also, remember that in admissions to colleges, minorities have the advantage in a lot of cases. If you're a Kansan applicant with demonstrable aptitude in science, you'll get snapped up.



#48126: Federico Contreras — 11/09  at  09:04 PM
Voice of Reason, your shtick on a scientific examination of important events in formative christianity was an absolute blast. haven't laughed that hard in days.


+1



's avatar #48129: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  09:27 PM
In other words, if you can't argue the facts, insult and ridicule those who hold the opposing viewpoint.


Perhaps you could do me a favor, and go to the revised standards, look at the part that the ID supporters rewrote, and tell me where the facts are in it? This will further the sort of discussion I infer you're looking for.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#48145: — 11/09  at  10:22 PM
Why, thank you, and ekzept and Federico.

Somehow, it's not supposed to be "polite" to question the reasonableness of religious beliefs. That's nonsense. I believe is the duty of reasonable people to challenge the superstitious nonsense that people believe.

Fundamental religion has a corrosive effect on society. It teaches people blind obedience to dubious authority instead of thinking out for themselves their own values and beliefs.

George Bush supposedly won the red states because he was the more "moral" candidate. Moral? He lied to Congress and the people to start an unnecessary war and kill over 2000 Americans and over 50,000 from Iraq; he encourages torture; he has systematically gutted our environment and economy.

Moral? "By their fruits shall ye know them."



#48149: jay denari — 11/09  at  10:36 PM
an invisible sky fairy created them in its own image
too bad these putzes aren't as invisible and silent as their sky fairy!



#48154: — 11/09  at  11:06 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,


With all due respect, which is somewhat less than the respect I hold for the average mud-hut witch doctor, who simply doesn't know any better:

Your infliction of substandard schooling on the children of Kansas is nothing less than child abuse. You are blithering IDiots, and I look forward to watching the voters of Kansas bounce your stupid, pig-ignorant asses out of office at their earliest opportunity.

I only wish that H. L. Mencken were still alive to pillory you the way he did to the damned fools who persecuted John Scopes.

Sincerely,



John Randolph,
Cupertino, California.


The meaning of religious freedom, I fear, is sometimes greatly misapprehended. It is taken to be a sort of immunity, not merely from governmental control but also from public opinion. A dunderhead gets himself a long-tailed coat, rises behind the sacred desk, and emits such bilge as would gag a Hottentot. Is it to pass unchallenged? If so, then what we have is not religious freedom at all, but the most intolerable and outrageous variety of religious despotism. Any fool, once he is admitted to holy orders, becomes infallible. Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied to all the rest of us. - H. L. Mencken



#48155: — 11/09  at  11:08 PM
Just sent the message above to all the IDiots on the Kansas school board. It was satisfying.

-jcr



#48160: — 11/09  at  11:27 PM
Mr. Boyer,

Having some 25 years of experience in the computer industry, I can certainly refute your assertion that software developers have to be smart. I've met programmers who were all over the map as far as native abilities and/or ability to learn. The better ones prosper, the worst ones end up developing in-house Visual Basic apps until they get replaced by offshore outsourcing.

Come to think of it, it's very much a case of evolution in action.

-jcr



#48168: — 11/10  at  01:06 AM
I love, love, love when folks quote Darwin and the theory of evolution. Never accknowledging the fact that Darwin recanted his own theory later in life and embraced the theory of "inteligent design."



#48169: Federico Contreras — 11/10  at  01:37 AM
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Claim CG001:
Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed.
Source:
Enoch, H., 1916. Darwin's final recantation. Bombay Guardian, 25 March 1916, quoted at http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0724_Darwins_Final_Recant.html
Response:

1. The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).

2. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

Links:
Greig, Russell, 1996. Did Darwin recant? Creation 18(1): 36-37. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp

Yates, Simon, 1994. The Lady Hope story: A widespread falsehood. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
References:

1. Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.
2. Yates, Simon, 1994. (see above)

Further Reading:
Clark, Ronald W., 1984. The Survival of Charles Darwin: A biography of a man and an idea. New York: Random House.



#48170: Federico Contreras — 11/10  at  01:39 AM
Oh, just in case anyone didn't notice, I just pwned Bob "hillbilly" Smith here.



#48171: — 11/10  at  02:02 AM

#48168: Bob Smith — 11/10 at 01:06 AM
I love, love, love when folks quote Darwin and the theory of evolution. Never accknowledging the fact that Darwin recanted his own theory later in life and embraced the theory of "inteligent (sic) design."

Mr. Smith:

Your post betrays your assumptions. Unlike religionists, scientists do not "quote Darwin" as an authority, or "quote the theory of evolution" as an unprovable dogma, but over time have tested evolution against observation and fact and have confirmed the theory to the point that it is demonstrably true to the overwhelming majority of thinking people.

Why do you believe your god is so limited that he could not have created life through the mechanism of evolution?



#48173: — 11/10  at  03:01 AM
Gee, that's great! When can I enrol in the Kansas - Harry Potter memorial school for wizards?



#48188: — 11/10  at  06:47 AM
Scopes wasn't persecuted, only prosecuted. He sought the lawsuit.



#48189: Orac — 11/10  at  06:55 AM
The claim that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is of a piece of similar myths about Pasteur promulgated by his foes. It was claimed that Pasteur said on his deathbed: "The bacteria are nothing. The soil is everything," supposedly acceding that one of his rivals, Beauchamps, was correct. The problem, of course, is that Pasteur never said it.

Deathbed "confessions" are convenient rumors, because, in general, they are hard to refute. The person is dead, and usually there are few, if any witnesses, to refute such nonsense.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#48193: — 11/10  at  08:08 AM
"Darwin recanted his own theory later in life and embraced the theory of "inteligent design." "

Theists - try to remember - WE don't believe in lies like you do. Stop using them.



Trackback: Intelligent Design Now Taught In Kansas Tracked on: Business Logs (65.98.70.58) at 2005 11 10 09:50:07
On Tuesday, the Board of Education in Kansas voted 6-4 in favor of discussing the "flaws" in evolutionary theory to students. This means that Intelligent Design, which is the theory that the universe is too complex and a higher power...



#48204: — 11/10  at  09:55 AM
Deathbed recantation lies and the lying liars who lie them. Wonderful. I'll say this again: Recantations don't matter. Evidence does. Darwin wasn't a high priest. The Origin of Species wasn't a holy book. Darwin is pretty much irrelevant to the theory of evolution: All that matters is the evidence. Darwin was just one of the first to put 2 and 2 together. The evidence piles up every day in favor of evolution.

There sure is a lot of name calling but no direct attack of ID or its claims. Just a lot of "every credible scientist thinks" type statements. I am sure most of the posts here would have burned previous scientist who made generally unaccepted claims " by every credible scientist". As a observer if you cover up the word "Darwin" you would think religous nuts were posting the comments.

From someone who obviously doesn't read the comments he talks about. The evidence says evolution is right.

It's also a straw man: The fact that the majority of scientists agree on evolution is a refutation of the imaginary conflict IDers claim is going on within the scientific community. It's not stated as proof of evolution.

I <Bold>HATE</bold> people who resort to propaganda techniques like the above.



#48206: — 11/10  at  10:05 AM
And, of course, there's no theory of ID to attack: They have no testable hypothesis. The closest they have is a negative claim: "Unintelligent nature can't do this."

First, it's been falsified quite a lot: Artificial life programs designed to mimick evolution can evolve irreducibly complex features. Also, the fact that we can, with a little imagination, think of ways nature could have done things (i.e. form hypotheses about details) undermines the negative claim.

Second, even if we couldn't falsify the claim, it means nothing: All it means is that we don't know how it happened. It doesn't mean anything was designed. All it is is an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination.

Intelligent Design is just repeating the same flawed arguments theologists have been making for millenia. When I was still a theist, I was very frustrated by this sloth.



#48208: — 11/10  at  10:22 AM
"The problem, of course, is that Pasteur never said it."

The problem is mainly that the bacteria aren't nothing and the soil is. Same with evolution and Darwin.



#48210: ekzept — 11/10  at  10:28 AM
creationists and IDers really ought to get more familiar with the compendium of creationist claims at TalkOrigins. they are so repetitious.



#48212: ekzept — 11/10  at  10:30 AM
hey, that's what we need: evolution on stage.



#48214: — 11/10  at  11:05 AM
#48168: Bob Smith — 11/10  at  01:06 AM
I love, love, love when folks quote Darwin and the theory of evolution. Never accknowledging the fact that Darwin recanted his own theory later in life and embraced the theory of "inteligent design."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better check your butt for 3rd degree burns from those flaming pants. Oh well, you can get lots of skin for the grafts from your newly enlarged nose...



#48220: Federico Contreras — 11/10  at  11:23 AM
Better check your butt for 3rd degree burns from those flaming pants. Oh well, you can get lots of skin for the grafts from your newly enlarged nose...


This is gold man, pure money lol. And yes, I hope he was wearing his asbestos underpants.



#48234: — 11/10  at  12:44 PM
Jeffrey Harmison: A "few little unconnected bone fragments" is a lot more evidence than ID proponents have produced...



#48238: Orac — 11/10  at  01:30 PM
Ginger,

I was referring to the problem with IDiots' claim that Darwin "recanted" on his deathbed. The problem with such claims is, in fact, that they are false and that Pasteur never said any such thing.

You are correct that the bacteria obviously "aren't nothing"; however it is not entirely true that the "soil" is "nothing." Poor health and poor nutrition do provide better "soil" for bacteria and viruses. However, the problem is that alties mess with the concept of the "soil." They like to claim vaccination isn't necessary, that you can avoid disease by eating the right things, by "boosting your immune system" by various means or taking various concoctions (whatever they mean by that--they rarely even try to define what parameters of the immune system they claim to be boosting). Obviously, maximizing your basal state of health makes you more able to withstand infection to some extent for some infectious diseases, but not for most. For example, no degree of "immune system boosting" would have prevented the Spanish Flu from being rapidly passed from person to person among young, Army recruits in peak physical condition, as it was in Kansas in 1918. Withing two days after the first two recruits with fevers of 103 F and flu symptoms reported to the infirmary, over 500 recruits had fallen ill. Worse, the Spanish Flu killed approximately 1/3 of those it infected, many in their 20's and early 30's.

No amount of "fixing the soil," as alties put it will stop a determined microbe from causing disease.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#48242: — 11/10  at  01:44 PM
Please, please stop equating the decision of our wingnut-controlled state board of education with the average Kansan's opinions on the matter. Just because the board made this idiotic decision doesn't automatically make everyone else in the state or the state itself stupid and backward. If it did, California has a lot of explaining to do about its choice for governor.

And the state isn't full of these wingnuts. Our state actually has three parties: Democrat, Republican and wingnut Republican. The first two actually work together, the last one just bloviates and grandstands. There's even a newly formed PAC with the sole goal of removing these wingnuts from the board in the next election.



#48247: — 11/10  at  02:08 PM
I've avoided making generalities based on location, probably because I'm in one of those locations. *shudder* More specifically, the one that W used to get a step closer to the Whitehouse. *double shudder*.



#48249: Jeff Croft — 11/10  at  02:16 PM
I have been a Kansas resident most of my life. I'm an agnostic liberal who believes strongly in the scientific process and the theory of evolution.

With that full disclosure out of the way, I find it incredibly childish and sort of pathetic to find things like, "The state of toothless hicks" and other insults tossed at my state over an admittedly embarrassing episode like this. I'm not proud of what my state has done here, but I also fully enjoy living in Kansas, and find most people I come across here to be bright, rational, and fully-teethed.

Here's what you may not know about this state: Eastern Kansas (where I live) is fairly urban and suburban. We've got Kansas City, Olathe, Overland Park, Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita, and a few others. All of the significant cities in this state on on it's Eastern third. This is generally considered the more liberal part of the state. It's also thought to be the more educated part of the state, simply because the school systems, especially in the KC area, have won countless awards. In the western two thirds, you've got farms. Lots of them. Rural America. Hicks, if you prefer to use a derogatory term. Lots of them.

Those of us in Eastern Kansas spend much of our lives trying to make people understand that the simple fact that we are from Kansas does not mean we're farmers and hicks. I, for example, have spent almost my entire life (until the past year) in fairly large cities -- in Kansas. Yes, we've got decent sized cities here. We're not all hicks, people.

If you look at the votes above, you'll find a clear separation between the two sides of the state. All four "enlightened" votes are from Eastern Kansas (KC, Wichita, Topeka, and Shawnee). Five of the six "ignorant" votes are from the more rural parts of Kansas (Clay Center, Hutchinson, St. Francis, Arkansas City, and Thayer). The lone exception, sadly, is the vote from my hometown, Olathe, which is a Kansas City suburb and voted "ignorant."

But, by and large, you can see that the vote is a perfect example of the way this state is laid out. There are smart and educated people here -- we're just outnumbered. This state really is like a tale of two cities. There aren't a lot of extreme liberals here, but the vast majority of Eastern Kansans are upper-middle class folks who are educated, moderate, tolerant, and rational. I don't know too many Western Kansans, so I hesitate to call them ignorant, but there's no doubt their values are different than mine -- and I think it's unfortunate there are more of them than there are of me.

My point is all this is to let you all know that there ARE Kansans who are embarrassed by this whole ordeal. And we don't take very lightly to your toothless hick jokes, either. I'm sure you don't agree with every single value your state has chosen to adopt, and yet I don't generalize about you, do I? I've got no problem with you all putting down the state itself for making a stupid decision -- but when you start tossing names at ALL of the state's residents, you're just being offensive, and frankly, making yourself look just as ignorant and intolerant as the hick stereotype you're playing off.



#48250: — 11/10  at  02:18 PM
A dimension of the ID vs. Darwin phenom that doesn't get mentioned too often is that there is a centuries-old tradition of Biblical scholarship that has been conducted in public universities and seminaries of main-line denominations. The impetus behind the ID movement comes out of evangelical groups who reject Biblical scholarship and have set up there own seminaries that teach their own alternative evangelical Bible "scholarship." Anybody see a pattern here?



#48258: — 11/10  at  02:41 PM



#48259: — 11/10  at  02:42 PM
That comment from Harmison was sarcasm, right?
Having spent 9 years studying geology and getting my PhD in same, I can tell you there are a hell of a lot more than a 'few unconnected little bone fragments' to support evolutionary science. For an easy to understand, entertaining look into some of the REAL science that supports evolution in many many ways, I suggest 'Science of the Discworld II' by Terry Pratchett and a couple of scientists whose names elude me. Written as a mix of layman's language science and interludes of Discworld magicians studying in high speed the evolution of a world, it'll give you some nice chuckles as well as show you how all sorts of different fields support evolution...

I absolutely pity people who somehow thing evolution is fake and claim it is opposed to religion...As I always try to say, science is the car mechanic that fixes your car, not the shiny brochure that tells you about the company that built it, but the two CAN coexist.



#48264: — 11/10  at  02:52 PM
To ajmiline.....the Adams allusion\edit....too funny...and sadly the only way I can approach this "debate" anymore. Have to laugh or you'll end up crying.

Darwin's radical ideas...right out there with other crazy theories like gravity and relativity....and of course we must put Darwin in his correct place with other heretical demons like Einstein, Copernicus....and lets stick to more theologically comfortable worldviews like a Ptolemaic cosmos and the good old flat Earth.....because the idea of a spherical planet is "just too complex" for my limited, although divinely created, mind to understand and therefore must not be true.


Jefferey H......apparently a fan of the dark ages....well there's good news for ya Jeffy boy... there is now an entire state that shares your worldview ( or lack there of)....move there and bring all your fundi friends.

The rest of the world coninues to exist even if the cranially implanted osterich can not or will not see it



#48270: ekzept — 11/10  at  03:09 PM
regarding demographics of Kansas, a similar splitup can be found in many big states, New York included. there are some pretty scary nooks and crannies in New York, including one not too far from Cornell University in Ithaca. (Ithaca considers itself liberal and cosmopolitan but really isn't.) Texas big cities, including Houston, have strong progressive elements. the dynamic cited about Kansas politics and the dynamic involved in Red vs Blue states in presidential elections are in part consequences of the stability of stratified hierarchies, something which pertains to physical and biological systems. it has oft been cited, illustrated by Herbert Simon in his parable of the watchmakers:
Tempus and Hora make watches of equal quality, prized by their customers. Tempus assembles his watches as a single assembly. Hora builds his up out of many sub-assemblies. Customers often stopped by their shop, seeking attention and interrupting their work. Hora prospered while Tempus got poorer and poorer, always have more work to do than he could manage. Why?

When Tempus began a watch, when he was interrupted, it fell apart. When he returned he needed to begin again. Hora, on the other hand, was interrupted just as often, but when he was, his most recent watch fell apart into its next layer of constituent subassemblies. Hora could then continue the construction until the next interruption.
(paraphrased from "The Architecture of Complexity" in The Sciences of the Artificial)

the analogy with evolution is reasonably clear. Simon makes it clearer in his article. because we don't vote as a single public for president, what matters is winning the districts. this is more stable in the sense of not permitting too rapid change, but it is also subject to manipulation and possible to do so. similarly, people on state boards can control them if there is a concerted effort to win over enough districts or counties.

the problem isn't only demographic by political views. people who live in rural areas have more free time as a proportion of their workweek. this might be because their wives don't hold classic jobs or it might be because they are semi-retired. the pattern is well known. people who are dedicated to Christian-based radicalism believe there is no higher calling, so they show up at each and every board meeting, whether or not they'd prefer to do something else, whether or not little Jane has a softball game. by simply showing up, they become a common face. by asking questions, they influence policy. eventually they come to understand the movements and local politics, and some day they run for a position on the board.

progressives tend to have rich other lives. for them, there's never enough time to do everything. for Christian radicals and throwbacks, it's all they've got. both people have the same vote.

the problem with state boards is that they do have representation by county, instead of being elected state wide. this political problem is as old as the choice of numbers of votes per state allowed in Congress, the compromise producing the Senate and House of Representatives as we have them.

i think it affects, too, the online world. i have only a little tangible evidence, resulting from tracking some of the creationist loonies who show up on boards like this by IP address. but they seem to go out to rile people up, primarily to waste their time. it's what gets 'em off. it's pure Dostoyevskii where he suggests that even in a utopia people would stick pins into their neighbor for the sheer pleasure of seeing them squirm.



Trackback: This is 2005? Tracked on: brilliantdays.com (205.196.210.14) at 2005 11 10 15:30:42
And in the world's leading nation this happen? Unbelievable....



#48282: — 11/10  at  03:37 PM
Evolution is a theory. So is God.



#48292: — 11/10  at  03:59 PM
Having a few little unconnected bone fragments would indeed be weak evidence. However, studying extensive collections of both fossil and extant species, in conjunction with massive amounts of experimental DNA and phenotypic data, is another thing entirely.

Of course, none of the scientific literature that has taken evolutionary approaches to medicine, agriculture, microbiology, or ecology must be any good. I mean, Michael Behe said so in court, without even admitting to reading the stuff.



#48303: — 11/10  at  04:38 PM
My guess is that some of these same "scientific-minded" ID supporters are skeptcial about global warming, homosexuality being biological, and the possible outbreak of a new pandemic flu since they follow the logic of "evolutionary changes". In fact, we should do nothing but prepare for medical disasters since there is nothing we can do to create a drug to combat when a new disease will spontaneously form (see Bush's speech on $7.1 billion program to "help prepare US" for outbreak - not a word on funding R&D into prevention or studying root cause - coincidence that Bush supports ID?).

Snideness aside, the Kansas school board unfortunately typifies the lack of accountability so prevalent in many school boards. Remember Ebonics? In many ways, they are more powerful than the local mayor or city council or county supervisor since their districts can be larger, have a larger budget, fewer elected officials, and have less oversight and public accountability than other governmental agencies. This form of "shadow" government has very few checks and balances in place such as our more recognized political system has and needs to be revisited nationally if we truly want to overhaul and improve our educational system. This school board can essentially ruin the economic viability of a region by driving away parents and students who want to avoid this type of situation and undercutting whatever economic development plans a mayor or city council may have since no one wants to live in their town/city. How many people want to live in a good school district versus a bad one? And, when the school board screws up, what recourse does the public have except wait until the next election or petition the school district to recall the school board? Not only should school board members be impeachable, but district superintendents should be an elected position accountable to the community as well.



#48351: Dean Andrew — 11/10  at  11:02 PM
Well, to quote Helen Lovejoy of The Simpsons:

Won't somebody please think of the children?



#48547: Tyler Pro — 11/13  at  01:09 PM
For all of you missunderstood about Kansas, let me clear a few things up. I/my fellow piers been tought that it is our opinion about evolution or creationism. They cannot make us believe anything withot any real evidence, and we don't. So, because Kansas is taking a BIG risk, you think we'll be stupid. Well, that is stupid. We here about all of this creationism and evolution stuff at home anyway. So, I will completely agree with your misguided statement once you prove that evolution is correct. They are letting us decide. They just chose to include creationism, as a choice. I hate how Kansans are being portrayed. The fact that they let us choose makes us smarter.



#48550: — 11/13  at  01:53 PM
For all of you missunderstood about Kansas, let me clear a few things up. I/my fellow piers been tought that it is our opinion about evolution or creationism. They cannot make us believe anything withot any real evidence, and we don't. So, because Kansas is taking a BIG risk, you think we'll be stupid. Well, that is stupid. We here about all of this creationism and evolution stuff at home anyway. So, I will completely agree with your misguided statement once you prove that evolution is correct. They are letting us decide. They just chose to include creationism, as a choice. I hate how Kansans are being portrayed. The fact that they let us choose makes us smarter.


Christ. Where to begin.

Ok, first of all, science is not in the business of proving anything. It deals with explaining. The theory of evolution is explains the fact of evolution, like the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.
Now, the fact of evolution is documented through a number of things, including the fossil record, and the observation of evolution going on. All of these things are described at great length at talkorigins.org.

Second of all, it's not a matter of simple choice between two equal sets of ideas. One idea, the Theory of Evolution, is foundated in facts and scientific research, while the other, Intellgient Design Creationism, is based upon misundestandings, quote-mining and as far as we can tell, absolutely no scientific research.
This is like saying that medicine should be taught on equal level with faith healing.

Third of all, science classes is not about what you feel sounds plausible, or what you choose. If I choose two plus two equals five, then I am not operating within the filed of mathematics, no matter how many schoolboards, lawyers etc. I get to endorse my views.
Science classes should teach science, not anti-science.



#48552: Tyler Pro — 11/13  at  03:22 PM
I'm sorry that you think that ones opinion doesn't matter in an opinionated subject. Sure, they have some POSSIBLE evidence , but none that can be used to make it the explanation. There were Possible witnesses seeing Jesus doing unexplanable things. But that is what this is. Unexplanable. You can prove 2 + 2, but you cannot prove evolution completly.



#48553: Tyler Pro — 11/13  at  03:23 PM
I'm sorry that you think that ones opinion doesn't matter in an opinionated subject. Sure, they have some POSSIBLE evidence , but none that can be used to make <i>it<i> the explaination. There were Possible witnesses seeing Jesus doing unexplainable things. But that is what this is. Unexplainable. You can prove 2 + 2, but you cannot prove evolution completly.



#48554: — 11/13  at  03:36 PM
What makes the whole subject of such interest to me is that radically different interpretaions can be placed on the same data. I think that's why the subject is such an emotive one. Its one thing to disagree with evolution because you say the world was created in 7 days, and it is an entirely different thing to question whether the materialist view on the forces that have acted on the biosphere for the last 3-4 billion years have been accurately identified. Or for that matter to assume the basic laws that govern the universe are understood well enough to draw the conclusions that new-Darwinists draw.

I recently threw away 25 books on complexity theory that all had one common theme: there is more going on in the universe than we understand at present.

To me, it is premature to conclude what is and is not 'possible' as far as evolution is concerned. I think a great deal more understanding of the nature of genotype and phenotype space is required before any concrete conclusions can be drawn. It seems that so much of the evidence is 'interpreted' to mean something prematurely.



#48556: Mike — 11/13  at  06:51 PM
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884)

Where were the voters of Kansas when the current board was elected? Has anyone checked out the page with bio information on the elected members?

<snip>
Mrs. Kathy Martin

Kathy belongs to Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Clay Center.

Mr. Kenneth Willard

He is active in his church, and school and community organizations.

Mr. John W. Bacon

John earned his Bachelor's degree in accounting from Mid- America Nazarene University in 1985 and is now self-employed as a certified public accountant.

Mrs. Iris Van Meter

Iris graduated from Kentucky Mountain Bible College in 1956 with a degree in Christian Education. She worked in broadcasting for several years as a radio announcer and control operator. Iris was a minister's wife for over 30 years and held many offices in the church and community.
She has been a Republican precinct committeewoman in Neosho County for several years and has been an active supporter of the Republican Party.

Mrs. Connie Morris

Her autobiography, From the Darkness: One Woman’s Rise to Nobility, has been published by Huntington House Publishers. The book is Connie’s story of recovery through Christ from incest, rape, domestic violence, substance abuse, and poverty during her early years in the Appalachian Mountains region.

Dr. Steve E. Abrams

He is a former board member of Family Life Services and is a member of First Baptist Church in Arkansas City.

</snip>

How does that quote go? Fool me once ...

We all need to pay closer attention to, and take an active role in the democratic process at all levels if we don't want to make public schools an extension of religious institutions.Keep it where it belongs, thanks.



#48560: — 11/13  at  09:50 PM
If the argument is to be that you can only teach things in school that are COMPLETELY able to be proven, then the school day is going to get a lot shorter. You certainly would get very little biblical content in apart from the historical parts about populations of hittites and canaanites and whatnot fighting it out, since all we know about 'Jesus' is heresay from a few authors of the time.

Why do we really teach things in school? Isn't it to prepare people to at least slightly understand the world in which they live? Is it really important for most people to know ANYTHING about evolution? Probably not, just like most people don't need to know anything about Bragg's Law, and most people don't need to know anything about thermodynamics to live their lives.

But it is taught, because it provides an basis for understanding things that do affect us, one way or another. Understanding some of the mechanisms of evolution informs much of modern medicine. It is the reason that even now people are able to create synthetic viruses that may be used within the next decade to deliver specific medicine payloads to targets in the body to destroy cancer. It is the reason we can test drugs or surgical procedures on non-human animals first to see if there are major problems before we blindly try them on humans. (And my apologies to all the animal lovers out there, but it still happens.)

Nobody teaches evolution because it in any way 'disproves' religion, or because they want to feel smug about having 'evolved' from a bacteria. Some bacteria are astoundingly well adapted to do what they do, certainly moreso than many humans. To get upset that we could possibly share genetic material with a monkey or even the bacterium is to slight the monkey and the bacterium, and highly arrogant.

'God created man in his image.' Well, when was the last time you saw God? Do you really really believe that refers merely to physical appearance? I don't. We all look different physically, and we certainly all seem to differ mentally, which to me suggests that God's 'image' is either highly variable, or that it refers more to our aptitude for grace. We have it within us to be divinely forgiving, thoughtful, generous, loving, and a host of other potentials for goodness.

To throw aside rational thought (A gift from God, no?) for blind faith to some other human being's interpretation of the meaning of words written almost 2000 years ago in another language is to deny the strongest channel to God you possess. God wants you to quest to understand the workings of the universe, to see how His creations work and to take joy in the infinite complexities of them. He wouldn't have needed to give you free will and a brain if all He wanted you to do was blaspheme His works by pretending that ignorance of the universe was the goal of humanity.

As a trained scientist, it is my joy to figure out each new facet of the universe. As an ordained minister it is my joy to see the wondrous complexity that He has provided for us. To deny that evolution exists because you personally don't have the years of training to understand all the supporting evidence, or to listen to other people who proclaim to know it to be false without such training is blasphemously close to proclaiming that God would be powerless to create a universe in which such a complex process could occur.

He is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end...but He has created the middle for you to explore, not for you to bury your head in the sand and ignore His works.

Rev. Dr. E S Bloodaxe, ULC



's avatar #48587: — 11/14  at  04:37 AM
In Kansas, the dam was broken and now we see many underground creationists surfacing. Even the Wall has taken note of the phenomenon.

"(From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) By Daniel Golden AMES, Iowa -- With a magician's flourish, Thomas Ingebritsen pulled six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one component -- either the spring, hammer or holding bar -- from each mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap. "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University molecular biologist asked the class. "Yes, definitely," said Jason Mueller, a junior biochemistry major wearing a cross around his neck. That's the answer Mr. Ingebritsen was looking for. He was using the mousetrap to support the antievolution doctrine known as intelligent design. Like a mousetrap, the associate professor suggested, living cells are "irreducibly complex" -- they can't fulfill their functions without all of their parts. Hence, they could not have evolved bit by bit through natural selection but must have been devised by a creator. "This is the closest to a science class on campus where anybody's going to talk about intelligent design," the fatherly looking associate professor told his class. "At least for now."

"Overshadowed by attacks on evolution in high-school science curricula, intelligent design is gaining a precarious and hotly contested foothold in American higher education. Intelligent-design courses have cropped up at the state universities of Minnesota, Georgia and New Mexico, as well as Iowa State, and at private institutions such as Wake Forest and Carnegie Mellon. Most of the courses, like Mr. Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit. Many colleges have also hosted lectures by advocates of the doctrine."


And doctrine it is. And if noted by the Wall, it must have some potential effect on the market. BTW, I repeated the mouse trap experiment and came out petty convinced that it must have been designed. The problem is that no one ever seem to have said that the mousetrap is a product of natural evolution. Presumably, the mousetrap thing must prove something, but certainly NOT that living organisms were designed. They must have confused something.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#48696: — 11/14  at  06:29 PM
From where I sit, it seems like the layman doesn't understand science at all. Science is self-correcting. Scientists police themselves. Throughout history there have been thousands of incorrect scientific beliefs and postulations and yes, even theories, and scientists (as a population) questioned all of them. For instance, in the beginning earth was the center of the universe, (balanced on top of a turtle), then observations and calculations showed that the earth revolved around the sun. Then the Sun became the center of the universe. More observation and we found that we spun in an indistinct arm of an unremarkable (except for the fact that we live in it) galaxy, and it was just one of billions of other galaxies. So we don't go around teaching the earthcentric point of view as an alternative to the Big Bang. At most, it is a footnote to see how far we have progressed.

Scientists are just like any other person, they have their own ideas and beliefs that they cling to. But when confronted with enough evidence and facts, most scientists are open minded enough to change their viewpoint. They simple don't respond to "There isn't enough evidence to prove A, therefore B is true"

We are NOT frightened of having an opposing "theory" or that we will be proven wrong. But we are frightened of unqualified individuals (Kansas BOE) telling us how to teach science. Going through the school board is not how new science should get into classrooms. New science should first go through scientists. It is tested, evaluated, written about, argued over, peer reviewed, scrutinized, examined, and then if it is generally accepted, it is considered for inclusion in school textbooks. Maybe it is not accepted as absolute fact, but at least accepted as a valid idea that students can be taught about (think string theory). Someone else made this point, but high school isn't necessarily the place for new out of the box ideas, but a place for laying the foundation of basic knowledge. I know there have been countless examples of highschoolers coming up with great idea, papers, experiments and projects, but I'm just generallizing.

Next week I'm proposing the idea that I, Ed, created all life. And I think that it should be met with an open mind, and it should be taught in high school biology classes. Before you scoff, remember, I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!



#48698: — 11/14  at  06:43 PM
As a resident of Kansas I have to tell you all that my state being seen as the "Original birthplace of toothless hicks" is very upsetting and degrading.

I am in no way a hick and I'm not sure I even know anybody who would fall into that category. I believe there are many places in the world that fit that description much better than Kansas but unfortunately those who do not know anything about the state will say that it is true.

Unfortunately the school board did vote for the teaching of intelligent design, but evolution is still being taught thankfully. I believe that this will HOPEFULLY give students a view of both sides of the theory. It's unfortunate that just because a school board decision the entire state is now being ridiculed.

People need to open their eyes to the fact that there are "toothless hicks" everyone...MAYBE EVEN IN THEIR OWN STATE



#48762: — 11/15  at  08:17 AM
that this will HOPEFULLY give students a view of both sides of the theory.

Thats the problem. Theres arent two sides to the theory of Evolution. Theres whats true (evolution) and what is total garbage (ID). Kansas isnt spear heading some great academic debate it redefined science so it can waste class time on superstition.

Stop acting like toothless hicks and maybe youll stop being categorized as such.



#48812: — 11/15  at  10:36 AM
I'm not defending the school board decision, I think it's ridiculous but most science teachers EVERYWHERE put their own beliefs into their teachings so it's nothing new it's only been put in writing this time unfortunately. You could visit a classroom in Kansas, or California, or New York and I'm sure somewhere in all of these places there would be at least one teacher preaching how evolution is wrong and leaning towards Intelligent Design. It happens EVERYWHERE and it's not fair that Kansas gets the heat for this just because a couple of conservatives on the BOE pass something like this. I could see it happening everywhere, especially in the deep south (Oh wait do they even have curriculums? my mistake...)

And Lya...I'm sure there are toothless hicks where you live too. Where you are from is no better then where I am from so open your eyes and take a good look around you.



#48964: — 11/15  at  04:35 PM
Does no good to protest. The vast majority of American's believe in ghosts, aliens and things that go bump in the night. They've seen it on TV!! I give mankind another hundred years, at best, before technology and religious fanatics merge to create some devastating virus to help every living innocent being move on to the next life.



#49039: Pavel Kabrt — 11/16  at  01:59 AM
Greetings from Pavel living in Prague to Kristine Harley!
I was surprised by your idea to label medicines and treatmens with the sticker "This product was brought to you by the theory of evolution." I acknowledge to live in a "third world country", perhaps that´s why here are all medicines and smart products produced by professionals, people who first have had to study hard and then to use their intelligence to come up later with whatever product (medicine, mechine etc.) on the market. I wonder, if in the USA the medicines and other products are produced by evolutionary processes or thanks to those who believe in them - without any inteligence whatsoever! - oh, perhaps you know better. Is it really so, that inteligence plays no part in producing such things in the USA? But in our country such a sticker would be an obvious lie (better say: evolutionist´s trick). With regards
Pavel Kabrt



#49048: — 11/16  at  03:59 AM
Well it is amusing that in the 21st Century, you still have ignorant fools who believe that science is hogwash. Yeah right some being popped down and behold man was created...damn that's so naive. Science is the only discipline where our peers check, control and critze our theories, not like religon where one is dictated and not allowed to question the origin...



#49065: — 11/16  at  07:39 AM
“And Lya...I'm sure there are toothless hicks where you live too. Where you are from is no better then where I am from so open your eyes and take a good look around you. “

On that point I will not argue, there are toothless hicks everywhere. All I’m saying is, I’m ever increasingly proud to live in a “blue” state – where nonsence like this hasn’t (yet) happened.



These slack jawed morons claiming evolution isn't fact always make me laugh. They point to imagined problems in the theory and then claim to have all the answers in a book written centuries ago by no one knows who that clearly cannibalized myths from older civilization. Pathetic.

But, I say let them make their kids stupid. McDonald's always need a night crew.



Trackback: "Ignorant" is the new "Educated" Tracked on: Neural Gourmet (207.44.240.10) at 2005 11 17 14:27:57
Having been rather busy lately I haven’t commented yet on Kansas’ decision to legislate Intelligent Design into the science classroom. What is there really for a thinking person to say on this subject? I mean, other than "Nice job, morons



#49557: — 11/18  at  08:09 AM
Religious myths are not theories. I have not heard or read any credible scientist or other proponent of evolution claim any absolutes about their views. Obviously it would be un-scientific to do so. As with all other sciences, biology is (or should be at least) evolving. New discoveries and testable, provable theories are not being challenged here. If any of you who are here to dis' evolution can back up your position with any facts, proof or even a credible arguement against any of the generally accepted, proven, facts that support it. Please do so or shut up. Until then, I'm afraid you will continue to suffer the name calling.



#49561: — 11/18  at  08:17 AM
Gene - BINGO!



#49568: — 11/18  at  08:54 AM
“The fear demonstrated by many evolutionists is remarkable, in not wanting opposing views taught.“

OOOH! I'm scared! Please.

Bring your 'evidence' toe to toe with the tested, proven scientific facts of evolutionary biology why don'tcha? I dare you!

Seems to me like the "opposing views" of creationists are very similar to the "opposing views" of Fox News. "Balancing" the truth with total bullshit.

And another thing, drop the "evolutionists" label. It's stupid and insulting and yet another sign that you just don't get it and never will.



#49576: — 11/18  at  09:20 AM
Pavel:

I think something was lost in translation. When Kristine was talking about labeling drugs, she wasn't in any way saying the drugs themselves evolved in a Darwinian fashion. Quite clearly the drugs were made by intelligent human beings. What she was saying was that they were able to design drugs for specific chemical and biological actions based upon knowledge of biological systems in both humans and other animals, as well as bacterial and viral agents that was discovered because those people used methods based upon their knowledge of evolution. You can't design an effective antiviral drug quickly, unless you understand how the virus mutates and changes its surface protein configurations to fool the body.

And speaking of evolution, there is a prime example - pretty much the entire world is worried right now about the probability of an avian flu virus evolving to the point where it can not only infect humans, but can be spread from human to human and kill millions of us. Despite the president of the United States supporting ID, he's planning to spend billions of dollars because he realizes that that specific piece of evolution is highly likely to occur within a year or two. Whether or not you believe in (certain mechanisms of) evolution, evolution is poised and ready to try to kill you.



#49662: Pavel Kabrt — 11/18  at  02:27 PM
Dear E Bloodaxe:
Sorry for my poor English, but inspite of it I caught the Kristine´s point - I think/hope. But the very transparent problem with evolution is this: changing of an organism or nonliving system is not what evolutionists should again and again use as the proof for their faith, as you do as well.
What is necessary is to clearly show up, that an open system can be and actually is gradually, during years, evolving itself up, being step by step more complex. We have to, we must observe this trend during our lifetime in many areas of nature, not just a change!! We (and mankind) should have been observing this tendency or ability of the matter around us even in a short time! And this proof is profoundly (sorry for saying: ludicrously) missing - just the opposite we observe around us in labs and outer terrain as well - things going down (that´s why we have so much to study and then struggle to push things to be as we like them to be by help of our know-how and intelligently directed power - for ex. to produce useful medicaments). Much worse it is with evolutionary perspective, in fact we have to maintain things not to be worse and worse by itself.

Evolutionists use computer animations, bacteria resistence, aids, avian flu virus mutating and threatening to kill us to convice us - you really think these are good proofs to believe that dead matter became spontaneously alive time ago, blind bacteria got eyes and evolved to fish and later to a human?? You think it is a good enough proof that a house can build itself up from a rubble just because it has spontaneously fallen down into that rubble?

Very often I give evolutionists this question, until now nobody answered it: tell me an example, where have you been for 10 years observing something evolving up to more and more complex system without being built in it a programme or being it supervised by intelligence? In chemistry, physics and wherever. And if you do not have an example in 10 years time interval, you are not just to force students to believe it ever happened and to make an excuse "oh, it needs millions of years, not ten years". If the tendency of the bacteria/virus or unliving matter around us is not up and up and up, but down and down and down in our lifetime, why should I believe it was different in the past? Best regard,
Pavel



#49686: D Chan — 11/18  at  03:36 PM
"Vatican Official Rufutes Intelligent Design.
Vatican's Chief Astronomer Says Intelligent Design Doesn't Belong in Science Class"

Read the story at: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1326070&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

So, now what does the Kansas BOE do?



#49724: — 11/18  at  07:35 PM
Questions for creationists intelligent designists:

1. Precisely WHY do you believe your "intelligent designer" could not have worked through the mechanism of evolution?

2. If some "intelligent designer" created life, precisely HOW was this done? I don't mean "he did it in 7 days." I mean what was the MECHANISM? Example: He (she, it, they) spoke the words "let there be life" which caused molecules to vibrate in such a way as to form DNA...(etc.). THEN, how do you propose to TEST this hypothesis against observable FACTS? And what PREDICTIONS can you make about events that will occur in the future?

The theory and fact of evolution comes complete with proven mechanisms that conform to observable facts, and has been shown over and over again to predict future events. In other words, it works.

We await your answers. Intelligent people want to know!



#49747: — 11/18  at  10:58 PM
I see someone hasn't heard of Xylitol metabolism.

Or, oh, Nylon-eating bacteria.



#49766: Pavel Kabrt — 11/19  at  05:21 AM
Can we scientificly prove and test that pyramids were built by forces co-working with intelligent design? No, we have no such instrument over all the fields of natural sciences to prove it. Look on Giant's Causeway, rocky promontory on the northern coast of Northern Ireland. It consists of thousands of polygonal columns of basalt, a formation known as columnar jointing, ranging to more than 6 m (20 ft) in height. It is thought by geologists to have formed when an ancient lava flow cooled and solidified. Its name is derived from a local legend that the formation was built by giants as part of a roadway to Scotland. (Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia.) And here lies the crucial point of misunderstanding between those believing in intelligent agent (which must have been) co-working on highly organised structures coming from past - regardless of being made of stones or chemical elements and those who deny it. Funny is, that those who deny ID wilfully accept some cases where intelligence must have been present in the past (like pyramids and all artifacts) - only where they like it or want it by their feelings, not out of scientific proof.

Next to the pyramid goes a camel. His body consists of the same dead elements and compounds like those in a pyramid (same oxygen, hydrogen, sulphur, iron, calcium, carbon, water, carbon dioxide etc.) Is somewhere in the whole realm of natural sciences any method to prove, that a pyramid was constructed by encient Egyptians? No, not a one. Is there any proof that polygonal columns of basalt in Northern Ireland were built by help of intelligence? Not a one. Does intelligent forces exist at all? Look around, they do. Did they existed in the past where pyramids originated from? We strongly do believe they did. Then there is no reason why not to believe a camel came to being also by help of the past intelligence. To say students only evolutionary explanation is a criminal act! not a science.

Maybe natural sciences can explain only what comes to being naturally, spontaneously, by the way cause and effect, casually. They are purposely set to this explanatory way to explain a phenomena in this world which are explainable by this way. But not all things in our world came to existence by this way!! - look around today and to the past. Then it is fair to stop trying to explain everything by means of natural sciences. That´s why many of darwinian explanations are so loughable, naive and simple-minded, because they endlessly try to explain what they can not (by their means) - if we agree, that intelligence exists at all and could co-work on material things even in the past. Is it not clear, folks? The whole debate we hold here and everywhere is between those who want God to exist and those who hate this possibility.

About xylitol metabolism look on the debate: (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp) In a friendly way Pavel



#49767: — 11/19  at  05:44 AM
Can we scientificly prove and test that pyramids were built by forces co-working with intelligent design? No, we have no such instrument over all the fields of natural sciences to prove it.


What are you asking? The first sentence makes absolutely no sense to me. The pyramids were designed, and build with brute manpower, combined with some pretty amazing engineering for the time.
That has been demonstrated by people using the same techniques and tools available at the time of the builing of the pyramids.
That have nothing to do with natural science, which deals with the laws of nature.

And here lies the crucial point of misunderstanding between those believing in intelligent agent (which must have been) co-working on highly organised structures coming from past - regardless of being made of stones or chemical elements and those who deny it.


No, it must not have been. We don't deny an intelligent designer - what we say is that it is outside science, and should not be taught at such. Some scientists are atheists, while others are religious in one way or another. However, all serious scientists recognize the fact that religion and science are two seperate spheres, as do most theologicans.

Funny is, that those who deny ID wilfully accept some cases where intelligence must have been present in the past (like pyramids and all artifacts) - only where they like it or want it by their feelings, not out of scientific proof.


The thing is, we have amble proof of the intelligent design and non-naturalwork behind the pyramids. Descriptions from around the time, engravings, tool-marks etc., and we know it is not possible for such a structure to rise through natural causes. When dealing with biological constructs, like a human, we have no such indication. There are descriptions of how it weas done, but those were written after the fact, are inconsistent with each other, and are inconsistent with the observable facts. There are no toolmarks, no engravings, and we can observe evolution going on right now, without any intelligent designer or un-natural work being involved.

In other words, your comment clearly demonstrates why it is necessary to give a good scientific grounding to people. If it is possible to argue the way you are arguing, it shows that someone failed you in that regard.



's avatar #49768: — 11/19  at  06:01 AM
Greetings to Pavel Kabrt from jaimito! I hope I pronounce yuor name correctly! I sticker like "Evolution inside" or "Produced by applying evolutionary methods" would not mean that the product itself evolved but that biology was used in the development and/or production of the product. Of course the product was intelligently designed, but not by God but a naturally evolved human being.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#49772: Pavel Kabrt — 11/19  at  07:49 AM
Thank you, Kristjan, for confirmation of my words. You may have done so out of not reading everything I wrote. Namely that in our world there are phenomena inexplicable by cause and effect and casual natural processes. And to this phenomenon primarily belongs every hit of II (Intelligent Intention (plan, design, programme, information etc.). Natural science has not! an adequate instrument to prove such a hit. But you don´t want to hear it, this is a problem, not mine, not of my small education, but of your heart. You prove my words, that some people deliberately believe in ancient scripts and writings in the area where they want to accept them (such as pyramids). In other area (where we read how the world came to existence) they choose not to believe and have many obstacles (scripts are not consistent and not in tune with what we observe - better say, what "I like to believe").

What I call a criminal act is this willful forcing students (young souls) to accept that one method can explain everything. But we have no method to find out, how a lump of sugar looked like before it dissolved in tea. You are one of those who say "we do not know yet, but by the method we use now we find out". And more than that. You go further and say: there was no lump of sugar at all, no shape, only a mixture of sugar moleculs, water, caffeine etc.) - our method is proving that. And this is a lie. You are one of those who can not, or may not be willing to accept that you have no such a method to know what happened and how it happened before. You can only repeat again and again what works now (laws), nothing else do natural sciences. More words would be redundant.

My lectures against nonsenses of evolution religion and against evolution sects and cults (what other it is than an occultism and magic to believe in self-revival of the matter?) do have sense only for those who seek, didn´t fall in love with atheism or don´t yet know or those who need to know more. Let us others be and try endlessly to explain, how reptiles climbed the trees and jump down until wings apperead, how seas have been loosing water for milions of years and so fishes forced to look around for another water and thus got legs and radiation made stones and regolith to live. God bless them/you, but we have a duty to protect young generation against such a brainwashing. I wrote a book: "How not to go crazy". Sorry, up to now only in Czech (we may need it most here, perhaps).

Pavel, Prague



#49775: — 11/19  at  08:03 AM
What scientist would force students to accept one method? What does that have to do with the Intelligent Design Creationism and Evolutioinary Biology debate? The one is a religiously based claim, while the other is a theory that incorperates all known laws and facts. We don't say that the current theory would be adjusted, or in some extremely theoretical case be disregarded, however, unlike ID it is science, and therefore should be taught as science.

Pavel, I hate to say this, but I have a really hard time understanding what you are writing, but if I understand it correctly, you are claiming that ID Creationism is equally valid with Evolution. If that's the case, you are not only simply misinformed, but seems to be unable to grasp what science is, and I will tell you in all honestly, I don't really particularly care to read your book.



#49776: Pavel Kabrt — 11/19  at  08:06 AM
Greetings to Jaimito,

you pronounced my name perfectly. I understand your point, but disagree. Evolution thinking (working hypothesis) is an obstacle to scientific progress. And not used in producing medicaments, forget it. Tests on viruses and bacteria have little to do with evolution. You were created by God through possibility to transfer (copy) a human genetic information on to progeny. Give him thanks soon than will be too late. My advice.

Pavel



#49778: Pavel Kabrt — 11/19  at  08:21 AM
Dear Kristjan,

I don´t know, if you say "I have a really hard time understanding what you are writing" because of my poor English, or because of what I say and why? I really don´t know why you say this. Anyway, I am sorry, but you are not grasping the point I repeated again and again. Should I do it again? I very well understand, what way science goes, but you do not understand, that this way can not explain every way how things do arise and did arise. Is it me or you so hard-set to understand one anothers point?

Greetings, Pavel



's avatar #49793: — 11/19  at  10:45 AM
To Pavel: Greetings!

You say:
You were created by God
I say: I happen to know my parents.

Scotty! Beam me up to the Enterprise!

(Fade off).

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#49797: — 11/19  at  11:31 AM
"Funny is, that those who deny ID wilfully accept some cases where intelligence must have been present in the past (like pyramids and all artifacts) - only where they like it or want it by their feelings, not out of scientific proof."

Hmm.

Funny, I thought that those of us who don't accept ID for the entire universe still accept it for the pyramids because we know of an intelligence, know the properties of that intelligence, and know what things designed by that intelligence look like.

We know nothing about the Intelligent Designer of ID, only the intelligent designer of the pyramids.

And claiming "we know design when we see it" is both an appeal to common sense (a grave error in science), and an inherent disproof to ID! We can only know design from non-design if there IS both design and non-design - ID requires everything to be designed.


Also, re Xylitol: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html#Xylitol

We can continue this debate-via-proxy for quite some time if you want, Pavel.

Also, please address the issue of Nylon-eating bacteria. If you do not, I will assume you are avoiding it because you are incapable of doing so, and thus are admitting that you are wrong.


(Aaah, my confirmation word is "mutant". I love PZ.)



#49801: — 11/19  at  11:51 AM
Coming from Kansas, I'm getting sick and tired of folks calling our state "ignorant". I still feel that Kansas schools provide some of the best education our nation has to offer. I'm doubtful many, if any of you, have even entered a Kansas school to see what its like. Believe it or not folks, this debate will not be the end of the world! I'm sorry to break it to you, but most high school students couldn't care less what version of creation you teach them, just as long as they get out when the bell rings. Why don't you all step back from the edge and take a look at the good aspects of Kansas, and not just what a few board members have to say about an issue that (in all honesty) matters very little in the scheme of things.



#49820: — 11/19  at  02:49 PM
I have a question to pose to this forum. In its simplest form the issue before the court of human opinion on this most divisive, and hence relevant, question is which of the two theories represents the best explanation for our existence:

Theory A – The phenomenon of consciousness created and continues to influence the universe.
Theory B – The natural laws of the universe created the phenomenon of consciousness which henceforth influences the universe.

Why is one of these termed a supernatural explanation and the other not? If you consider the phenomenon of consciousness as a natural force then both are natural explanations with simply different, and therefore debatable, ideas as to which drives the creative process of life, and indeed the universe itself.

And regardless of which of the two theories your brain structure favors, isn’t the real question What is consciousness>



's avatar #49822: — 11/19  at  03:14 PM
M Miller: Could you please reformulate your question in a way that may allow its treatment within the framework of a natural sciences experiment that could prove one theory and disprove the other?

Otherwise, you are in the realm of philosophical speculation, which is legitimate but not suited to the spirit of this blog.

Regarding conciousness, I think the Scientific American has some good articles on the work being done on that subject.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#49830: — 11/19  at  04:18 PM
Could you please reformulate your question in a way that may allow its treatment within the framework of a natural sciences experiment that could prove one theory and disprove the other?


I would be happy to if you can give me a definition of natural sciences that includes consciousness.



#49832: Pavel Kabrt — 11/19  at  04:50 PM
I appreciate your willingness to talk with me, Sotek,

but I think you know very well now from my commentaries how I think about this topic and what you can expect from me. I have not too much to add. Bacteria and viruses are pretty stable organisms, changing, but not evolving anywhere (up and down), as we know from fossil record and laboratory research. The word "stable" means a dynamic stability, varying around some equilibrium level like beaks of Darwin´s finches or many other things in our world. Evolutionist clutch at a straw of mutations of these tiny organisms, like you mentioned about xylitol or nylon digesting bacteria. The experts (I am not, sorry) quarrel about useful mutations (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm) - but where is a proof these mutations will go upward in future time when we do not see such tendency in a fossil record of the past? Soil bacteria from mesozoik are the same as we have in soil today. I´ve just finished reading "Not by Chance!" by Dr. Lee Spetner and could I say something more to this topic? NO.

Here I found something about it: Jerry Moore studied a pure culture of Proteus mirabilis, a bacterial species belonging to the Enterobacteriaceae family of the Eubacteriales order, which he had isolated from a clinical source, in order to determine its stability or variability over a period of time under markedly different conditions. The organism was serially transferred onto 10 randomly-selected laboratory media and the cultures were held at temperatures ranging from 20-37C. for a period of three months. The conditions of culture and incubation were thus quite varied, yet remaining favorable enough at times for hundreds of bacterial generations to occur. After 62 serial transfers, 30 biochemical and antibiotic sensitivity characteristics had not changed from those initially observed, except for a minimal and variable response to Penicillin G. The variable response to the latter may have been due to cell wall damage from exposure of the bacteria to noxious components in the culture media rather than to exposure to Penicillin.

G.Moore's experiment, although admittedly limited in scope and duration, does support a natural biologic stability. In his paper, Moore reviewed some examples in the scientific literature of tremendous biologic stability, including a study which indicated that a bacterium had retained its rigid biological characterization during the 150 years it has been subject to investigation.

So, this is what I found in some my older notes. I am not able to add anything to this, only to make my personal conclusion: I can not believe in macroevolution (formation of life from nonlife, eyes and multicelular organs out of a blind bacteria etc.) only because there exist some tiny changes even somehow good for its owner.

Pavel



#49850: — 11/19  at  08:22 PM
So, you *can't* respond to the fact that bacteria evolved the ability to eat nylon, except by claiming that bacteria (which are mostly differentiated by their chemical processes) are the same now as they used to be - despite the fact that it's functionally impossible to really know what their chemical processes used to be?

And let's see... you show that bacteria, when cultured in various temperatures, don't get a changing resistance to antibiotics.

SO WHAT? Why *WOULD* you expect a changing resistance to antibiotics from a population not subject to any form of selective pressure due to antibiotics? What does the one have to do with the other?



And yes, you're not an expert. So why do you say that 99.85% of the experts are wrong, when you have no reason except your "personal conclusion" wherein you can't believe something?



#49884: — 11/20  at  10:18 AM
The disconnect in trying to have a rational debate between ID and science is that it is really a debate between faith and knowledge. Those who believe in ID / creationism do so because they believe that faith trumps all logic, all evidence to the contrary and all man-attained knowledge. There can be no winner in this debate since they are not operating on the same levels.

The fact that it is easy to be awed by the mystery of life and all that we see around us helps explain why a majority of Americans have concluded that creationism and not evolution best explains how we got here. Fine, so be it. If they choose to believe in explanations that were based in a time when man didn't know any better, fine, this is a free country, that's their right to live in the past if it helps make them feel comfortable and smug. Of course I disagree with their doomed attempt to force their beliefs into science class but I totally understand why they would want to do this. Comfort comes in numbers.

What I am looking for from them is the answer to this simple question, one that I don't proclaim to be mine, but one that simply begs an answer of them: If all things must be designed by an intelligent designer, someone please tell me then WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER AND WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER'S DESIGNER, ETC? And if you want to tell me that God has no beginning and no end, then please tell me what you think he was doing for a gazillion times a gaillion times a gazillion to infinity years before he decided to snap his fingers and create the universe in a week less than 6,000 years ago.



#49896: — 11/20  at  01:21 PM
How come all you evolutionists have such a clear idea about the nature of the God you don't believe in?



#49902: — 11/20  at  02:46 PM
#49896: M Miller — 11/20 at 01:21 PM
How come all you evolutionists have such a clear idea about the nature of the God you don't believe in?
That's precisely the point!

No one, even intelligent designists, can have any clear idea about the nature--or even the existence--of a god that can be verified by scientific observation or experiment. Basing an idea of god on what someone else said is not science. There are thousands of different "authoritative" descriptions of gods.

As far as intelligent design goes, once you've maintained that "God did it" (with no way of proving that), what ELSE can you say? Nothing!

There's zero scientific value in an "intelligent design" approach.



#49904: — 11/20  at  02:59 PM
Because creationists can't say anything that makes any sense to us or sheds any light at all on the concept of God as a competing theory to evolution. The bible teaches that less than 6,000 years ago God created Adam out of the dust of the earth and then He created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. Of course there is no proof of this since it never really happened, but because it is in the holy bible, that's proof enough for most Christians to believe it no matter what.

In contrast, there is the broad consensus amongst all scientists throughout the world (except for Behe and perhaps a few others) that all of the physical proof / evidence that has been examined to date in the 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, supports and validates the theory.

I did not say anything about the nature of God in my original post. I only posed a question that I can't seem to get any answer out of those Christians that I know whom I've asked (nor even you I might add). I haven't even ruled out the possibility that some higher intelligent power may exist somewhere in the universe although that's not to say it would belong to the Christian concept of "God". Hardly.

I do believe that if there really was "a God", he certainly wouldn't be anything like what the bible teaches. Folks in earlier times didn't know any better but today we do. I consent that there may still be a mystery over how the first spark of life on earth began, if not what happened once it did begin, but the answers are clearly not contained in the bible.

The bible serves a purpose I suppose, even if it is all based on fairy tales, in providing a lifestyle and a moral compass for many people who either out of the promise of eternal life in heaven or out of fear of an eternal life in hell, have been suckered / duped / brain washed by their parents or others into believing it. But just because they believe it doesn't make it any more real than the 72 virgins that Arab suicide bombers believe are awaiting them in heaven for their final good deed for God on this earth.

And what kind of a free will choice between heaven and hell is it for a supposedly loving God to bestow on his "creation"? Not very if you ask me although I'd be hard pressed to try conceive of any more polar extremes of the rewards and penalty for not buying into it. And how condescending and close minded of Christians is it to not realize that believers of other religions are equally convinced of the beliefs of their religions? It all serves a purpose....to provide simplistic easy answers that a simple minded person can grasp so they don't have to face the reality of a life that all came about by circumstance and not by design.



#49910: — 11/20  at  04:04 PM
I never said anything about the bible or even about God. All I have mentioned in my posts is the idea that consciousness is the most logical source of all promoted order (at least in the biological world). I've never in my life believed in a 6,000 year old earth, although I believed my teachers when I was told the earth was only a mere 1 billion years old, what a delusional fool I was.

I don't however see any significant danger in people believing in a young earth. Origin theory is almost completely useless in a practical sense. If it had a practical application we would all accept it. As far as the scientific theories go it’s dead last for applicability.

Studies keep showing that faith, and spirituality are good for our health, so who gives a shit if a few biologists can’t make that work with the current models they entertain

Entropy increases, consciousness struggles to reduce it; no other force can be shown to do that experimentally. All of the biological structures we see are a likely the result of that conflict; no plan but to reduce entropy, no design (except perhaps in the very, very short term), intelligence when required as a tool, just a 4 billion year (or longer) battle with disorder.

There is no physical evidence concerning the past development of life, or of the structure of life as we see it today that cannot be interpreted as the result of consciousness. To boot it plugs all of the gaps in current evolutionary theory.

This seems so obvious to me, so readily observable; I can't honestly understand why biologists have ever tried to remove consciousness from consideration in the first place.

ID will come and go, its very name is enough to put me off it. Intelligence is a measure of a systems capacity to affect a large change from a small input in a repeatable way, and design (even human design) is an iterative process. It will be consciousness theory that is finally adopted as the essential theory of order. I give it twenty years.



#49921: — 11/20  at  05:10 PM
The debate on this thread is whether the Kansas school board, and by extension any other school board in America, should be teaching ID in science class and it is clear which side of this debate you are on. Much like other ID proponents who try to hide behind their Christian beliefs by saying (without ever really believing) that ID does not rule out the possibility of space aliens as the intelligent designer, you come across as one who is resorting to proof of God's existence without referring to God himself by referencing Him to "our consciousness". The fact that you admit to having no problem with people believing in the false and indeed ridiculously absurd concept of a young 6,000 year old earth (and presumably that means you would be fine with schools teaching it as a plausible option) suggests to me that you are a Christian, even if of the old earth variety...a variety that needed to form in order to adapt to the conclusions of modern science and yet try to stay relevant. How convenient and innovative to have the bible's definition of a "day" during the week of creation be reinterpreted to really equally a couple of billion years, give or take a few hundred million years of so.

I would propose to you that consciousness is merely the inevitable bi-product of evolution rather than the force behind it. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.



#49929: — 11/20  at  05:52 PM
"How come all you evolutionists have such a clear idea about the nature of the God you don't believe in?"

How come you have such a clear idea of what I believe that you can assert that I don't believe in God?

I am a Christian, I simply happen to feel that God would not create a world with a false history, and thus the evidence acquired by scientists (which unanimously points to a 4.5ish billion year old earth, a 15ish billion year old universe, and, of course, evolution) should be taken as probably true, give or take some critical evaluation.



#49931: Pavel Kabrt — 11/20  at  05:53 PM
Dear most of you,

it is marvelous, how people may discuss. Shotek pushes me to say: "wo, what a proof, I didn´t know, that bacteria can change some metabolic pathways and start to eat nylon - what a proof that life was not created, but evolved". But when I ask how science can distinguish a system of elements being intervened in the past (or two days ago) by intelligent interference (regardless of what sort of - people, God, UFO) - there is only scilence, big scilence!! Instead again and again buzzing "ID is not science, ID is not science, ID is not science". (it is not about you, Sotek, sorry)

When I ask, where you have been observing evolution processes building step by step, element by element new structure for at least 10 years (you older should observe it 40, 50, 60 years) - there is but scilence, big scilence!! But instead buzzing "ID is not science, ID is not science, ID is not science". It reminds me situation, when apostle Paul was in Ephesus preaching gospel, they all "with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:34). Is it not simmilar here? "Big is our evolution idea, big is our natural science, big and great".

When I ask "how could have dead regolith of any planet come to life - big scilence (of course, answer is: our science will find out, some day, some time - because life must have come up by evolution, by means of our big Diana). Marvelous discussion of intelligent people. Big is our goddess Evolution, big acts SHE had done through natural selection, no God needed, indeed. I don´t understand where you push me, Sotek, asking if I am able to explain "bacteria evolved the ability to eat nylon". Since 18. century to 20. century about 200 new dog´s breeds arose, today we have about 500 races (old Romans knew cca 5-7, perhaps). Can you explain it? Is it evolution? Bacteria changing its eating customs is nothing in comparison, that out of two wolves can in a short time "evolve" dogs, jackals, foxes, coyotes etc. - so many new species!! in several hundred years. Is it evolution? No evolutionist say that now (muddle-headed Darwin did) . All creationists teach, that God created in the beginning only several basic types of animals with a very rich genom for them to change their phenotypes to be able to live in a various environments, even after the flood, which drastically changed the starting conditions. Of course He knew, that evolutionists misuse this ability of organism for their theories and against Him - like many other things.

This is also funny statement of Sotek: SO WHAT? Why WOULD you expect a changing resistance to antibiotics from a population not subject to any form of selective pressure due to antibiotics? Hmm, I think evolutionists do not consider a selective pressure of antibiotics in mesozoic era, do they? You really didn´t understand, that this research brought about very surprising fact: high stability of bacteria generally - something what makes evolution hard to progress, is it clear now? Temperature, radiation and other natural factors are substantial for your "upwards evolutionary progress faith", aren´t they? not penicillin´s pressure in the 20th century. It was discovered, that in 1845 existed already bacteria resistent to penicillin, long ago before using it, by the way. Is it proof of anything? .

So our song is still the same: animals can change, can vary, but if there is no genes for wings, wings never will come. If there is no genes for eye, they stay blind for ever. Your song is also the same: look, something new we observe, this is a proof of evolution. We hardly can come to terms.

Pavel



#49936: — 11/20  at  06:05 PM
You read too much between the lines. I think the bible is a collection of books thought up by sheepherders when they thought about God, nothing more. Get over your creationist witch-hunt, dude, it's not conducive to productive discourse.

I would propose to you that consciousness is merely the inevitable bi-product of evolution rather than the force behind it. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.


I'm not hiding behind anything, I really think consciousness is what promotes order. I didn't say 'our consciousness', just consciousness. The way consciousness can be seen promoting order in the modern universe is why I think it is important.

I don't think the idea of 'a bi-product of evolution' works very well. Instead I think that it is a phenomenon that occurs when the physical universe is in a particular state.

The best model for it I can think of is that consciousness is a field, with frequencies, amplitudes and quantum states. The field grows in strength where the universe is in a particular state of malleability and seems to reduce entropy locally. I can’t see any reason to assume it is not present through out the biosphere.

Don’t confuse consciousness with self-awareness, the later is certainly a Johnny-come-lately higher life form phenomenon only. I think the former has been around since moment zero. It may even have been responsible for the laws of the universe itself, but maybe not. I can’t think of any way to begin to approach the question of the universe’s creation, and as I understand it most quantum-physicists believe it will always be a matter of conjecture since all artifacts of the state before the big-bang were destroyed by the big bang.

This is not a Christian God in disguise I’m describing here. I suppose it’s closest to a Taoist view of things, but not that close. I attribute no design or intention to consciousness except for a capacity to reduce entropy relentlessly.

If you're going to flame me at least flame my arguments not someone elses? And maybe you couldd explain where all the anger comes from? What difference does it make what we think if evolutionists have the gist of the argument correct?



#49938: Pavel Kabrt — 11/20  at  06:06 PM
To believe in 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous, but to believe, that T. rex tissue found this year in Montana could have stayed elastic for 65 milion years, "is not ridiculous".

This is also what this debate is about - who of us is more ridiculous.

Pavel



#49952: — 11/20  at  07:28 PM
Miller, I don't know why you would be surprised at this but in case you haven't noticed, most people in this discussion fall on one side of the fence or the other and are either clearly pro evolution or clearly pro ID / creationism. You appear to fall into a third, less common category, that of being both anti evolution and anti creationism. Fine, so be it. You can be whatever you choose to be and if you want to propose a third alternative to this debate as being some twist on the word consciousness as we know it (unrelated to a God awareness, a self awareness or a collective awareness), be my guest. But do you propose this be taught in science class as an alternative to evolution? Are you suggesting that rocks and all objects in the universe have this consciousness or it just exists in the "consciousness field" itself? Forgive me for asking, but is this theory your own or is there actually a following for it that I am unaware of?

Below is the current definition of the word consciousness:

"Consciousness: The state or condition of being conscious.
A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.

Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.
Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social injustice.
In psychoanalysis, the conscious."

I am not angry, I am just annoyed by the mass ignorance in this country over this topic in this the 21st century and the inference that this ignorance should be imposed as a serious option for consideration to kids in school. We need to get people to come out of the dark ages, not bring more people into it. Since you and I agree on who the writers of the bible were, I have less of an issue with you then I do with those who clearly fall on the ID side.



#49966: — 11/20  at  08:35 PM
There certainly is a following, I've seen them.

And I quote...

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

*evil trouble-stirring-up grin*



#49975: — 11/20  at  09:34 PM
Actually, a non-silly comment too. We've slid offtopic - For however many posts, people have been arguing apples and oranges - 'Evolution vs ID in 3 rounds'. Remember that the focus of the uproar is not 'Does ID make sense?' or 'Do you believe any or all of evolution?'

The point is that something that is not science was being pushed to be taught in a class supposedly about science. Evolutionary mechanisms may be good science, bad science, or somewhere in between, but they were developed within a scientific framework. ID is a philosophical or religious framework, and as such, should be taught in philosophy or religion classes. It's not should we teach one or the other, it's 'WHERE is it appropriate to teach each?'

Science is about logic and the scientific method - you may personally not agree with either, but the definition of science can't just be arbitrarily changed by a schoolboard.

Now the original author of this story makes clear that he believes in evolution and not ID. Fine and dandy for him, but the issue that matters is whether or not science remains consistent with its own logical framework, or whether anyone that wants to can declare anything to be 'science' even if it doesn't use the scientific method.



#49989: — 11/20  at  11:28 PM
Why doesn't someone start a movement called IR for Intelligent Religion and insist that it be included in all religion courses in school? IR would proclaim that the only intelligent religion is no religion at all since it is impossible to prove that God exists. In fact, the mere realization of there being so many different beliefs and religions throughout the world is testimony enough that no one religion is very likely to be the one universal truth but rather that it is only by the act of blindly believing in something that makes it appear real for those who choose to believe it.



#49991: ajmilne — 11/20  at  11:49 PM
Okay. Eric's right, it's drifing. And so I'll try not to feed the trolls too well...

But this one just looks so hungry.... So here's a nibble:

To believe in 6,000 year old earth is ridiculous, but to believe, that T. rex tissue found this year in Montana could have stayed elastic for 65 mil(l)ion years, "is not ridiculous".

... said the neotenous ape who believes in invisible sky fairies.

More seriously, re 'elastic tissue', see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/DinoBlood.cfm

Re 'when I ask how science can distinguish a system of elements being intervened in the past (or two days ago) by intelligent interference (regardless of what sort of - people, God, UFO) - there is only scilence, big scilence!!'

I'd imagine there is 'scilence' because the 'question' is empty rhetorical bluster, and not particularly the evolutionary biologists' question to answer. The IDC folk have claimed they can make such a distinction; the position of mainstream evolutionary biology is their claims have not withstood scrutiny. If the poster's claim is science cannot make that distinction, he himself thus states IDC is not science. If his claim is science can, the onus is on him (as it is on the ID camp) to demonstrate how, and (more to the point), to find and demonstrate such evidence. Merely rhetorically demanding that someone explain to him how that might be done doesn't make any point whatsoever on its own.

Note too: as far as I know (for what that's worth), there's no reason saying this cannot be detected in principle--depending on what kind of meddling we're talking about (a base pair here or there, every few million years, it's gonna be kinda hard to notice). The (overwhelming) majority of biologists just say that as of now, given the data we have, we have no use for the conjecture that any such meddling has occurred. There's no data out there begging for that hypothesis as an explanation, so we're not wasting our time. We're not looking for space aliens when the copying errors we observe every day jibe just fine with what we see. And that, I have to say, is eminently reasonable of them.

"where is a proof these mutations will go upward in future time when we do not see such tendency in a fossil record of the past"

"All creationists teach, that God created in the beginning only several basic types of animals with a very rich genom for them to change their phenotypes to be able to live in a various environments, even after the flood, which drastically changed the starting conditions."

I take these together for a reason.

Note, first of all, that 'upward' is a meaningless term in evolutionary biology. Even if we give him a break, and assume the question is: how could it lead to significantly different forms, we're back to the same problem as before: where's the evidence it will stop doing so?

The onus, again, is on anyone proposing (as Pavel himself admits the creationists do, in his description of the standard creationist 'basic forms' claim) that it has to stop at some defined 'wall' left in the laws of biochemistry somehow by their 'meddler'. And they have given no such evidence. They've merely tried to monkey (I use the term advisedly) with the public perception of what's in the fossil record, and deceive people about the richness of the evidence available to the contrary, suggest somehow there's no fossil evidence for descent by natural selection between widely disparate forms--doing so by employing such eminently silly and incredibly vague phrases as 'we see no such tendency in a fossil record of the past'.

And, in fact, that's all they *can* do--unless they find a way to hide all the rRNA sequences ever done, and crush every fossil found. Because those data show the common descent of all life quite clearly (with a few interesting arguments, here and there, in as-yet poorly studied organisms where the results still have some ambiguity overall), and even show reasonably precise divergence times for interesting modern groups. Taking a for-instance: we know pretty well when mammals diverged from the rest of vertebrata, and the way that happened is reasonably well documented--see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html. We don't see mammals before this sequence. So, apparently, their invisible sky fairy didn't get around to mammals and the rest of vertebrata at the same time, at the very least.

Note that the creationists could just claim: fine, our sky fairy *didn't* create the cardinal groups at the same time--he created them (presumably with his sparkling fairy wand) at just the times you note they arise in the fossil record...

But curiously, we see transitional sequences at the same times as the divergences. See, again, the talk.origins FAQ referenced above. There's a few pages there.

Guess that's just the way the big, flouncing guy's wand works. Makes 'em diverge by slow variation.

Impressive. Don't suppose that wand can *also* make a bear shit in the woods, can it?

Here, I guess we could dance around a while. Fine, they could say, you've got vertebrates down. Okay, vertebrates are a cardinal group...

Whatever, dears. You go have a little fun with that fantasy, if it gets you off. We'll just keep working on the rRNA sequences, try to work out the finer details of the interrelatedness between the most utterly disparate species on Earth, work on questions like whether Archaea or Eubacteria contain the younger ancestor to Eukaryota. That, that's an interesting question (well, to us eukaryotes anyway). And, note, one we can reasonably argue about (see http://www.bio.nagoya-u.ac.jp:8001/~hori/archaea04.html, for someone who did so, and some time back now)... Since there are enough commonalities in the rRNA between those groups to draw some trees to fight over.

Yep. Interesting stuff, that sorta thing. Whether an individual creationist is ever gonna realize he's already effectively admitted he's utterly full of it, it pretty much pales by comparison.



#50011: Pavel Kabrt — 11/21  at  07:12 AM
I wonder if those repeating "ID is not a science" would understand 10% of the topics given on October 22 this year in Prague´s conference by ID scientists - in English, I add.

Look to this curiosity: when evolutionits compare nucleotides and out of this comparisons draw conclusions for their faith that this or that organism is more or less close (warning for layman creationits: their trade secret is how much they quarrel and disagree about it in their camp, for ex. paleontologits with molecular geneticists, do not believe them, creation folks, that sequenses /whether aminoa. or nucleotids) give them clear picture of evolution, nothing is farther out, it is only their game like with dating (since Darwin) - well, then it is a real science (this comparisons are a "true science").

But when a creationist says: look here, our heart resembles in its functionality to a pump made by a designer, our eye has similar functions like optical devices having been produced only after demanding research (I. Newton considered this) - this comparisons are unacceptable - we are making here an unfitting comparisons. Again: what one likes to believe, what one likes to accept as a proof for his/her pre-viewpoint, he/she wilfully undescores. Comparisons of evolutionists are "true science", not an ideology based on a bad starting hypothesis coming up to here from Darwin´s time out of his many mistakes he did, but comparisons of creationists are bluffs.

The same goes with Christ. I like his character and want to have it. If you do not, surely you find pretty lot of an arguments why not. The same goes with our believe what and how things happened in the past. I am grateful to thousands of creationist scientists to give us clear arguments, real scientific facts, not from the bible, but out of their science fields, that evolution is a naive fairy tail for adults (not necessarily neotenous) hating God (including Christian evolutionits) and needing something instead, because without "working hypothesis" - which is faith, one can not live and work. Go on, other states, follow Kansas, please, because out of darwinism and evolutionism we have had here in Europe not long ago a gas chambres and Stalin´s camps which killed in only 50 years 50 times more people than having been done by stupid religion people in 5 centuries by inquisition or crusades. Keep on, please, you 6 and other wise brave people. Simple issue.

Pavel



#50014: — 11/21  at  07:42 AM
Well, since I'm pretty much the most recent one to say ID is not a science, it's up to me to say no, I probably would have a hard time understanding the 'ID scientists' in Prague, since I have such a hard time understanding Pavel.

I have a PhD in geology. I've a masters in systems anaylsis, and I'm taking tons of physiology and microbiology and so forth right now, as I'm going back to school to become an RN as well. I'm not a top flight geneticist by a far stretch, but I've been introduced to much of the evidence that supports a number of the mechanisms posited for macro and micro evolution, and, barring new scientific studies that find serious flaws in same, I'll accept them as reasonable for now and move on to more interesting topics.

But when anyone says 'look here, x resembles z' they're starting on the first step to science...natural philosophy. But it doesn't become science until they actually start doing experiments to support their data.

Pavel, you keep insisting those of us who claim ID isn't science 'don't want to believe in God' or 'hate Jesus' or whatever. I'm an ordained minister. The Vatican's chief astronomer (a scientist, in the tradition of Copernicus and Scheiner, who were both Jesuits, I believe) doesn't think ID is a science. Thousands and thousands of scientists around the world are ministers or priests, or clerics, and don't think ID is a science, because we hew to the definition of science.

It's perfectly reasonable to both believe in God and not think ID is a science. Darwin got many things wrong, as has probably every scientist that ever lived. Galileo thought comets were mirages created in the upper atmosphere. Science makes mistakes...but keeps trying to correct them by conducting experiment after experiment to prove or disprove ideas.

Part of our problem is in translation...and not just English to Czech but English to English. Theory, proof, and many other terms that show up often in these debates have very specific meanings to scientists that they don't to laymen. They're jargon. I can't even get native English speakers with no scientific training to understand what I'm saying most of the time.

They think i BELIEVE in evolution (or any given mechanism whereby it allegedly occurs.) or have FAITH in it, which couldn't be farther from the truth. My faith is reserved for my spirituality, because faith is not subject to science, it is in another, if you will, celestial sphere.

For science, I use rational thought based on empirical evidence, and always have the reservation that any given piece could be wrong if proven so by another repeatable experiment. For all I know, the speed of light is incorrect or absolute zero doesn't exist... But I will refer to them as absolutes in a scientific framework until such time as I am given 'proof' that they are incorrect.



#50027: — 11/21  at  09:03 AM
Bloodaxe, I'm confused by those who can reconcile what science teaches with what the bible teaches and still find a way to believe in both. I mean you can choose to believe that God created Adam & Eve or you can choose to believe that man is a product of evolution but how can you reinterpret the bible to make it fit both versions? Similarily, you can choose to believe in the story of Noah's ark or you can choose to believe that makes no sense at all. Etc. Please try to explain this for me. If the stories of the bible are all left up to complete reinterpretations based on relatively speaking recent discoveries, how can the real truth of any of it be accepted at face value? And if you believe in a creator of all things God, would that be the same God of the bible?



#50057: — 11/21  at  11:25 AM
Saul: The issue is how literally one takes the Bible to be.

Noah's Flood is easily reconciled with the evidence (and the self-contradictions!) if you assume the original story was referring to when the Straits of Gibralter broke - and that it was repeated by fallible humans until it got a bit exaggerated.

Adam and Eve does not have to be taken literally - especially given the similarities to the Sumerian/Bablyonian myths and some of the little quirks of wording (The "Greater light" and "Lesser light") - it has a semi-obvious literary purpose, and that is enough to justify the inclusion of said stories in the Bible.


Be tentative - if God wanted us to understand everything without trying, God would have made it easy. God thus, it seems, wants us to work for our knowledge, and that means being wrong sometimes.

And it is obvious enough that the most important thing in the Bible, for a Christian, are the teachings of Jesus, which are hardly subject to significant reinterpretation.



#50062: Pavel Kabrt — 11/21  at  11:55 AM
Dear Bloodaxe,

I highly appreciate your peaceful commentary - I have to learn this way. But... Do you know, that to be a geologist even highly educated in this branch has absolutely, absolutely, absolutely no relation to or nothing to do with what you think about past processes formating earth surface? If you fairly separete facts you know from hypotheses about the past you were taught in school, then you come to a clear point that these facts give you absolutely no help or trace or hint for better knowing what happened here on Earth in the past(100 years or 100 million years ago). There is no relation between your present knowledge of sheer facts and past processes! Past is in the past and not geology, but history is studying it, this is what evolutionists don´t want to know. They are mixing historiography with natural science but selling this mixture as a natural science. Seperate, please, your geological knowledge from your history view tightly connected to it!

To be a highly aducated geneticists has absolutely no relation to his/her view and understanding about how genes came to be in the past, that is how a first ever gene could have happen. To be an astronomer has absolutely, absolutely no relation to his/her view on how universe came to be. You surely don´t accept what I say here.

And this is a crucial problem in this sort of debate. There is an outcry for strict separation of religion and science in schools, but evolutionists smuggled their spiritual views and hypotheses to biology classrooms, mixed it with facts which were very anxiously filtered by them to support only their belief about what and how things happened in the past and declare this mixture as a strict science. And this is a creationist´s point. Creationists say: when you have right to teach in biology your views on the past, supported by facts you like to give students, why not us, who are educated in the same branch, but have only different views on past and give biological facts as well, like you, to support our view? What is the difference to believe in 90% of dark, hidden matter in the universe so as to support our evolutionary standpoint of the past to believing in 100% of God? Only 10%. Why only one side has right to postulate unseen objects and not the other one? The same, of corse, goes with fishes getting legs and reptiles getting wings and millions of other evolutionists unseen postulates - is here anybody having seen it?

You look at a rock and think: it is Cambrian. I/we know it. How you know? You know, because you simply accepted the faith pushed on you in school. There is no proof whatsoever in natural sciences about the past of this rock you just look at or dig in.

Oh, wait, Mr. Kabrt, you can measure it. Measure what? Time? You can measure a past time? BRRR. I garantee you to measure in this rock 0 years, 10 years, 100 years, 1 thousand years, 1 milion years, 510 mil. years (Cambrian), 1 billion - what you like and in which place of this rock you like. What figure you then choose? You choose that figure which fits in your view on the past - perhaps that one you were taught in the school according to their faith - other figures you put aside as mistake, anomalia, impurity of that sample. Your faith will judge it!!, not facts themselves.
If we measure Carboniferous coal, it gives only 40 thousands of years, not 300 millions. If we measure bones of dinosaurs, they give only 10 - 13 thousands of years, not 60 millions. When evolutionists measured skull KNM 1470, they received 220 millions of years, 2.9 m. of y. and 1.9 m. of y. They decided to choose 1.9, according to their faith in evolution of man.

Your education has nothing to do with your faith what happened in the past. Please, give your bible reading about our past in harmony with your working hypothesis and make of it your new working model - I garantee you be a good geologist as you are now, I assume. You loose nothing, you can do your work in the same quality, but under a different working hypothesis and in a more better concord with God´s word and Jesus as well.

Greetings, Pavel



#50069: — 11/21  at  12:29 PM
No Sotek, the issue is how far one is willing to reinterpret the meaning of the words in the bible so as to make them fit a world that knows more now than it did back then. I mean you want me to believe that what the bible really means when it says that God created the universe and everything in it including Adam and Eve in a week is that God created the big bang 15 billion years ago, the earth about 10 billion years later and an amoeba a billion and a half years after that? And that amoeba would turn into Adam 2 and a half billion years after that, right? Is that what the bible really meant? You know, not everyone who reads the bible takes it that way.

As for Noah's ark, ok, so the flood didn't really cover the whole world and wipe out all life only to be replenished by the 2 of every species that Noah had on the ark, right? They just got that a little bit wrong, huh?

These are only but 2 better known stories in the bible amongst many that were taken literally for many, many years and to some still are, but they illustrate the point that just because the bible says so, doesn't make it so. How then are we to take Christ's teachings as anything more than merely an inspired and spiritual man's philosophy on life?

The real debate between ID / creationism and science is between differing views of how man got here and to most, the conclusions of each are NOT one and the same, in fact they are quite different. Now some Christians may be willing to accept science and therefore reinterpret the bible so that they can continue believing in the so called word of God but I'm not buying it....and I'm not too worried about the odds of my spending eternity in hell for it.



#50082: Pavel Kabrt — 11/21  at  01:45 PM
"and I'm not too worried about the odds of my spending eternity in hell for it."

Do you think this man knows what he speaks about? I don´t think so. Dear God, be mercy to his ignorance.

Pavel



#50084: Pavel Kabrt — 11/21  at  02:05 PM
Ah!

"and I'm not too worried about the odds of my spending eternity in hell for it."

Do you think this man knows what he speaks about? I don´t think so. Dear God, be merciful to his ignorance.

Pavel



#50095: — 11/21  at  03:33 PM
Saul: (Ah, such a good biblical name ;) As Sotek has said, the way to be able to reconcile the two is dependent upon your relationship with each. To be true, there are a good many sects which ahere to rather strict or 'literal' interpretations of the Bible, and I suspect very few of them are mentally flexible enough to reconcile the two. My own take on it is that it is a guide for living that was written by a mix of early natural philosophers and theologists, perhaps 'inspired' by an invisible sky fairy, and basically contains intertwined historical facts (the existence of various cities, peoples, certain wars) and parables to help inspire and teach people the value of an ethically correct life.

I do not hold it to be the literal 'Word of God' inasmuch as I don't feel that any truly advanced being could make itself exactly understood in the limited languages available at the time, (and not to be snobbish, at this time either.) such as Hebrew or Greek. You can't easily communicate concepts in a language if there are no words for those concepts. Now no doubt many Christian sects will be murmuring 'heretic' about now, but I think you have to continue to understand it within the constructs of your current society, unless your view of God is that any such 'being' is limited and can't continue to inspire humanity across thousands of years.

It is as relevant and useful today to avoid murder as it was 2000 years ago. Leviticus, for example, is a section I find less than relevant, as good advice 2000 years ago on avoiding shellfish (or Muslim prohibitions on pork) are no longer necessary. Various allergies and bacterial agents are easily dealt with now so that eating these foods is no longer often harmful.

If you wish to look for the Divine in that, you could say that God doesn't want you to be ill. So 2000 years ago, people were told flat out to avoid certain foods because they had no easy way to be sure of the safety of those foods.

Likewise - 'Be fruitful and multiply' - Good advice for agrarian farm communities in sparsely populated areas. Not so good advice in overcrowded industrial areas.

These words of wisdom, perhaps Divinely inspired, perhaps not, according to your own religions, were given to the people of 2000 years ago to help them build a better world than that of the brutal, ruthless places they inhabited.

Certainly you could come up with the extremely short version of 'Just be good and kind and helpful and forgiving to one another'. But people don't like or trust things that are given to them too easily. By making them THINK about the stories, and consider them, and imagine themselves in similar situations, you can more easily get them to realize the values inherent in working with others, in helping anyone you can, and simply in being nice.

And I'm only specifically mentioning the Bible because you did. I believe most religious texts all have a similar undercurrent. (excluding such fatalistic religions as those such as were covered by the Elder Eddas and the like.)

I also certainly won't claim all of it is positive either.
I don't believe that an omnibenevolent deity would actually command that children's heads be smashed on rocks, would order bears to tear up a couple score of children for making fun of a bald prophet, or similar Old Testament excesses.
To me, those are obvious proof that uninspired men alone wrote certain parts of the Bible and grafted it onto the inspired parts to usurp its power for their own ends. (Respect authority! Proactively deal with potential troublemakers!) I don't agree with thought police laws by humans and I don't believe an omnibenevolent God is just waiting for you to screw up so He can pitch you into Hell.

You have a brain, and if you believe in, ahem, 'invisible sky fairies', you can assume you were given it because you were expected to use it, and not just accept literally something written 2000 years ago in a culture that was radically different from the one you likely live in now.
Extract the real messages and don't get tied up in knots over the wording. Be helpful. Be kind. Don't hurt others. Don't hurt yourself. If you feel like thanking an invisible sky fairy for the gift, great! Gratitude is always appreciated.

I shall now change my official affiliation to Tongue-in-cheek Children of the Great Invisible Sky Fairy, with nods to ajmilne and Saul.



#50142: — 11/21  at  08:24 PM
Bloodaxe, you have just described the merits of the bible in terms that totally belittles true believers. That's fine by me and that would explain how your take on the bible could be reconciled with evolution since you don't really take much that is contained in the bible to truly be the actual and literal word(s) of God as most Christians do. I rest my case with you. The real debate between teaching creationism vs evolution in the classroom is very different than what you describe because the ID / creationists represent that absurdly large group of God fearing folks who actual believe the bible is the official true word of God in plain literal terms. As far as I'm concerned they all belong stuck in reruns of Fantasy Island for that is where they live their lives.



#50143: — 11/21  at  08:30 PM
Pavel,

Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...



#50186: Pavel Kabrt — 11/22  at  04:20 AM
Dear Saul,

all of this and much more is coming according to my faith in bible. But it comes thanks to Jesus and from him, not through our technology, science, atheism or wise politicians - better say, it comes in spite of it all, even in spite of my foolishness. With respect to other views

Pavel



#50205: — 11/22  at  08:34 AM
Saul,

'that totally belittles true believers' - so obviously, to you I'm not a true believer, eh? Well, I've stated I disagree with the literalists already, but... Belief in God can't exist without belief that the Bible is a literal document? Now admittedly, I was being more than a little tongue in cheek in that reply, but you'll note I mentioned inspired several times - implying that God could inspire the writers - guide them (and no, I don't mean dictation or literal control of their writings).

And the point I was trying to make was that humanity does change, so we HAVE to either continually reinterpret the Bible as we change or consider that it was and is literal for all times, or look for the underlying meaning, stripping away the words of man to look for the divine meaning beneath. As I've said, my faith cannot encompass a nonbenevolent deity, so to me, certain passages are obviously solely the work of men, and others were directed at specific peoples in specific times.

Once again, Leviticus provides many examples of passages that either were written by uninspired men or were meant for a specific people in a specific time. Can you truly find reasons why we shouldn't in this day and age, mix different fabric types in our clothing?

Erich, heretic in polycotton blend



#50230: — 11/22  at  09:54 AM
To both of you, here's a more recent song that makes the same point as John Lennon's Imagine. It's on Neil Young's latest album. The underlining message here is clearly that even IF God exists Christians certainly do not have exclusivity on him. It seems obvious to me that Christians are living their entire lives based on a bunch of outdated and inaccurate spiritual interpretations of events long ago. There may be a moral code of conduct in the bible to help some live a good life and to comfort some in troubled times by buying into all this but that's about the extent of it.

WHEN GOD MADE ME

Was he thinking about my country,
or the colour of my skin?
Was he thinking about my religion,
and the way I worshipped him?
Did he create just me in his image,
or every living thing?

When God made me.
When God made me.

Was he planning only for believers,
or for those who just had faith?
Did he envision all wars
that were fought in his name?
Did he say there was only one way
to be close to him?

When God made me.
When God made me.

Did he give me the gift of love
to say who I could choose?

When God made me.
When God made me.
When God made me.

Did he give me the gift of voice
so some could silence me?
Did he give me the gift of vision
not knowing what I might see?
Did he give me the gift of compassion
to help my fellow man?

When God made me.
When God made me.
When God made me.



#50243: — 11/22  at  11:18 AM
Let me say, as a scientist, that Darwinian Macro-evolution is not science. Intellectually dishonest and subjective pseudo-scientists, with an agenda, try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.

Some have chosen to buy into scientifically unsubstantiated propaganda; if you choose to venture into the world of authentic science, I would hope to see a respect for the scientific method and an openness of mind that wouldn't have a personal investment in whether or not a hypothesis is proven true or false.

The fact remains that neither Darwinian Macro-evolution nor Intelligent Design can be scientifically proven. To believe in either one takes faith, and those who embrace the first are just as religious as those who embrace the latter. As a scholar, to embrace one and reject the other under the guise of scientific proof is unforgiveable. At least be honest about the fact that you religiously accept Darwinian Macro-evolution. Scienctific proof is clearly irrelevant to the discussion.



#50253: — 11/22  at  11:46 AM
Saul: Yes, I agree that Christians do not have a monopoly on the Divine, and I would even agree if you claimed many Christians don't have a grasp on it.

Buddhists have a pretty good grasp on the ethical principles, to pick one other religion.

And the "fundies" aren't fun at all, which seems to me to be missing the point right there... but anyway.

Look. There's multiple types of Christians, and anyone trying to impose a rigid code is probably, if you ask me, not displaying a very strong grasp on what God cares about.



Pavel: Here's a deal. I pretend you make sense, and you go bother people who are fluent in a language you're capable of fluent writing in, eh? Because I expect you might have a point worth addressing in there somewhere, but it's darn hard to understand you to be sure, or to actually address it.



Schmitt: "As a scientist". Really? What branch of science? Where do you practice it? Where's your degree from?

Or, since credentials are supposed to be irrelevant in scientific discussions (as you should know, being a scientist, right?), why not point to the indication that there's a difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", other than vague concepts of time?

Surely you can cite a few papers, right? They don't even have to show it's impossible - just that the two are different. Hell, give me a meaningful definition (with references!) of the two. A strict definition - one I can use to say, definitively, if any given instance is macro or micro.



#50258: ajmilne — 11/22  at  11:58 AM
Let me say, as a scientist, that Darwinian Macro-evolution is not science. Intellectually dishonest and subjective pseudo-scientists, with an agenda, try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.

I'd love to. 'Cept that you can't really say that as a competent scientist.

Readers here will note the usual 'can't be proven'/'oh they both take faith' pseudointellectual handwaving... and an utter lack of substantive defense of the claim. As with every other dull purveyor of epistemologically slippery bullshit on the web and in the church basements.

The 'faith' of evolutionary biologists, readers, is that when so very many lines of evidence converge to demonstrate the same principles--again and again and again: sequence data, morphological work, studies of gene frequencies in extant populations, the fossil record among them, a number of reasonable inferences may be made--including:

(i) we are liiving in a world in which the natural laws are knowable, consistent, and subject to study for these reasons (I put this here for all the oh-so-philosophical solipsists apparently still kicking around),
(ii) the distant ancestors of extant organisms are very unlike them, and
(iii) natural selection has played a key role in influencing those differences, via the selection of advantageous combinations of genes over time.

The chain of evidence and reasoning leading to this set of insights is available for anyone to consider for themselves in any number of textbooks. Current advances refining the state fo the science are documented in publically available journals.

I've read more than a few of those myself. And feel I may quite safely say: if the poster's definition of 'faith' is such that it encompasses both this chain of inferences and the ooga booga obfuscation of the creationists (of all stripes, including the ID crowd), let alone encompassing the faith of yer standard slackjawed believers in mediaeval visions of hell, it's a definition with very little utility. And by it, apparently, my peculiar belief that, I am currently wearing slippers also constitutes 'faith'.



#50272: — 11/22  at  12:59 PM
The word "Devil" is just the conceptual personification of the word "evil" with a "d" in front of it.

The word "God" is just the conceptual personification of the word "good" with an "o" missing.

I suppose if you take those 2 letters and put them together you get the word "do" as in do good or do evil.

Perhaps that's how those 2 words first came into existence and stated all this trouble.

The book of Genesis is a theory about how we got here that has long since been dispproved by science. So now we have 2 main camps of Christians, those who accept what science has proven and have reinterpreted the bible so as to make it still fit in their lives and those who choose to stick their head in the sand and say that science is wrong and that the bible is the holy word of God, period, end of story. As I said in my first post here, this debate is between faith and knowledge and it is unlikely those paths will come to a common conclusion. In the meanwhile, faith based counter theories to evolution do not belong in the science classroom. Kids need to be taught that science has for all intents and purposes, proven the account of the origin of man as described in the book of Genesis to be as much of a fairy tale as the story of Mother Goose...no matter how much that rocks their world!



#50278: — 11/22  at  01:11 PM
...that is, rocks the world of the ID proponents.



#50294: — 11/22  at  02:03 PM
...there's nothing quite like replying back to your own posts on a bulletin board but I guess my little play on words above is a bit off the mark since the English language obviously came about well after the concepts of a God and a devil. Oh well, you get the idea just the same.



#50297: Pavel Kabrt — 11/22  at  02:12 PM
Dear Sotek,

thank you for clear words, I needed to hear it. Sorry for bothering you and others twice: with a bad English and bad opinions.

Pavel



#50299: — 11/22  at  02:29 PM
Saul: The issue is, indeed, what we should do when faith and science disagree.

It seems horribly inconsistant to me to have faith in God and then think that His Creation is false - which is what is required to reject science in favor of faith.
Then again, most people who do that aren't concious of doing it, so I can't ENTIRELY criticize it as being hypocritical - although Behe, Dembski, and the like, well, there's plenty to criticize there.



#50303: — 11/22  at  02:52 PM
Sotek, if they accept science, their whole world goes up in smoke but if they don't accept it, they remain safe. Faith trumps knowledge and that way they get to hold onto their delusional fantasies. That's fine, it's their right but they have no right to be pawning that crap off as science.



#50307: — 11/22  at  03:03 PM
Hey now. This blog is in the US, where at least when the Patriot Act isn't interfering, we still have free speech. I also have a devil of a time understanding Pavel, but telling him to just go off elsewhere is a bit harsh. And I have to admit, I was curious as to what the ID scientists conference he mentioned would present at their conference. All we hear about in the states is admittedly pretty non-scientific, but remember that you can't really prove the non-existence of something, just show that it hasn't happened in any verifiable way yet. Perhaps somewhere, somehow, someone actually is doing science that is being used to support their ideas. I can't imagine how, but I'd certainly be interested in finding out what possible scientific evidence could honestly be used to do so. (I'm not stipulating that they're necessarily drawing useful conclusions from their studies, but that they might have some potentially interesting studies.)

And as to God/Good, devil/evil, maybe you've just got it backwards. Maybe when English was developing, they got good from God and evil from devil?

Grüß Gott.



#50346: — 11/22  at  07:04 PM
The funny thing is that evolution was already largely accepted before Darwin came along. What Darwin supplied that was so controversial at the time (and sadly, still is in parts of the US) was that evolution occured through natural selection and did not involve acquired characteristics (if I loose my arm my kids won't be born without theirs).

Naturally the ignorant will say that this is all for the good of "open mindedness" but that's because they don't understand true scientific debate as opposed to some PC, political layman's debate. They also don't understand the difference between theory, law, hypothesis and making stuff up. They also are quick to point out "holes" but never mention what those holes are. I could go on with what they don't understand, but they should just go educate themselves instead of demanding a blogger or poster to educate them and berating them for not making their posts worthy of a scientific journal.

On a final note, it's worth mentioning that having some sort of God intervene in the world would break the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Those aren't 'just theories'.



#50358: — 11/22  at  08:40 PM
Saul: Uh, no.

See, I have faith, and I accept science, and my worldview hasn't gone up in smoke.

Perhaps you have a specific subgroup of people with faith in mind, as opposed to that composing something like 90% of the American population?



#50375: — 11/22  at  10:51 PM
Sotek: Uh no. Per the link below, an astonishing 90% of the American population consider themselves creationists and half of those creationists believe that God created man in his present form within the past 10,000 years. The other half apparently are like you and have completely disregarded the clear inaccuracies in the book of Genesis and have ignored the implications of that entirely. Being proven wrong is something that does not go down easy in matters of faith and so it is much easier to distort, ignore or deny than consider the implications.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4178.asp

So what does that really say to you? Half of those who believe in the bible believe it all. They would disagree with you about your views. They would say you are wrong. You can say they are wrong but the reality of a debate between these opposing views would be limited to well I believe this vs you believe that. Neither opinion could extend to anything beyond what each believes because the core issue is that both require an interpretation of faith and thus there is no proof of either being right. It's just what I believe is better than what you believe. Too bad America is so heavily populated by Chistians rather than a mix of religions of the world so that the debate could extend to other beliefs as well just for fun. It's all just so ridiculous and primitive. All it says to me is that apparently lots of people need to believe in something. Perhaps the ultimate irony is that need / instinct has been passed on through evolution's process in many people's genes over the thousands of years that the man made concept of God and religion has become such a prevalent and powerful belief within our species.



#50389: Pavel Kabrt — 11/23  at  02:03 AM
Darwin believed in inheritability of acquired characteristics, like Lamarck. He wrote about it in the Origin of Species; he believed that if you loose
your arm your future kids will be be born with shorter arms. And many other nonsenses Darwin did believe. Go and educate yourself, first.

Pavel



#50392: — 11/23  at  05:12 AM
Epigenomic changes seem to be capable of transmitting environmental conditions present in the parent into the child (or grandchild) without altering the genetic information. Not at a macro level like cut off arms or tails, bit in subtler ways.



#50441: — 11/23  at  12:41 PM
Hey, Pavel! Guess what: It doesn't matter what Darwin believed!

What matters is what the evidence says. Darwin proposed a theory that has, in the essentials, been supported by all subsequent evidence, including some very "improbable" things.



Saul: Well, if you accept AiG's definitions, then sure, I guess most of the US is creationist. But hell, by their definitions, most of Europe is creationist too, since they define "creationist" to be "believes in God", which is hardly the sense anyone I know actually uses it.
Creationism is not "God is responsible for the universe", Creationism is "God is responsible for the universe and evolution is wrong".

The page you linked to actually keeps changing definitions. At one point they say the majority of the US is creationist because 46.4% of the population rejected a statement in support of evolution! AiG are known liars, and their ability to engage in the doublethink required to say that 46.4% is a majority hardly shows anything about the popularity of creationism.


I notice you refused to indicate how my worldview's "gone up in smoke", and ignored my statement that Genesis is NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY - which means that the "clear inaccuracies" are ASSUMED.
Since, you know, if it weren't inaccurate, it COULD be taken literally. Do a literary comparison of Genesis and the Sumerian or Bablyonian myths. There are some obvious similarities - and some obviously deliberate differences. Genesis serves a purpose in the Bible which does not require it to be literally true.



#50487: — 11/23  at  05:54 PM
Sotek, I just did a Google search to get those % and clicked on the first link which referenced some 50 different surveys and came up with the same 90% figure you used. I remember reading a Newsweek cover story earlier this year that said only 6% of Americans were classified as either atheist or agnostic. That's a lot of believers in God. Regardless of whatever the actual numbers are in terms of the split of who believes what, a very substantial majority, if not all of them, believe that God created the universe and a very substantial number of those people are Christians and a very substantial portion of those Christians believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The exact % of each breakdown is pretty irrelevant to this discussion as my central point remains unchanged.

If the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally (and boy, talk about a stretch....it's not even in the same country, let alone the same ballpark) then why take the rest of the bible literally? It's all really just a philosphical interpretation of life on earth, one that has no proof even 2,000 years after the birth of Christ. Not even one shred of evidence. All of it requires blind faith.

Fine, your worldview need not go up in smoke, since you have chosen to apply what you like and reject what you don't. My point is there are easily tens of millions of Christians if not a 100 million or more that would disagree with your interpretation of the bible. Who's right? You? Them? I think the whole lot of you are living a fantasy.

So tell me Sotek, do you believe in heaven and hell for those who do and don't accept Jesus as their personal savior?



#50559: — 11/24  at  08:00 AM
I continue to be amazed at some of the foaming-at-the-mouth posts from some of the "enlightened." The cornerstone of a liberal education is to view a topic from a variety of positions, develop critical thinking skills, and make one's own determinations. To hear dogmatic evolutionist preachers scream heresy from thier bully pulpits here and in higher education classrooms toward anyone who would challenge their sacred Darwinian theory only confirms their loss of objectivity (which science is suppossed to hold). I think anyone who is in search for truth should learn about intelligent design (or any other idea) and draw their own conclusions. Science theories of old have always been replaced by the new, leading to critical thought and progress. It would appear that the evolution institution is simply resisting change as all old dying once popular institutions do. Think for yourself



#50560: Pavel Kabrt — 11/24  at  08:27 AM
Sotek wrote:

It doesn't matter what Darwin believed! I say: who cares about what Darwin believed? What matters is, that everything, what Darwin came up with as an evidence for his evolution idea was wrong, not by later findings of creationists, but by common biology. (his view on chemical evolution, segregation of races, heredity, embryology, fossils, dating etc.) How a good theory may be based on a totally false data? If Newton would have made just only half of such a "starting mistakes", none of his laws would exist today. But becauase darwinism is nothing else than an ideology about the past, untestable, its protagonists may go on with it for ever and call it "true science".



Sotek wrote: What matters is what the evidence says. Darwin proposed a theory that has,
in the essentials, been supported by all subsequent evidence, including some
very "improbable" things. This sentence of Sotek should be written like this: Darwin proposed a theory that has,
in the essentials, been supported by all subsequent evidence, which we, adherents of Darwin, bring for support of this beloved theory. Everything else (a majority of reality), which do not fit in it, we throw away. I could bring in here hundreds of examples, but you wouldn´t like it.

Pavel



#50561: — 11/24  at  08:32 AM
Saul: That depends on how you define "heaven" and "hell".

If you mean the popular conceptions with angels on clouds and fire and demons and so on? No, I don't believe in that at *all*.

Nor do I really believe that Jesus is a "personal savior". What I believe is that following Jesus's teachings is what is required for salvation.



"Doctor Ransom": Have you ever tried going into a physics classroom and telling them that Relativity is a lie?
Have you ever tried going into a computer science classroom and telling them that there's no such thing as a LALR grammar?
Have you ever tried going into a chemistry classroom and telling them that atoms don't exist, and that the laws of thermodynamics are bunk supported only by the bully pulpit?

No? Why not? It'd make about as much sense as attacking evolution.

The only reason people get strident about defending evolution is becuase biology is the primary field being attacked in an organized fashion by a superstitious position.

If there were multi-million-dollar insitutions devoted to proclaiming the absurdity of Relativity, working through lying to school boards, you can bet there'd be people reacting just as strongly to that.


Oh, and to claim that the "evolution institution" is resisting change would mean that I, with my degree in something other than biology, am part of the institution. Perhaps you can tell me how to get my paycheck for defending it?



#50562: — 11/24  at  08:37 AM
Pavel: Newton's laws are COMPLETELY wrong.

They just happen to be a very good approximation.



Darwin's theory only bears a minor resemblance to the modern theory of evolution, because, yes, he was wrong about many things. For instance, he didn't know about DNA! But the *essential* part of the theory is correct - which is that heritable variation combined with selection can produce evolution.

Oh, and do bring in examples. Please! I'd like to see them.
But please cite a peer-reviewed article for evidence, and try not to repeat anything that can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Think you're up to it?


And while you're at it, care to explain things like the practical applications of evolution? You can find one here: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/longcomments/an_example_of_evolutions_practical_utility/



#50564: ajmilne — 11/24  at  09:02 AM
Again, note standard vacuous rhetoric:

... dogmatic evolutionist preachers ...

... sacred Darwinian theory ...

... all old dying once popular institutions ...

... achieving a near perfect 1:1 lie-to-word ratio, to borrow a phrase.

That's the formula, folks. Construct a ludicrous, shameless con. Insist it be taught in the science classrooms. And when responsible educators and scientists realize what utter quacks you are and call you on it, say they're being 'dogmatic'.

Whatever, kiddo. Awfully 'dogmatic' of the geographers not to be teaching the Flat Earth theory too, one must presume. And apparently the astronomy departments are really doin' astrology a disservice. Close-minded bastards. As to heliocentricism, damn that 'old dying once popular institution' anyway for shutting out the obvious truth that the Sun is carried around the Earth on the back of a giant turtle.



#50565: — 11/24  at  09:12 AM
Sotek, you seem like a fairly intelligent fellow. Why then do you not get my main point to you? In your last post, you give me your version of heaven and hell. Certainly you realize that many Christians as well as non Christians would totally disagree with you. So again I ask, who's right? Is it your version? If so, who made you so smart so as to know the spiritual truth where others don't? Is it their version? Is it someone else's version? Or is heaven and hell merely a man made concept left up to whatever interpretation an individual decides to define it by?

Obviously, much unlike evolution, there is not one ounce of evidence to support the "theory" of heaven and hell. It's all based on what one chooses to believe that makes it real for that person but what does that have to do with objective reality? Or is the real purpose of religion to merely make it real to those who believe it? The fact that there are so many versions of what humans believe as religious truth should make that point obvious, no?



#50569: — 11/24  at  09:40 AM
Some of these recent posts remind me that churches are not places of inquiry and debate and learning, but places where an authority delivers 'the word' and does not ask questions afterward.

What would churches be like if throughout each sermon people could raise their hand and ask for clarification or additional examples or even challenge the presenter? The answer is that they would be a lot more like classrooms.

What would churches be like if each sermon started with everyone reciting the Bill of Rights? It might feel a lot like courthouses where the Ten Commandments are posted.

And wouldnt it be interesting if churches 'taught the controversy' that there is no actual evidence for heaven, hell, parting of the waters, angels, perpetual afterlife, Adam and Eve, burning bushes or any of the other totems of Christianity.

I suspect that this open and frank discussion of scientific evidence at church would have results akin to car dealers making sure that their potentail customers knew all the facts about bicycle communting before making a purchase. In either case, many sales would be lost and the world would be a better place.



#50648: — 11/25  at  02:22 AM
I just got back to Poland from a trip to Kansas. Many people there unhappy with the KBE for its actions. However, most people understand genetics and evolution about as much as they understand high school algebra. Hence the ability of the KBE to sell this rubbish to some people. We are dooming the country with low education standards in general, dumbing down to not hurt feelings. Hey, wake up - not everyone can really go to university. We need welders, truckers and laborers too - and these are not bad jobs.

This is really what it is about. If we educate our kids we won't have to swallow whatever garbage idelogical fruitcakes throw out at us.



#50658: — 11/25  at  10:30 AM
Saul: I have faith my version is correct.

But, as I recognize the irrationality of faith, I try not to be dogmatic about it.

I attempt not to present it as fact (even if I may sound overly certain sometimes), and I also attempt not to be the first to bring it up.


As to why I have such faith, which is, I take it, your central question?
Hard to say. It's probably at least partially a quirk of human psychology, and one that *everyone* holds. I mean, don't you agree that if we took a significantly large selection of YOUR beliefs, we'd find that under 1% of [insert representative population sample of choice] would agree with you on all of them?
There is no good answer as to why ANY individual should be able to consider themselves correct when they are in a hopelessly small minority - except that all in all, there is no majority.

That perspective, though, makes your argument comparatively meaningless. ... or, perhaps on a reread of your argument, supports it.

In which case, we disagree on less than we thought, which perhaps should not be as surprising as it is.




Honestly, I would describe myself as not religious at all - but very spiritual. But that's because I make a strong distinction between the two - and view religion as adding in cultural roles which are not necessary for being spiritual, and thus, while beneficial, can be filled by other things. (up to and including a blog like this!)



(... and my confirmation word is "promoter". I love this blog's system, I really do.)



#50659: — 11/25  at  10:32 AM
Dokey: "This is really what it is about. If we educate our kids we won't have to swallow whatever garbage idelogical fruitcakes throw out at us."


YES.
Very, very, true.

(Ideological, btw.)



#50663: — 11/25  at  12:06 PM
Mmmmm, no, not exactly Sotek, we still completely disagree on the matter of faith. You choose to "recognize the irrationality of faith" yet you still have faith. I choose to recognize the irrationality of faith and as a result have none. I believe in being a good person, making the most of my time here and treating others as I would like to be treated myself but that's about the extent of it. To me, God is just a man made concept to explain things in a simple to grasp way from a time when people didn't know any better. For many, they still don't know better. That and the fact that having faith gives people comfort is why I believe it's so common for people to have faith. Despite the admitted wonder of life, there is simply way too much injustice in the world for me to think otherwise. And if God's goal was to create man (in his image no less), evolution sure seems like a pretty awkward, awfully long way about it for someone who has the power to create the universe out of nothing, no? And again, I would ask you who created the creator?

As to your point about those who share my views, they would all fall into just 2 camps, atheist or agnostic. But as for those who have faith, that's where it conveniently becomes much more fragmented depending first on what country, culture and religion you were born into and then people like you customizing it further by accepting this and/or rejecting that to make a particular faith fit the individual. Don't you see the difference? If there really is no God, then atheists and agnostics have it right, end of story. If there is a God, then who's to say which religion or beliefs apply, if indeed any at all?

(yes and of course my password code on this post would have to be "godless")



#50665: — 11/25  at  12:51 PM
No, Saul. You don't have faith in anything supernatural.

You still have faith. Do you believe in the existance of justice? That's rather irrational. Indeed, even rejecting the solipist position requires a level of irrationality. Do you think you're sane? Obviously the belief that one is sane is not sufficient to know you're sane - but how else CAN you know?


And I was not merely talking about your views on God. I was talking about *all* your views, because your argument applies equally well to political beliefs as it does to religious beliefs. Are all Republicans (Or Democrats, or Libertarians, or Communists, or *whatever*) stupid? Is anyone who didn't go into the same profession as you did irrational?

Perhaps that's why I'm "missing your point" - because I feel that the scrutiny a belief demands is determined by the level to which it influences actions - and the nature of the actions it influences may also determine the type of scrutiny required.

My faith in God is at least as justified, based on the knowledge I have and have been able to gather, as my belief that the field I have chosen to go into for research has a "point". (The AI subfield of computer science, to be specific)

MANY of my beliefs are irrational - but none are, to my knowledge, impossible. And there are some I'm vaguely aware are likely to be false - but which are advantageous to believe.

For instance, I believe that as long as my car is properly maintained, it will continue to work. This is a false belief - eventually it'll break. But what good does the true belief bring me? The false belief allows me to relax, while the true belief would have little impact on my actions. And thus, I hold a false belief, examine it, conclude it's false, and then discard the examination, because it doesn't matter.

I expect you'd call my faith a crutch - and it is. But would you deny a crippled man his crutch? I am flawed. I know this. I strive to be better, but if faith, which is unjustified but is not known to be false, helps me ... why should I NOT have it?



You see, you have presented a strong argument that my position is not empirically true the way that, say, evolution is - and thus I shouldn't push it.

But I don't. I merely defend it, and you've produced very little in the way of argument against holding my position. They are, after all, different things.



#50666: — 11/25  at  12:54 PM
Oh: And as to "who created the creator"?

I refuse to answer that, on the grounds that my answer is way-out-there-crazy.


But I don't view God as solving any "problems" in the naturalistic causual explanations, which is, I assume, what you were driving at.



#50667: — 11/25  at  01:07 PM
Saul:

Whether or not you have faith in some 'force/entity' that 'created' the universe, I'm pretty sure you have faith in general, unless you're omniscient yourself. Unless I'm a delusional unembodied entity, I exist, you exist, and so on.
I'm assuming that you have 'faith' in the existence of the universe (ie, you believe it exists, as a result of what your alleged senses tell you.)

I try to keep faith and intellect separate, but there are things I take on faith that I could indeed 'prove' at least insofar as I would accept 'proof' by some action I could take. I have faith that a state called North Dakota exists.
I've never been there, no one I know claims to have been there, but I have faith that there is no vast universal conspiracy to shove a lie of the existence of something called 'North Dakota' down my throat. Short of my going where it's supposed to be and not finding it, I'll continue to take it on faith.

Faith is not just faith in some external supernatural force, it's the willingness to believe in ANYTHING you don't directly experience or in some way prove to yourself on firsthand knowledge. I have faith that scientific journals function by using peer review on articles, because I believe in the integrity of the scientists and editors who work for them and tell us they use peer review. I have faith that my teachers taught me concepts that were, at some point, directly tested by other experimenters, and that these experimenters weren't deliberately perpetrating a hoax.

So in a sense, all of science is underpinned by faith as well. We have faith that people are not deliberately lying to us, and that all of the people who've done various experiments that agree with them weren't in some grand deliberate hoax. I've never seen a lepton, and in my branch of science, I'll never do an experiment that will show me one or even that theoretically one exists through some effect it causes, but I'll take on faith that many other people who are trained in particle physics have determined the likelihood of their existence.

No single person could encompass all currently known scientific concepts in a single lifetime, so we're reduced to having faith that all scientists will do their best to act within the conceptual framework of science and that duplication of experiments, peer review, and other processes will ensure the best science propagates, and that poor science is bypassed.

And you've left the animists, the pantheists, and the spinozans out of your equations as well. They don't particularly care about 'a God' or the lack of same in the sense that atheists, agnostics, or the big 3 religions do.

Unless you want to get into discussing animistic atheists or pantheistic henotheists, or what have you. I find the spinozan view (if the person who told me about it explained it correctly) quite elegant. The Universe IS god, He 'knows' about each sparrow's fall because he is each sparrow. I need to read some Spinoza, find out if they even ascribe any kind of separate consciousness or not...

You have faith that your senses aren't lying to you, and therefore the universe exists. Atheism only claims there is no God - there's no universal atheist creed that superstrings/big bang/expansion-contraction resulted in the existence of the universe. Some atheists believe one, some another, etc. And saying who created the creator is semantic nonsense too. The universe is self-evident. Either it is endless, or it had a start/will have an end, or our language can't express the truth. Choose one of the three, and have whatever amount of faith you want in it.
Saying you don't have faith in anything is intellectual laziness ;)

(Keyword Mendel)



#50668: — 11/25  at  01:11 PM
Darn, I type too slow, Sotek got his letter in while I was still typing mine.

(Keyword genetics)



#50670: — 11/25  at  01:24 PM
But you addressed the issue much more clearly than I did, I feel.

I've been having difficulty expressing my thoughts lately, as I've been doing more and more non-verbal thinking (A welcome change from how I used to be - I used to be hyper-verbal, which has its own drawbacks), and thus... wind up trying to talk like I think.

And stream of conciousness is not only incoherent, it's an inaccurate model of thought, since thought is much more complex and parallel.

(Keyword is diploid. So of course it's just confirmation bias that makes them seem so entertaining, but hey.)



#50671: — 11/25  at  02:03 PM
Gentlemen,

I remind you both that this is a discussion board regarding matters of evolution vs creationism. Creationism is directly linked to Christianity and Christianity is directly linked to God and religion. Believing in values of right and wrong do not require faith and having a particular political party affiliation is entirely a different matter based on one's political agenda rather than one's faith. Voting for a candidate may pertain to having faith that your candidate will do the better job but that is merely a different application of the word faith than the one that is being discussed here...although I can see why you both would want to overlook that clear and obvious difference. Certainly, believing that North Dakota exists is hardly the same thing as believing that God exists.

Not having faith in the supernatural is hardly intellectual laziness. In fact, it is far easier to have faith.



#50672: ajmilne — 11/25  at  02:20 PM
Okay, this thread has utterly diverged from original topic, now.

Still:

You have faith that your senses aren't lying to you, and therefore the universe exists...

Without resorting to referring to the 'three kinds of faith' defined by certain other parties, I'd like to point out that this usage of 'faith' presumes that one may be said to have 'faith' if they have not final and utterly complete proof of anything--and thus ultimately winds up describing all human knowledge outside entirely self-referential systems such as mathematical ones. Because we can, in fact, prove nothing to that standard outside such conveniently precisedly defined systems as Abelian groups (which, for you non-math folk out there, are such things as the integer number line and the fundamental operations we define for operating upon them).

I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'm just pointing out its extraordinary imprecision as a term. And I mean imprecise in the sense that it is so utterly universal, and covers such a vastly wide range of beliefs. It makes no distinction as to the quality and consistency of evidence gathered, and the quality of inferences made from them. By such a standard, both my belief that the sun will appear at a given spot on the Eastern horizon tomorrow and a delusional schizophrenic's belief that he is Elvis constitute 'faith'.

In fact, leaving questions as to whether it constitutes 'faith' or not, rejecting the solipsist position is quite rational if your standard of proof is more that which we accept in court ('proof beyond a reasonable doubt'), all of the natural sciences, indeed, in any field in which inductive reasoning has proved useful.

Our perceptions of what we believe are the external universe are, generally, consistent. Certain experiments are repeatable, insofar as, when we write down how we do them sufficiently precisely, others seem able to get the same results. Or, with a bemused nod to the solipsists, we believe we perceive others like ourselves who can repeat them.

The inference here: there's either an external universe out there which follows certain consistent physical laws, and others like me who can perceive the same thing, or my brain is awfully consistent about reporting sensations consistent with that conclusion to me.

So is accepting the former conclusion (that the universe exists and is to some degree comprehensible and predictable) faith? Sure--but only by the broadest definition. 'Faith' if it is faith, in a postulate that has a preponderance of evidence supporting it, again. Or, again, in the legal terms, in a conclusion we may reasonably say is 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt'.

There are other kinds of 'faith'. Belief in something with an utter lack of positive evidence--or, indeed, belief in the face of evidence which seems rather clearly to contradict a belief--and finally belief in such odd things as the modern pure Deist* position, in which by the very definition of the belief there is no evidence which may possibly be brought to bear for nor against the postulate--are very different things, by my lights.

I point this out because, in fact, a highly illogical argument frequently follows from such an imprecise use of faith: that 'believing in' evolution (ahem: the scare quots are intentinal: I'd go with 'having confidence the inferences within the theory are sound') and believing in intelligent design' both require faith, and are thus equivalent.

Well, you can argue they *do* both require faith only by that rather unuseful definition of faith. And even if you do, it still doesn't make them, in any sane world--that being a world containing people actually interested in the coherence of evidence and inference--equivalent.

I should note: whenever I see this definition of 'faith' brought in, I tend to suspect I can draw another useful inference: I'm dealing with someone far more interested in preserving undue respect for conclusions built on extremely shaky logical ground than in investigating the atual soundness of their construction.

*I define this as the position which holds that there is a creator or guiding spirit, but its presence is indistinguishable by physical observation from its absence, which, I'd argue, if I had a few days, is a bit of historical weirdness hanging around only because it evolved from a position which did, actually make some sense--the original Deist position was that study of the universe itself would prove the existence of a deity.



#50673: — 11/25  at  02:31 PM
I didn't mean faith in the supernatural, what I was referring too as lazy was in not defining what it is you take on faith. I stand by my belief that humanity can't operate a complex society without faith, at least faith in other people fulfilling their functional tasks.

I fully support your right not to believe in the supernatural; there are far too many natural things you have to have faith in to worry too much about ghosties and goblins and gods. And, for the record, I actually haven't been a Christian for around 15 years - the ULC is similar to the Unitarians, and my personal beliefs are a meld of certain parts of Christianity, Taoism, and animism. While spirituality is an ethical check on my daily actions and a support for my socialistic economic views, it is not something I depend on to give me hope or the motivation behind any sort of evangelical ideological dogma.

I don't do things or not do things from any sort of fear of or belief in supernatural reward or punishment. And having real faith isn't at all easy. 'Leap of faith' says it all - your intellect tells you that something is impossible or unlikely but you have faith and do it. People who have faith in themselves will fail over and over and over until they succeed at something that everyone says is impossible.

Sotek and I aren't trying to engage in any sort of sophistry when we speak of faith as being separate from the supernatural. We sincerely believe that faith, while encompassing the supernatural, extends further, and were trying to express that point, not overlook the usage of faith about which you're speaking.

And yes, this particular message thread is about the misguided attempt of certain specific people who happen to be Christians to insert religion into science because they don't really understand what science is and is not.

I for one, am busy having faith that a check I'm owed will appear before the 1rst so my automatic mortgage payment doesn't bounce.



#50674: — 11/25  at  03:45 PM
Saul, an article you might like if you haven't read it already.

http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/363

I'm finding it amusing (haven't finished reading it yet).
A nice little metaphoric approach to the specifics of supernatural faith.



#50678: — 11/25  at  06:28 PM
I'd actually like to see a definition of the three kinds of faith.

Because I'm quite aware it's a fuzzy sort of word - but I don't have a better one, and I might be falling into the Shapir-Worf trap. I don't think I am, but I have to admit it's possible.

Although if I were to pick something that (I presume) most scientists have faith in, the way I have faith in God, it's that the workings of the universe are fully comprehensible to human minds.
I mean, I have faith in that position, and it actually relates to my faith in God.

But even when I was an atheist, I had faith in that belief.
And it's certainly an irrational one. Why should a monkey adapted to running down prey on the savannah be able to understand the universe? The evolutionary adaptations required for one hardly seem to require the other.



#50679: — 11/25  at  06:30 PM
Oh, and as a random aside: The sort of faith I have in evolution is the sort you'd be least likely to call faith of most of the ideas I hold faith in - because, thanks to the creationists, I've examined the facts on it so much that, well... yeah.



#50684: ajmilne — 11/25  at  09:51 PM
... if I were to pick something that (I presume) most scientists have faith in, the way I have faith in God, it's that the workings of the universe are fully comprehensible to human minds.

And I rather believe you'd be presuming wrong.

What the methods of science have thus far revealed to us is that the universe is to some degree knowable. And this is a reasonable inference based on accumulated evidence, as I noted above--describable as 'faith' only with a very broad definition of that word.

I think it's quite fair to say that characterizes very well what scientific thinking is, in its very essence. We conclude as much as we can with the evidence that has been garnered, and with as much certainty as is reasonable given the quality of the evidence--no more. And thus that's really all anyone in science is saying. No one's saying they assume the workings of the universe are 'fully knowable', not to my knowledge, nor must they assume that this is so to explore it further using human minds. Science progresses, in fact, on the very assumption that we know little with absolute certainty. Though we have theoretical frameworks for much of the world we observe--and some of them really have proved quite excellent for our purposes so far (what we can do, for instance, with orbital mechanics never fails to amaze me), and thus we can say we're extremely confident in the quality of those frameworks over the phenomena they attempt to explain--we're always on the lookout for better ones, and for ways to refine and improve the ones we have. And it's not going far out on a limb to say it's likely we will never know all there is to know about the universe--it is large, and we are small, and, as you do quite reasonably note, there's nothing about us that should lead us to expect we necessarily have such a capacity.

Religious folk, I find, tend to be well-pleased by those sorts of comments, tend to respond with comments like gee, well that's an awfully mature attitude of you--so what you're saying is you *don't* have the last word on what's true...

So I still get to believe in my invisible sky fairies, right?

And no, I'd say no you don't. Right up 'til that last sentence, you're fine, and that's where you blow it.

Because saying 'we don't know everything, and it's quite possible we may never know terribly well how much we do' is a long way from saying 'thus you now thus have carte blanche to believe whatever you damned well please, on no grounds whatsoever'.

Put another way: it's perfectly evident the human mind's capacity for using reason has its limitations. But how does it follow from this that the sensible thing to do, therefore, is to stop using it entirely? Or to cripple it, by adopting overtly obscurantist creeds?

Put yet another way: scientists don't use the human capacity for reason because they think it's so utterly wonderful...

They just use it because it's all they've got that's proved to be of any use whatsoever. 'Limited' though it may be, it's the instrument our species has used to garner *all* knowledge about which we can reasonably have *any* confidence.

All of this has intersections with much of what's been described in this thread. Again: certain ID folk protest that science is arrogant to 'exclude' the possibility of someone having engineered aspects of biological life, but this isn't what the biologists are doing at all. What they're saying is (again, as I said above, in a rejoinder to folk voicing just that protest) if you wish to advance that hypothesis, you should be able to demonstrate good reasons for doing so. You must, again, demonstrate coherence between your hypothesis and the evidence. What did you observe that lead you to that conclusion?

And this, I might also add, is all I'm saying as an atheist, too (and yes, I most definitely am one) to folk descirbing their beliefs in their various peculiar deities, with their many names, and many frequently contradictory attributes. I've seen no good argument for believing such things, so I don't. Going even further, I've seen so much dreadfully bad (and even comically absurd) reasoning for such beliefs, I'm quite reasonably suspicious that a very large segment of the human population accept extremely poor arguments in such quarters, so I'm naturally going to be skeptical even before you present any evidence, and that, too, I think is quite reasonable of me in the context--so, in fact, I'm unlikely to even be that curious about your particular notions on the subject, at this point--though this is a bit of a digression.

Regardless, if I were to invite you to present what you've got, the questions would still be the same, and would come from the same approach to knowledge as science provides: have you a good reason for advancing your hypothesis? What's the evidence that has lead you to your conclusion? How do you come to your conclusion from it?

And thus, I'd add, my observation that the evidence and arguments offered thus far are really quite dreadful really has little to do with 'faith', unless, again, you're getting awfully careless with the word.

As to the three varieties of faith, I believe they come from Kant. Didn't someone mention them somewhere way up in this thread? Like several days ago? And I didn't refer to them directly because I haven't taken the time to consider whether they're particularly useful definitions either. At first glance, they didn't look bad, but I can't say they had me jumping up and down with excitement, either.



#50768: — 11/26  at  06:47 PM
Per dictionary.com, below is the definition of the word "faith"...

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

I suppose that should serve our purpose here for now unless anyone cares to challenge that definition.

"I didn't mean faith in the supernatural, what I was referring too as lazy was in not defining what it is you take on faith. I stand by my belief that humanity can't operate a complex society without faith, at least faith in other people fulfilling their functional tasks."

Bloodaxe, I don't see your use of the word "faith" above fitting in with any of the definitions above unless you want to say that a complex society must be trustworthy or have a set of principles. Again, I wouldn't think of that in the same light at all as faith in something supernatural which clearly is the most common application of the word. To your example, I don't believe that a hypothetical society comprised solely of atheists would be doomed. Quite the contrary, they wouldn't have to deal with conflicting religious beliefs, an extreme source of conflict in this world both in the past and the present. Contrary to simplistic Christian delusions, we should not assume that merely because a person is an atheist, that person has no grounded morals or is evil.



#50773: — 11/26  at  07:19 PM
Saul: How about definition #3 or #6 for Bloodaxe's use of the word "faith"?

And I agree, a society of athiests could work ... but that's because athiests often have faith. Look at Ayn Rand and the objectivists. Indeed, a lot of her followers displayed the very worst traits that faith can have - while actively railing against religion.

Faith. The bad parts of faith are the most obvious, but the good parts are what make people able to build a society - I'll stand by that statement, while noting that religious belief is not a requirement for faith.



#50778: — 11/26  at  07:50 PM
Sotek,

I referenced aspects of definition #1 & 6 in my prior reply to Bloodaxe. Sorry but I don't see #3 fitting.

Look, we can debate the other applications of the word faith till the cows come home but the reality of it is that the word is most typically used in association with religious faith / faith in God. In the most common broadest sense of the word, to most people stopped on the street and asked, religious belief is an obvious requirement for having faith. Telling an atheist that he has faith in there not being a God is as silly as telling someone who doesn't believe in the tooth fairy that they have faith in there not being a tooth fairy. One does not have to have faith that there is no such thing as a tooth fairy any more than one does not have to have faith that there is no such thing as the flying spaghetti monster.

As to your suggestion that the good parts of faith are what enable people to build societies, what can I say other than look around at every other species that inhabit the earth. While they may not build cities containing skyscrapers, museums, factories, schools, churches, etc, they do manage to survive without them just fine. Why must you assume that had the concept of God never entered the conciousness of human beings, that human societies could not have evolved? And perhaps developed into a far better, more EVOLVED world than the divided one we find ourselves in now?



#50813: — 11/27  at  01:19 AM
Why must you persist in continually misrepresenting my beliefs to the point that it's starting to seem deliberate, Saul?

I say faith does not have to be religious, then I say that faith is part of what has helped humans build societies.

You reject my claim that faith doesn't have to be religious, and then you claim that because it's possible to concieve of a successful society without religion, that faith is unnecessary - except that you ignore the fact that I never said religion WAS necessary.

I said faith was, and explicitly made a distinction. You tried to define my distinction away in order to create a strawman of my position and attack it.
(Also, you don't see "Loyalty to a person or thing" being relevant to the construction of a stable society? Are you insane?)

If you'd like to respond to my ACTUAL position, then we can try having a rational discussion. If you'd prefer to continue creating strawmen...



#50820: — 11/27  at  06:59 AM
Ok Sotek, if you want us to have a rational discussion about your "actual" position, rather that just making bold statements that appear contradictory to me why then don't you get specific and explain for me how it's possible that your "faith in God" is not "religous"? Does your version of God believe any of the following...that he/she/it/they is responsible for creating life on earth? The universe? An after life that he/she/it/they will decide for each of us when we die? And just to assure that we are both on the same page here, please keep in mind the definition of the word religous as per below...

re·li·gious ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljs)
adj.
1) Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2) Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3) Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

What person or thing must a society be loyal to / have faith in in otder to maintain stablity? Political and religous leaders for example certainly do not enjoy either unanimous loyalty nor permanent loyalty amongst citizens. Are you suggesting that merely a loyal majority is needed? I could dispute with that as well by asking you to look at George W's current approval ratings...unless you wamt to suggest that the U.S. is no longer a stable society. As for loyalty to a thing like a constition, stable societies have certainly been built without one. So what exactly do you mean by this being so apparent as to call me insane for not seeing it as you do?



#50821: — 11/27  at  07:13 AM
Sotek, for the benefit of our discussion and to help keep us on the same page, below is the definition of the word religion...

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3) The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.



#50917: — 11/28  at  08:08 AM
Saul

I was going by definition 2, merely saying that as humans we don't have time to physically verify every single thing around us, thereby 99% of everything we do, we do because we trust/have faith in others around us, or that our environment will behave in certain ways. We have no 'proof' that people will stop for us at stoplights, but because we generally have faith that everyone driving knows the protocol and will obey it, we're able to quickly and efficiently drive according to them with relative safety.
We have no proof or evidence that they will stop until after they do stop. This may be a weak example, but I think it suggests the way in which i am considering non-supernatural faith.

(I haven't read the other 8 or so posts that have piled up since yet, so I hope this isn't horribly out of date.)



#51050: — 11/28  at  11:26 PM
Bloodaxe,

"Faith: 2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Ah but we do have proof that it is reasonable to assume that most people will stop at red lights since we have been experiencing that happening with our eyes for most of our lives. That's not to say that no one's ever run a red light before but it's reasonable to assume that most people will stop. Similarily, it's reasonable to assume that we're not going to get shot by someone when we cross the street although that has happened to some people. Playing the clear odds in examples like this is very different than having faith in God whom to the best of my knowledge has yet to be seen by anyone I know.

And again, this is really all besides the point because it's really about different applications of the word faith that we are discussing now. I maintain that you can not have "faith" in the most traditional, most common sense everyday use of the word without being religious.

BTW, thanks for the link...that was good. There may be hope for you yet.



#51180: — 11/29  at  04:01 PM
PZ Myers wrote, "Rewriting the definition of science seems a rather presumptuous thing for a school board to do, I think, especially when their new definition is something contrary to what working scientists and major scientific organizations say is science. As for removing the limitation to natural phenomena, what do they propose to add? Ghosts, intuition, divine revelation, telepathic communications from Venusians? It's simply insane."

I think it is presumptous and egocentric to hold to logical positivisn as the only epsitimology with any weight. I would imagine feminists, post-modernists, religious people, and other minorities in the scientific community would take issue with your oppresive and demeaning remarks. The more I read this blog, I can not help but envision Darwinist clergy clad in robes, waiting to rack the heritics until they confess, "evolution as God." Geesh, allow others their voice already. That's what pluralism is all about.



#51192: — 11/29  at  05:03 PM
Back to the jargon problem. To scientists, the word science has a very specific meaning - essentially the search for knowledge as performed using a process called the scientific method. Now this has, over the centuries, been considered a very high-minded and noble sort of idea, so of course, lots of people would like to consider themselves scientists.
But just as plumbers and electricians and nurses have to go through rigorous training at accredited institutions and follow specific protocols in their work, so do scientists.

As has been pointed out by several people, the 'arrogant Darwinists' (and most of us aren't Darwinists, much less biologists or evolutionary scientists) are annoyed by outside attempts to redefine the basis for science as a field by people who don't do science. Plumbers and electricians don't usually have this problem - no one is out their trying to claim you can do plumbing via brain waves, or that someone who sees and adjusts auras is an electrician.

We have no problem at all with people with other philosophies or religions as long as they don't claim things to be science that don't depend on the scientific method. We don't go around claiming that any given religion or philosophy is false. There are people who perform scientific experiments out there, who no doubt believe the world is 6k years old. As long as they only claim as science experiments done using the scientific method, we have no problem at all with them.

You might as well claim to be a pro-lifer and yet say you support abortions in almost all cases. Sure you can say it, but no major pro-life organization or person who actually understands the 'pro-life' stance is going to agree that you are one.

The fact that this is a language problem is found at dictionary.com or other online dictionaries that talk about Christian Science. As far as a scientist is concerned, 'Christian Science' would be any science that just happened to be done by a Christian. It certainly would have nothing to do with claiming the Biblical flood laid down all the sedimentary rock in the world.

And I have no clue at all (obviously) how 'feminists' or minorities would feel that the scientific method is demeaning or oppressive, unless by oppressive you mean 'identifying poor science as poor science'. It's true that scientists oppress those who draw enormously broad conclusions from data sets with a single data point, and snicker at people who make claims but can't ever reproduce their experiments. And yes, by the definition of science accepted by scientists, you have to be a rational empiricist to be doing science.

I won't claim that anything else is 'meaningless' but I will say that you can't just shove a statement from outside any given framework into it and have it make sense. If I was writing a mathematical proof about geometry, suddenly shoving in the sentence 'Bob is red.' would make no sense at all about a trapezoid. Bob may indeed be red, but that has nothing to do with my mathematical formulation. Similarly, my mathematical proof is 'Meaningless' in determining whether Bob is red or chartreuse.



#51233: — 11/29  at  10:01 PM
1) It is presumptuous for people to dogmatically assert that the only valid method for obtaining knowledge is through the scientific method. Many folks on both sides of the issue (most who are not trained in t