Exchange of Words in Kansas

Posted 13 May 2005 by Reed A. Cartwright

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/exchange-of-wor.html

Well, the Kansas Kangroo Court is over, and it did not produce the outcome that the anti-evolutionists wanted. “Experts” from around the world were flown to Kansas to put on a state funded advertisement for intelligent design creationism because the local lay people were not doing a good job of it. Well, the “experts” that came to Kansas didn’t do a much better job. They routinely answered questions by admitting non-expertise. They were even caught having not read the standards they were supposedly testifying about. (Let’s be honest, the hearings were not about science education in Kansas but about giving intelligent design creationism a forum to advertise.) These revelations did more harm than good for the school board’s impending decision to accept the minority revisions to the standards.

Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education, has gone into damage control with a letter to the Wichita Eagle. Steve Case, chair of the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards Committee, has written a letter in response which was read by Pedro Irirgonegaray on the final day of the hearings.

Hearings were about good science

By Steve Abrams

It is a sad commentary on the state of public affairs that persons as learned as reporters and editorial board members of The Eagle still have no clue as to what is happening with the Kansas science curriculum standards.

The Eagle editorial “Fringe: Evolution hearings push religious agenda” (May 8 Opinion) claimed that these hearings have “everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classrooms.” That is absolutely incorrect. At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the science curriculum standards. On the contrary, I have stated that I would vote against inserting either one into the science curriculum standards. Further, I have repeatedly stated that my objective is to get as much empirical science (defined as observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable) into the science curriculum standards as possible.

In addition, I have stated that I want to remove the dogmatic fashion with which neo-Darwinian evolution is taught. When a subject is discussed using words such as “always” and “fact” and “no controversy,” when in actuality, it is not always, nor factual, and great controversy is involved, then by definition it is being taught as a dogma.

The dogmatic approach is what is being advocated in the majority draft of the Kansas science standards.

The point of the science hearings is to show that, indeed, among scientists with many degrees, having received many research grants, having published many peer-reviewed papers and books and having accomplishments great and small, there is great controversy about biological evolution being taught as dogma. They presented testimony that there is controversy about the “factual” nature of biological evolution. They also presented testimony that there is controversy about the very definition of science as used in the majority draft.

These hearings were not about my religious views; they were about what is good science. There was a huge amount of science testimony over three days last week. But to read the editorial and the article “Anti-evolution hearings end” (May 8 Local & State), a person would be hard-pressed to know that science was the main topic of discussion.

One had to read the editorial and article closely to find that 23 people testified, but one might get the opinion that indeed there weren’t many scientists that testified. In point of fact, of the 20-plus witnesses, only two were not actively involved in science research or teaching science. Of course, the article quoted both of those who were not active in science research or science teaching.

We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify. But they have all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask: Is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists? Or is it because what the majority proposes is actually full of holes?

The editorial stated that the case against the conservatives of the state board should be for “educational malpractice.” I find it amazing that you would say this in the face of the testimony of the science teachers who testified that they were reprimanded, fired and generally put on a short leash when they discussed — not brainwashed, but discussed — scientific tests that seemed to contradict the “fact” of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Further, the article referred to Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, as a “mainstream scientist.” In fact, Mr. Krebs does not have a Ph.D. in science, but instead is a high school math teacher. This is not meant to demean math teachers, but generally, most high school math teachers do not consider themselves “mainstream scientists.”

I have made no secret of my faith or the principles upon which I stand, nor what I would like to see in the Kansas science standards. Yet The Eagle persists in stating that I intend to do something that is categorically opposite of what I state. I would urge Eagle writers to become well-educated about the issues.

Investigate the claims of those witnesses (with lots of pedigrees) who claim there are significant problems and mainstream science does not stand up to investigation.

Investigate the claims of Kansas Citizens for Science, which has sought to target uneducated moderates with propaganda and proclaimed the conservative state board members as political opportunists, unprincipled bullies, etc.

Investigate my claims when I state I do not want to insert creationism or intelligent design, but instead want to rely on empirical science.

I have tried to speak forthrightly with every reporter that comes along, but it seems that most of them (or at least their editors) are either wannabe mind readers or have an agenda of their own.

As Thomas Cooper said, only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.

Steve Case’s Response

I feel that I have to respond to Dr. Abram’s letter in the Wichita Eagle.

Dr Abrams ends his letter with a quote from Thomas Cooper: “only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.” I would suggest that he be careful what he wishes for.

Throughout the Standards process, the expert panel appointed by the State Board has worked very hard to follow the process by which curriculum standards are developed. It is by this kind of adherence to a well structured process and by following the rules, that documents of this nature establish creditability. Through this process, a two thirds majority of the committee has produced an excellent document. At all times we have maintained a high degree of respect for all of the people involved in standards process and at all times made absolutely certain that all voices were heard.

Honestly, during this process it has been difficult to remain respectful when being denigrated as a scientist and portrayed as a poor teacher. I have been looked in the eye and lied to on several occasions during this process.

A good example comes from the second paragraph of Dr. Abrams letter in which he says, “At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the science curriculum standards.”

Dr. Abrams must think that we have forgotten Trial Draft 4A of the science standards that he introduced in 1999. At the time he told us that he was the author of this trial draft of the standards. It was only through a bit of detective work that we found that this was not true. The draft had been written by a young earth creationist group from Cleveland, Missouri.

These were the creationist standards that were adopted by the board in1999. Dr. Abrams was, at the very least, a driving force in the insertion of creation science into our state standards at that time.

It is also difficult to remain respectful when I read Dr. Abrams’ statement in which he says, “In addition, I have stated that I want to remove the dogmatic fashion with which neo-Darwinian evolution is taught.”

Dr. Abrams knows that there is a great deal of difference between science content standards and curriculum/instruction. Standards create a broad vision of what it means to be scientifically literate. They serve only as a foundation for local school districts to create their curriculum and instruction.

It seems as if Dr. Abrams is promoting State control for what has been a local function; the curriculum and instruction occurring in local classrooms. However, I cannot let the assertion that the outstanding science teachers of Kansas are teaching in a dogmatic fashion stand unchallenged.

It is offensive to the teacher of Kansas and absolutely untrue.

I have been in hundreds of classrooms across the State, very active in state wide teacher organizations and very active in science teacher professional development. If such behavior is occurring in a classroom then that teacher would be guilty of unprofessional conduct. I have never observed such behavior in any of the classrooms in Kansas. I have found the teachers of Kansas to be very sensitive and caring about their student welfare.

The Statement of Tolerance found in the Science Standards articulately expresses this caring and the high standard of practice in the state. Dr. Abrams letter is filled with such misleading statements. He continues to insist that dramatically changing the procedures by which the Science Standards are developed is a noble thing and that these hearing and witnesses have credibility.

This is also untrue.

The witnesses do not have any standing in the field and no credibility. The statements have arrogant opinions about subjects in which they have no knowledge. The subcommittee hearings in Topeka are dishonorable and without integrity. Reputable scientists and science educators should be applauded for not participating in such an event.

83 Comments

Sandor · 13 May 2005

We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify. But they have all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask: Is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists? Or is it because what the majority proposes is actually full of holes?

Naturally, he leaves out the possibility that a thinking person might ask: Is it because the experts realized that it is just no bloody use to argue with a bunch of baboons on this subject?

Flint · 13 May 2005

Now, a thinking person would ask

...those who declined to show up, what reasons they might have for doing so. Why guess?

Jack Krebs · 13 May 2005

I believe Abrams had plenty of chances to know why scientists didn't show up. First of all, both the KCFS Boycott Resolution and the AAAS letter in support of the boycott clearly explained why scientists were not particpating. Furthermore, the Board was turned down by many scientists who were asked to become the facilitator for the mainstream side, many of whom wrote eloquent letters explaining their refusal.

Abrams had plenty of opportunities to understand the reasons why scientists were supporting the boycott.

Flint · 13 May 2005

Jack,

Yes, of course. My point was that Abrams pretends not to understand the most important aspect of the entire charade in order to make suggestions he knows are incorrect, so as to create a false impression in his readers by insinuation while retaining deniability.

Moses · 13 May 2005

Sandor Wrote:

Naturally, he leaves out the possibility that a thinking person might ask: Is it because the experts realized that it is just no bloody use to argue with a bunch of baboons on this subject?

lol Pretty much.

Ed Darrell · 13 May 2005

The Kansas Kangaroo Kourt was a lot like that description of frontier justice once attributed to "Hangin'" Judge Roy Bean. Some accused evil-doer had been arrested, and Judge Bean ordered the construction of the gallows. "Shouldn't the accused man be given a fair trial?" a bystander asked.

"Oh,we'll give him a fair trail -- and then we'll hang him!" Judge Bean responded.

Today such a show of bias offends our sense of what is just and right.

And similarly, the hearing of the Kansas education folks also offends our sense of what is just and right, especially the use of unqualified witnesses, and the rigged outcome.

For people who claim not to know who Lysenko was, how do they get all the methods down so well?

Russell · 13 May 2005

I guess you need a subscription, but if you do, Salon has an article on the Kangaroo Kourt follies.

Steve Reuland · 13 May 2005

My point was that Abrams pretends not to understand the most important aspect of the entire charade in order to make suggestions he knows are incorrect, so as to create a false impression in his readers by insinuation while retaining deniability.
— Flint

It's not just Abrams, but the whole IDist propaganda machine is misrepresenting scientists on this. (What else is new, eh?) It's one thing to put their own spin on things, but they haven't even acknowledged the scientific community's stated rationale for avoiding these pointless hearings. And remember, these are the people who bleat about teaching "both sides" of the so-called debate.

Flint · 13 May 2005

Steve Reuland,

I share your frustration. They bleat about teaching "both sides" only when they don't control the forum. We're all well aware that when they DO control the forum, they are quick and meticulous about deleting uncongenial comments and banning their authors. The idea of a creationist inviting a scientist to his church to present "both sides" is comical and absurd. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize how "both sides" will be presented if creationists DO get control of the forum of public education. Their techniques and basic approach are too consistent to support any benefit of the doubt.

So most people here at PT take it for granted that none of the creationists believe there is any scientific controversy either -- goddidit period. They are fabricating one as a wedge tactic, intended to appeal to a different part of the brain than science is equipped for. Abrams is perhaps more skilled than Case at identifying his audience and knowing where their buttons are. Case is also handicapped by being restricted to the truth.

Jim Harrison · 13 May 2005

Abstracting from the morality of the debate for a moment, what we have here are some of the consequences of asymmetric warfare. Terrorists aren't necessarily eager to blow up innocent people in suicide attacks, but that's the only way they can continue the fight against the overwhelming technolgoical and economic power of their enemies. Similarly, I don't know if creationists and ID folks are more or less personally dishonest than the run of mankind. They simply have to resort to deceit because they automatically lose any straightup intellectual competition.

Henry J · 13 May 2005

Re "Similarly, I don't know if creationists and ID folks are more or less personally dishonest than the run of mankind."

My guess is that their reputation comes from the vocal minority (their "leaders"). After all, the majority of them aren't writing books or commenting on BB's or blogs or appearing on talk shows, so we most of them we don't actually hear from.

Henry

rampancy · 13 May 2005

Bravo to Pedro for his effort to take on the Creationists, and Steve for his letter to the Wichita Eagle. If I were Pope, I'd nominate Pedro for sainthood for putting up with those people for so long. I know I couldn't do it...I'd just explode.

I have to say again, shame on Abrams, Calvert, and the whole IDC cabal for making a mockery of my religion. Damn it, it's so frigging hard enough to show that most Christians aren't "God-Bothering Tub-Thumpers" (thanks to the poster who put that up) without arseholes like these guys around to make things even worse.

rampancy · 13 May 2005

Oops, I meant to say, "Steve Case" in my original reference to the letter by Steve...not Steve Abrams.

Andy Groves · 13 May 2005

There are too many Steves out there...........

bill · 13 May 2005

Under the headline of The Bleat Goes On, it appears that Brother Behe received a rather stark analysis from the University of California, San Diego. This from the California Aggie:

When not trying to convince the audience with abstract analogies, Behe continually claimed that the physical evidence supporting Darwinism is weak. However, this physical evidence --- such as data from genomic analysis, the fossil record, and emerging molecular-sequencing techniques --- has convinced the vast majority of scientists worldwide. Discussions on controversial topics such as Intelligent Design are welcome on campus. But arguments advertised as "the biochemical challenge to evolution" that resemble slander more than science are not. For Behe and other Intelligent Design advocates to be convincing --- and respected --- they must gather more physical evidence for their theories and rely less on disproving others.

http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=9030

JRQ · 13 May 2005

Under the headline of The Bleat Goes On, it appears that Brother Behe received a rather stark analysis from the University of California, San Diego.

Minor correction: University of California, Davis. I was waiting to hear a response from Aggie on this -- I just finished graduate school there. Although UCD is a very evolution-friendly place, I do recall occasionally hearing about talks by anti-evolution/creationist types (usually invited by one of the campus christian groups, and never to my knowledge, one of the science departments). I particularly like the 5/12/05 cartoon on this page: http://www.californiaaggie.com/features/comics/index.cfm?id=64

Steve F · 13 May 2005

I did part of my undergrad degree (as a foreign student) at UC Santa Cruz but went up to UC Davis one day for a class my Girlfriend was taking that was given by Geerat Vermeij. It was quite an experience.

Sir_Toejam · 13 May 2005

"Damn it, it's so frigging hard enough to show that most Christians aren't "God-Bothering Tub-Thumpers" (thanks to the poster who put that up) without arseholes like these guys around to make things even worse.

you are absolutely correct. When i was a grad student at Berkeley, even reasonable christians were frowned upon because of the creationist agenda, and that was 15 years ago.

btw, I was the one who put up the God-Bothering Tub-Thumpers. It does kinda roll off the tongue, doesn't it?

[psuedo-history]
Evidently, tub-thumpers were common on street corners in the UK in the early 1900's, and would use overturned half-barrels as podiums to pound their fists on and scream about how we were all going to hell. The god-bothering part comes more recently as a description for those who simply can't think about anything without invoking god first.
[/pseudo-history]

cheers

Sir_Toejam · 13 May 2005

@Jim:

Creationists = Terrorists

actually, this works on many levels, including the violence (abortion doctor murders, for example).

should we report Dembski to Homeland Security?

Russell · 13 May 2005

I was waiting to hear a response from Aggie on this --- I just finished graduate school there
— JRQ

No kidding? Me too! (That is, if we use the term "just" with an evolutionary time-scale in mind :-)). I did Biochemistry. You?

JRQ · 13 May 2005

I was there from 1999 to 2004 in psychology; I don't think I knew any biochem people though...I suppose it's possible we met, though unlikely (unless you hung around psychology or neuroscience folks).

However, i did meet Geerat Vermeij a couple times...we had him over for a perception/cognition colloquim to talk about how he probes mollusk shells in different ways with his hands and with needles to get perceptual information and various measurment details that sighted researchers sometimes miss...utterly fascinating.

Illuminatus · 13 May 2005

Oh, boy. I hardly can believe it. I didn´t know creationism was so much of a pest in the U.S.

I am Biology student in Spain and although we have our own national trade of religious fanatics (catholic ones) they´re not such a pain in the ass. Even some of my cathedratics (chair-owners, the highest grade in academics) are Opus Dei people and if I told them about ID or creationism they would laugh at me and then flush down my marks.

There is no controversy about Evolution, only about the way Evolution happened (Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium, that commie plot :), and that sort of stuff). ID and creationism is unscientific.

Illuminatus · 13 May 2005

By the way, great site.

And ID and creationism ARE unscientific (sorry, I´m half aslept).

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 13 May 2005

Off-topic: Evolution Dominates Campaign in Pa. Town

... One sign shouts, "It's time for a new school board in Dover!" The other describes the seven sitting board members as "the INTELLIGENT choice" --- a reference to the board's decision last fall to require the mention of "intelligent design" in class. ...

Great White Wonder · 13 May 2005

Oy.

Is the "T" in "INTELLIGENT" shaped like a cross? That would be sweet.

Just Bob · 13 May 2005

As suggested in another thread, public mentions of ID ought always to be accopmanied by such terms as "creationism," "fundamentalism," "medieval," "crackpots," "Taliban," and the like.

Public perception matters, and with the science-illiterate American public, sound bites and catchy slogans register way more than reasoned argument--let alone scientific data.

Remember the reaction of the "Friends" crew whenever Ross brought up any mention of paleontology? That's pretty much the Joe Sixpack attitude in this country. Creationists know that and have got plenty of mileage out of pejorative terms, guilt by association, mockery of "egghead professors," and catchy slogans.

rampancy · 13 May 2005

Ah, right Sir_Toejam! And thanks for the mini-history lesson...previously, I'd always linked that term to Chubawumba's "Tub-Thumping".

Your example of Berkely 15 years ago only solidifies in my mind that the ultimate goal of these people is purely for personal gain; these people couldn't care less about the practically irreperable damage that they are doing to Christianity and Christians like myself.

If these people were even remotely Christian, then they would spend half as much time trying to carry on this silly Quixotic fight and devote more of their time to helping in housing programs for poor familes, feeding starving children in Africa, or fighting against globalization, etc.

The fact that the "EVILutionist heathen" Pedro Irirgonegaray is doing his service for FREE, while the pseudo-Godly Intelligent Design representatives and witnesses are the ones who are sucking up Kansas government funds speaks for itself in my book. If moral bankruptcy were a crime, this piece of evidence would be all I'd need to lock these people up and throw away the key.

Sir_Toejam · 13 May 2005

" If moral bankruptcy were a crime, this piece of evidence would be all I'd need to lock these people up and throw away the key."

yup.

Steve Reuland · 14 May 2005

@Jim: Creationists = Terrorists actually, this works on many levels, including the violence (abortion doctor murders, for example). should we report Dembski to Homeland Security?
— Sir_toejam

While I'm sure you're being toung-in-cheek (at least I hope so) let me be the first to say that this sort of rhetoric is really inappropriate. Please do not ever, ever, ever equate creationists with terrorists. Whatever their faults, they have never resorted to violence. Let's please do what we can to keep things civil.

Steve Reuland · 14 May 2005

Behe related the existence of all organisms, including humans, to the existence of a mousetrap. Since the simple device could not have evolved because the individual components did not originally exist by themselves, he argued, it must have been designed --- like every organism --- by an all-powerful "designer." But comparing something man-made to a man is just too distant a connection. The argument depends on faith instead of fact.
— California Aggie Editorial

The real problem with Behe's mousetrap metaphor is that things don't work the same on the molecular level as they do on the macro level. You can't take the pieces of a moustrap and toss them in the air and expect them to self-assemble. But when it comes to molecular "machines", that's exactly what happens. They self-assemble. Electrostatic interactions are very powerful on the molecular scale, but very weak on a macro scale. That makes everything differnt. Understanding the evolution of molecular machines is a matter of understanding how nonspecific binding becomes specific, how undifferentiated oligomers become differentiated, how networks of binding proteins add or substract units, and how realted organisms get by with only partial fractions of these so-called "irreducibly complex" machines. Mousetraps are a terrible analogy precisely because their "irreducible" parts do not behave as molecules behave.

Fernmonkey · 14 May 2005

I guess you need a subscription, but if you do, Salon has an article on the Kangaroo Kourt follies.

You don't need a subscription, you can see the article after watching an ad if you click Site Pass at the bottom.

Frank J · 14 May 2005

(Let's be honest, the hearings were not about science education in Kansas but about giving intelligent design creationism a forum to advertise.)
— Reed A. Cartwright

If there is any doubt that the ID strategy is nothing but a sleazy sales pitch, note how Steve Abrams singles out this:

The Eagle editorial "Fringe: Evolution hearings push religious agenda" (May 8 Opinion) claimed that these hearings have "everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classrooms."

. . . among countless responses, few of which had such an anti-religion tone, and most of which were devastating to the ID strategy. IDers love it when they can get an opponent to whine about "sneaking in religion," if only to further misrepresent the debate to an already seriously misled public. As long as even one critic of ID takes the bait, any publicity is good publicity. Meanwhile, the Kangaroo Court is over and ID pseudoscientists are still boycotting the only "debate" that counts -- the scientific research arena.

Bing · 14 May 2005

"Please do not ever, ever, ever equate creationists with terrorists. Whatever their faults, they have never resorted to violence. Let's please do what we can to keep things civil."
— Steve Reuland

I'm sure if you drew a Venn diagram of creationists, the anti-homosexual crowd and anti-abortion folks you'd find some in the intersection that have the propensity to violence in one area that might cross into the others if they felt their backs were pushed against the wall. But it doesn't mean one shouldn't be cautious, as the family of the late Dr. Slepian can attest.

Frank J · 14 May 2005

"Please do not ever, ever, ever equate creationists with terrorists. Whatever their faults, they have never resorted to violence. Let's please do what we can to keep things civil."
— Steve Reuland

Good advice, and as you know, I'm one of those who goes even futher by insisting not to equate the professional anti-evolutionists with the "creationists on the street" who seem to honestly believe what they say. Even if the common motivation of all 3 is extreme religious fundamentalism, there is a monumental differenece between mass murder/suicide, selling "snake oil" (and probably knowing that it bogus), and buying "snake oil." The Kangaroo Court was one big "snake oil infomercial."

rampancy · 14 May 2005

But the point is that bringing up the issue of "sneaking in religion" exposes them for what they are: religious frauds. If they want to whine about religion, let them whine...the United States, last I checked, is a democracy, not a theocracy. Christianity is not (or at least, shouldn't be) a direct component of government policy. If they're going to use the "look-at-us-we're-oppressed-like-the-Jews-in-Nazi Germany" religious schtick, then they should by all means allow for "equal time" for the viewpoint of ALL other human religions as well. Then you just watch them squirm in response...

I don't know, I'm really not as worried about that aspect of Creationist arguments for ID...for any rational Christian who is interested in science, that should be dead simple to debunk with only just a few examples.

steve · 14 May 2005

they should by all means allow for "equal time" for the viewpoint of ALL other human religions as well.

Teach the Controversy! The Coming of the Handkerchief is Nigh! http://www.angelfire.com/la/catapult/arkle.html

Jim Harrison · 14 May 2005

My earlier comments didn't equate terrorists and creationists. I simply pointed out that their tactics were a response to a huge disparity in power betweent themselves and their opponents, military in the case of terrorists, scientific in the case of creationists. If you can't win a stand up fight and you won't give up, you have to resort to unorthodox means such as bombs and lies.

My remarks weren't even meant to be critical of anybody, even terrorists, who, after all, we call patriots when they happen to be on our side. If I was protesting anything, it was the tendency to explain behavior by reference to the morality of individuals as if the moral choices weren't explicable in terms of the strategic situation. For example, lots of people denounce the methods of the Republican party but any party promoting privilege in a democracy has to resort to deceit and other black methods to overcome the fundamental contradiction between its aims and the political system. Maybe its goals are wrong, but the methods are more or less inevitable. By the same token, if I really, really thought that biology destroyed human dignity and consigned souls to Hell, I'm sure I'd be lying about things with a good conscience and denunciations of my probity wouldn't bother me a bit just as they don't bother the ID folks.

steve · 14 May 2005

My remarks weren't even meant to be critical of anybody, even terrorists, who, after all, we call patriots when they happen to be on our side.

This is true if by terrorist you mean guerrillas. If you mean by terrorist the kind of operative whose aim is to directly attack innocent civilians, then I would not call that person a patriot. I think most people make that moral distinction. Because Rabin had military power, Yigal Amir was not a terrorist, whereas a suicide bomber in a pizza shop is a terrorist.

Frank J · 14 May 2005

If they want to whine about religion, let them whine . . . the United States, last I checked, is a democracy, not a theocracy.
— rampancy

Of course they have as much right to whine about religion as anti-evolutionists have to preach their pseudoscience (as long as it's not in public schools). My point is that they do it at their own risk - of being quoted out of context. I realize that the Establishment clause may be the only practical way to keep anti-evolution pseudoscience (including the thinly disguised "critical analysis" strategy) out of public schools. But there is so much wrong with ID/creationism - including how it disrespects mainstream religion - that there's no need to whine about religion when trying to straighten out a seriously mislead, and mostly religious, public.

tytlal · 14 May 2005

On Friday eveninings installment of Real Time with Bill Maher, the introduction (parody) featured a woman telling her son that he would be sent to the "Unlearning Annex" to unlearn evolution, global warming, tolerance, separation of church and state . . . Quite funny.

Also mentioned later in the show was something along the lines of "come see colonial Kansas - in the 21st century" with a graphic of burning books.

Moses · 14 May 2005

Because Rabin had military power, Yigal Amir was not a terrorist, whereas a suicide bomber in a pizza shop is a terrorist.

So it's okay to bomb and kill innoncent civilians, in their country which you happen to be occupying, with Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. But, if you have no means besides small arms and IEDs strapped to suicide bombers to throw people out of your occupied country you're a terrorist? Glad we settled that. And before you flame me with stupid "anti-semetic" comments, my ex-wife's brother-in-law (Robert Kravitz) is the Executive Director of the Arizona Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. http://www.ajc.org/WhoWeAre/Chapters.asp?did=179 Not agreeing with an obviously flawed and inhuman policy doesn't make you anti-semitic. Though it sure gets flung around if you dare criticize Israel.

Just Bob · 14 May 2005

Creationists = Terrorists

I'm sure if you drew a Venn diagram of creationists, the anti-homosexual crowd and anti-abortion folks you'd find some in the intersection that have the propensity to violence in one area that might cross into the others if they felt their backs were pushed against the wall.

As I have often explained to our German, Turkish, Japanese, etc. friends, Republicans may not be racists--but racists are Republicans. Why else did the Dixiecrats change parties in the 60's? For which party did Grand Dragon of the KKK David Duke run for governor of Louisiana? Certainly all Republicans are not racists--but there must be some reason why racists gravitate to the Republicans. By the same token, consider our home-grown terrorists: Timothy McVeigh & Co., the KKK, the "patriot movement," Christian Identity churches, assorted survivalists and militias, anti-abortion bombers, folks who torture gays to death and drag black men behind pickups. Want to bet the huge majority of them aren't creationists, probably biblical YECs? Not all creationists are terrorists (in the literal sense), but by far most of our local terrorists are creationists (to say nothing of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists). As there is something about Republicanism that seems to attract racists, there is something about creationism that seems to attract terrorists. Or maybe there is something about fundamentalist creationism that encourages terrorism. If God is on your side, anything is justified.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 14 May 2005

Please do not ever, ever, ever equate creationists with terrorists. Whatever their faults, they have never resorted to violence. Let's please do what we can to keep things civil.
— Steve Reuland

This, by various accounts, is not true for antievolutionists associated with BAV in Turkey. There have been reports of physical abuse by fundamentalist school children in the USA linked to the victim's acceptance of evolutionary biology. I'm all for keeping things inside the realm of an exchange of strongly held opinions and outside the realm of physical confrontation. I'm not at all in favor of glossing over indications that physical confrontation is not off the table for antievolution activists.

steve · 14 May 2005

Comment #30035 Posted by Moses on May 14, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s) So it's okay to bomb and kill innoncent civilians, in their country which you happen to be occupying, with Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. But, if you have no means besides small arms and IEDs strapped to suicide bombers to throw people out of your occupied country you're a terrorist?

I didn't say "it's okay" to kill innocent people under certain circumstances. I didn't say you're a terrorist simply for using suicide bombs. I wasn't perfectly careful with my words, but I wasn't careless enough to be that wrong.

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

yikes!

amazing what strong opinions putting the words terrorism and creationist together invokes.

just to clarify, before I am forever branded as some political extremist, the acutal post i made was a mostly intended as a bit of sarcasm, prompted by Dembski's latest attempts at humor (er, if that is what it was).

that said, there is a good case to be made for the similarities between islamic fundamentalists and christian creationists. If there wasn't, why on earth would Kansas Kangaroo have bothered to invite an islamic fundamentalist to testify on their behalf?

It has to do with the mindset, more than the actual type of violent reponse.

Moreover, as Wesley and others have suggested, there is precedent for folks with extreme mindsets to react violently when they feel pushed into a corner.

you can see it in the reactions of "followers" of Dembski, like Salvador Cordova, who after Dembski said:

" I therefore await the day when the hearings are not voluntary but involve subpoenas that compel evolutionists to be deposed and interrogated at length on their views. There are ways for this to happen, and the wheels are in motion "

said himself:

"The other side dreads being put under critical scrutiny. They know their theory will not be seen favorably once it is examined by the standards of real science. Phil Johnson was right, we need "Darwin on Trial". He foreswaw what must be done."

I personally see this as exactly the same kind of mindset that sets the stage for violent acts in support of "what must be done".

It was the unwillingness to see the potential for extremism in our own population that resulted in the bombing in OK city.

so, with all that in mind. when i put creationist = terrorist, it might have been a bit of sarcasm, but from the response generated I see we almost have to put the argument that simplistically before the discussion about the truth behind it actually begins.

Not that it was ever my intention, but if i had started out with a more reasonable comparison, think it would have spawned so many responses?

live and learn

Stuart Weinstein · 14 May 2005

Moses writes:

SAW: We could go over what precipitated all that and whether or not the IDF has a policy of explicitly targeting civilians, and their policy of trying to dis-booby trap Palestinian kids (some who were retarded) who don't really want to blow themselves up (although in many cases their parents would be thrilled if they did) when they get to the Israeli border. But it would obviously be of no-use and this is hardly the forum for it.

Glad we settled that.

SAW: If you mean that you're oblivious to what is going on over there, you're right.

And before you flame me with stupid "anti-semetic" comments, my ex-wife's brother-in-law (Robert Kravitz) is the Executive Director of the Arizona Chapter of the American Jewish Committee.

http://www.ajc.org/WhoWeAre/Chapters.asp?did=179 . . .

SAW: Ah, its the old my ew-wife is Jewish so I must know what I'm talking about argument. Hmm.. perhaps I'm beginning to see why that is so.

Not agreeing with an obviously flawed and inhuman policy doesn't make you anti-semitic. Though it sure gets flung around if you dare criticize Israel.

SAW: Oh, what cruel world.. You have my sympathy.

FL · 14 May 2005

Dr. Reuland, thanks for your thoughtful advice.

Dr. Elsberry, I only wish you had made your comments regarding "antievolution activists" on the witness stand during the recent Kansas hearings, so that Mr. Calvert could ask you a few thoughtful, considered questions thereof, in front of the local and national media.

(But at least I now understand better, ~much much~ better, why the KCFS coalition chose the boycott strategy. Safety first, Dr. Elsberry?)

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

FL is well considered to stay within his delusional mindset, as far as I am concerned, as long as he wishes.

the reasons for the boycott are well documented, just like the evidence for natural selection and evoltionary theory. Just like everything else that disagrees with his delusion, FL just refuses to see it, or even acknowlege the existence of it.

You go girl, just keep bein' that great example of the creationist mindset that you are.

You do your side proud.

JRQ · 14 May 2005

FL,

The board members were free at any time to accept the recommendation of the expert panel to adopt the majory draft.

Mr. Calvert, Dr. Abrams, Mrs. Martin, and Mrs. Morris are also welcome, at any time and at no expense to the taxpayers of Kansas, to come here and ask as many questions as they would like.

They should be advised, however, that unlike Mr. Calvert's witnesses, the scientists that frequent the Panda's Thumb are constrained by thier commitment to scientific and academic credibility to tell the truth about evolutionary theory and the data which support it.

Mr. Calvert and the board members should consider themselves forewarned that the data do not in the least bit care whether they conflict with the board's religious prejudices, and they may not like what they hear.

Moses · 14 May 2005

SAW:

"blah, blah, blah"

Yawn.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 14 May 2005

(But at least I now understand better, ~much much~ better, why the KCFS coalition chose the boycott strategy. Safety first, Dr. Elsberry?)

I'll simply point out, yet again, that every time that creationists hsave had "evolutionists" on the stand, under oath, the creationists lost. In fact, creationists/Iders have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single solitary. Perhaps FL is not aware that, ina ll of those court cases (the ones that creationists all lost), there were witnesses, under oath, under cross-examination, by lawyers who were free to ask any relevant question they liked. And the creationist lost every single time. Why is that, FL . . . . .? Of course, I can understand your frustration, FL. It must be terribly embarrassing for you to have your side to lose even when the other side doesn't even bother to show up. Especially after all your bravado and tough talk about kicking our ass. (snicker) (giggle) (howls of laughter)

FL · 14 May 2005

It must be terribly embarrassing for you to have your side to lose even when the other side doesn't even bother to show up. Especially after all your bravado and tough talk about kicking our ass.

Really? Well, here's a few calm thoughts for your consideration, Rev. (This is addressed to you specifically, and is not meant to be any kind of "addition" to my previous comments addressed to Drs. Reuland and Elsberry.) 1. Did "my side" lose? Oh, I've given that one some thought. It may look that way to you, Rev, sitting out there somewhere in Blogville. But over here at Ground Zero, it doesn't look that way at all. In fact, things even ~feel~ distinctively different--and far better--than years ago. This has definitely turned out NOT to be a repeat of Kansas 1999-2000, especially not in terms of the media and its all-important coverage. Far from feeling frustration, this time things feel rather good, thank you. Feels like real progress has been made in informing the public of things, despite all you evolutionists' tactics. 2. After all, you guys DID fail to show up for cross-ex, (and if you think that the ~only~ folks who didn't necessarily agree with your playing hooky were conservatives and creationists, you didn't read liberal pro-evolution reporter Peter Hancock's reservations in the Topeka Metro News.) Furthermore, the fact that you evolutionists chose a pseudo "boycott" that involved showing up anyway and sniping from the sidelines, did not go unnoticed. It merely gave the non-Darwinist scientists and scholars a second chance to go to the media and contrast your cross-ex no-show with their actual willingness to submit to your Darwinist lawyer's grilling. For example, in either msnbc.com or aolnews, I saw that Dr. Jonathan Wells was quoted thusly:

"What is it that they're afraid of? If they are so sure they are right, they should have the courage to be cross-examined."

I honestly think that, whatever else they did rightly or wrongly, the non-Darwinists succeeded in getting THAT message out to the general public, Rev. Now who did you say was losing? 3. Meanwhile, there were and still are excellent print, television, newspaper, and online opportunities for non-Darwinists to explain what was going on. Even Beliefnet got into the game, allowing an ID advocate to explain ID to their patrons. Sure, the Wichita Eagle gave a highly pro-Darwinist editorial that you guys liked, but the same newspaper also published David Berlinski's excellent pro-"teach the controversy" editorial, so we're even. Wm. Dembski and Michael Ruse went at it on the popular late-night show "Nightline", and that meant extra exposure for intelligent design. Further, Dembski wrote (at his blog, I think) that himself and Ruse agreed near the end of the show that (someday) ID would prevail. (If I'm wrong about that, please let me know, but I know I read that.) That's encouraging, is it not? I didn't catch the Stephen Meyer--Eugenie Scott debate, but I DID read the transcript, and it felt good to see how Meyer kept Scott ~on the ropes~ throughout the discussion, making sure that he got all his explanations and refutations in there. (Precisely the sort of whipped-evolutionist-in-public gig that, the KCFS boycott was initiated to prevent. Hope you liked that debate as much as I did!) 4. And there's still Prof. Antony Flew. Ultimately, this debate is won or lost one person, one mind, one heart at a time, regardless of the Board's final outcome or political/legal consequences thereof. All I can say is, Antony Flew. So, Rev, I feel quite positive, thank you. The Board could dump all the proposed changes in the garbage can tomorrow, (or some silly liberal judge picked by the ACLU could do the same), but that won't erase the heavy impacts that non-Darwinists have had these past few weeks. Progress has been made. More people are now aware of things. I honestly don't foresee evolution being overthrown. I'm sure you feel good about that, no? But I DO see the "teach the controversy" catching on with the general public, starting with those standard textbook prebiotic evo-claims. I do see teachers getting to share more about evolution's problems without putting their jobs at risk. And I do see Mr. Darwin having to at least share the microphone with Mr. Paley. Insert smile here. So, there you go. I've honestly shared with you about how I feel these days. How about you? How are you feeling these days? Hmmm? FL

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

FL takes a whole page to do what he could have simply said as:

"my delusion does not allow me the leeway to accept any view that would conflict with it."

and left it at that.

Matt Inlay · 14 May 2005

RE: creationism and terrorism

Regardless of how you try to explain it, a year from now we're going to see an editorial by Dembski or Berlinski saying, "...and over at the PandasThumb, where they call creationists terrorists,...". A month later Casey Luskin will interview a 9/11 victim's mother and ask her, "How do you feel about evolutionists, such as those at the PandasThumb, describe people who have the audacity to question evolution as equivalent to Al-Qaeda?"

See here and here if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

"Regardless of how you try to explain it, a year from now we're going to see an editorial by Dembski or Berlinski saying, " . . . and over at the PandasThumb, where they call creationists terrorists, . . . ". "

right, that is unless we point it out first.

and they would end up saying that very thing, regardless of whether we said it or not.

can't you see that that is the pattern they are already setting?

Why do you think Wesley had to write an article to defend science from being called "McCarthyism", when it is obviously better applied to the creationists?

This is politics, Matt, not science. They won't play fair, and you know it.

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

" "How do you feel about evolutionists, such as those at the PandasThumb, describe people who have the audacity to question evolution as equivalent to Al-Qaeda?" "

...and we could just as easily answer that by another question:

"why were muslim fundamentalists asked to testify on behalf of "Intelligent Design"? did you know there were ties between the ID movement and muslim extremeists? what do you think about that?"

again, we are simply playing to their fiddle. this is a political game, and we are gettin' creamed by tactics that got the republicans in power to begin with.

I see no reason not to continually point out the hypocrisy of these folks, regardless of where it leads.

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

if you don't want to see an article like the one you describe, I suggest you pre-empt it by writing an article that asks the question posed above first:

title it:

"The tie between Islam and ID"

and have the very first question be:

"Why were muslim fundamentalists asked to testify on behalf of "Intelligent Design"?

if they want to play politics, i think we could do it better if we tried.

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

... and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter. take it or leave it.

JRQ · 14 May 2005

1. Did "my side" lose?

The loser, Kansas public education, was determined before the hearing began.

But over here at Ground Zero, it doesn't look that way at all. In fact, things even ~feel~ distinctively different---and far better---than years ago.

I don't doubt the minority standards will be adopted. Congratulations. Kansas is now once again the laughing-stock of public science education. Again, the losers are not anybody's "side"...the losers are public school students and taxpayers of Kansas.

After all, you guys DID fail to show up for cross-ex, (and if you think that the ~only~ folks who didn't necessarily agree with your playing hooky were conservatives and creationists, you didn't read liberal pro-evolution reporter Peter Hancock's reservations in the Topeka Metro News.

Who cares what a reporter thinks? The BoE decided to ignore the expert panel recommendation and stage an ID dog-and-pony show at taxpayer expense, but feed it to the public as a scientific "controversy". And you swallowed it.

For example, in either msnbc.com or aolnews, I saw that Dr. Jonathan Wells was quoted thusly: "What is it that they're afraid of? If they are so sure they are right, they should have the courage to be cross-examined."

Had Dr. Wells taken time to read the AAAS statement on the matter he would know precisely the purpose of the boycott...and I suspect he does. The scientists have been clear the boycott serves to inform the public there is no scientific controversy. This is true. The testimony of chemists, philosophers, engineers, and lawyers who don't publish any ID data or theory in the peer-review literature does not make biological evolution a controversy! Why is this so hard to understand?? The appearence of legitimate scientists in this charade would have been completely unnecessary anyway -- the only reason the hearing took place was because the board had already decided they preferred the changes of the minority draft, and would go against the recommendation of expert panel. The purpose of the hearings was merely to give the appearence of legitimacy to the "controversy" they want to teach, presumably to justify thier decision to the public. Consider yourself hoodwinked, FL.

Ultimately, this debate is won or lost one person, one mind, one heart at a time

Yes, because an average of only one intelligent person at a time is persuded by the empty rhetoric and political posturing of the ID movement.

JRQ · 14 May 2005

That post was a total waste of time, wasn't it...

Sir_Toejam · 14 May 2005

lol. no, not really. it covered different levels of detail, and repeating the message is necessary for those like FL that are hard of hearing.

David Friedman · 15 May 2005

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Mr. Abrams has put forward. The "boycott" is a mistake and yes, truth welcomes the light of day.

The dogmatism that Mr. Abrams wishes to reduce is very real and must be changed so that students can have the benefit of the scientific method which the naturalist's monopoly prevents.

Sir_Toejam · 15 May 2005

Sorry, David, but I'm afraid you have it backward.

applying the scientific mehtod is the farthest thing from the ID "leader's" minds.

Moreover, there is no "naturalist monopoly"; that is a fictional term invented by the folks leading the ID movement, invoked simply to deceive folks like yourself.

Nobody is preventing or aruguing against scientific debate. the problem is, that ID has no science behind it to debate with. Scince it has no demonstrable scientific evidence to support it (ask the IDers yourself if you don't believe me), then there is nothing for scientists to debate. The only conclusion any reasonable person could conclude is that this Kangaroo Court in Kansas had nothing to do with debating science, and everything to do with deceitful politics.

Are you saying that you support deceitful practices in politics? Are you saying you support folks who would lie to you about what science is?

Truth welcomes the light of day, indeed. Are you sure you have opened your eyes to see it?

if you would actually like to see the documentation for why the boycott was supported by all scientists, it is readily available at AAAS, NCSE, or many other places (should be some links around here at PT too).

if you can conclude that the boycott was illogical after reading what i have posted, and the reasons detailed elsewhere, I would then ask you why it is that when there is a level playing field (like in a real courtroom), scientists are more than happy to participate. Would you like links to relevant court cases?

oh lenny...

I think this gentlman would like a link to your list of court cases.

cheers

observer · 15 May 2005

@ Moses

in their country

What country might that be? Jordan? Egypt? Where were all the suicide bombers between 1947 and 1969? The world outcry of the Jordanian and Egyptian "occupations"

occupying

For a people that lived in an area for 5000 years occupying is not the correct term. Now building a mosque on top of the holiest place of the religion of the people you have subjugated (make that formerly subjugated)- now that is occupation. On a side note - Is current day Poland occupied territory? Until post WWII much of the western region of the country was German. Ok, How about eastern Poland - oops, that is now Russian. I assume you have as strong opinions about the Russian "occupation" of Poland as you do of Israel and its "occupation" - at least you thought about the land area that Poland lost? The land it gained? I bet you haven't thought about it much (your ex-wife's second cousin is not Polish and sitting on the Polish-American Board of Trustees in Michigan?) Please note: Poland was used merely as an example and no offense to anone was intended.

if you have no means besides small arms and IEDs strapped to suicide bombers

Well one could join the civilized world that doesn't target a mother and her 4 children for assignation while they are driving down the highway (among other attacks). Maybe something along the lines of "terrorism is bad and we won't kill innocents anymore" - again, just a thought. How about not teaching all your school children that Jews are pigs and dogs? (an update for those not in the know - referring to one as a dog in the Muslim world is close to the worst comment one can make about someone else). Maybe you might not send your children to terrorist wanna-be summer camps. Just ideas....

Not agreeing with an obviously flawed and inhuman policy doesn't make you anti-semitic

No it doesn't but singling out Jews and only Jews does make one an anti-Semite (see e.g. the AUT in Great Britain)

observer · 15 May 2005

transposed 49 and 67 in the dates - my apologies

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 15 May 2005

1. Did "my side" lose?

Yes. Just as it has lost eveyr single federal court case they have ever been involved with. Even the ones where they had "evolutionist" witnesses being quesitoned, under oath, wiht subpeona power. And all your arm-waving and whining won't change that.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 15 May 2005

" "How do you feel about evolutionists, such as those at the PandasThumb, describe people who have the audacity to question evolution as equivalent to Al-Qaeda?" " . . . and we could just as easily answer that by another question: "why were muslim fundamentalists asked to testify on behalf of "Intelligent Design"? did you know there were ties between the ID movement and muslim extremeists? what do you think about that?"

And "why does the Intelligent Deisgn movement accept most of its funding from a lone wacko billionnaire with extremist views who, for two decades, advocated a theocratic political program that is indistinguishable from that of the Taliban and the Iranian Ayatollahs?" Or "why are there so many ties between creationists, their supporters, and the right-wing militia nuts?"

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 15 May 2005

The dogmatism that Mr. Abrams wishes to reduce is very real and must be changed so that students can have the benefit of the scientific method which the naturalist's monopoly prevents.

I'm a little unsure what you mean by "naturalist's". Can you tell me more about this "naturalism" (or, as other IDers call it, "materialism")? What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible. I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)? I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)? How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs? Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation? Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" . . . . . ?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 15 May 2005

oh lenny . . . I think this gentlman would like a link to your list of court cases.

Ask, and ye shall recieve: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/legal.htm And for some thoughts about the upcoming Dover case (and the legal application of other cases to DI's "teach the controversy" crap), see: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/cobbcase.htm and http://www.geocities.com/lflank/doverstatement.html As you can see, in every instance where the creationists/IDers were forced to produce real evidence instead of rhetoric, they lost. Crushingly, embarrassingly, and overwhelmingly. Even when the other side showed up. (snicker) (giggle) (howls of laughter)

Mark D · 15 May 2005

4. And there's still Prof. Antony Flew. Ultimately, this debate is won or lost one person, one mind, one heart at a time, regardless of the Board's final outcome or political/legal consequences thereof. All I can say is, Antony Flew.

Why, that's a perfect example. Mr. Flew retracted his dumb statements when people pointed out how silly he was being. Like most IDists, he was "duped" by its leaders--he admitted so himself. If he is your shining example of the power of ID to persuade people, you're in far deeper trouble than you can possibly imagine.

pough · 15 May 2005

All I can say is, Anthony Flew, too! I'll let him say the rest:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Jim Harrison · 15 May 2005

ID folks didn't recognize that Anthony Flew was a great philosopher and then notice that he said something nice about ID. He said something nice about ID so now he's a great philosopher. The same sort of thing happened with Karl Popper who became the grand master of the philosophy of science because his falsibility idea looked like a labor-saving device for Creationists who could use it to justify ignoring the libraries and museums full of positive evidence for evolution.

Meanwhile I continue work on the sad topic of silly things written by aging intellectuals.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 15 May 2005

off-topic: Kan. Debate Challenges Science Itself

... Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas. "I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program." ...

An actual testable prediction from the ID camp!

Paul Christopher · 15 May 2005

Whilst it is clearly inaccurate to describe ID fanatics as terrorists, don't forget that there is evidence to suggest that money is being filtered down into ID from people that wish to see homosexuals, atheists and adulterers stoned to death.

Don't make the mistake of believing that this argument is purely about standards of education - the ID movement has far wider ambitions than that.

steve · 15 May 2005

Why are IDeologues boycotting the scientific debate by not arguing in the peer-reviewed literature?

FL · 15 May 2005

Pough quotes Antony Flew:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.

Yes, I read Richard Carrier's essay at the Secular Web in which that recent quote by Flew appears. But I couldn't locate ~any~ retraction by Prof. Flew of his statement to Gary Habermas:

"...I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."

So tell me, Pough. Have you been able to locate a specific retraction of ~that~ particular statement? FL

rampancy · 15 May 2005

FL, you just don't get it, do you? You gauge victories in terms of legal trials and "cross-examination", and public debates.

Was the discovery of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun achieved by the "cross-examination" of Copernicus? Was the fact of gravitational force discovered because old Newton won a debate against a hapless rival?

The strength and validity of any scientific theory or fact lies in the evidence supporting it and the quality of the research that lies behind it. And on that count, it is evolutionary biology which wins. And what of the contributions that ID has made? Have you ever stopped to realize that the once-deadly diseases which may have killed you as a child are no longer a concern to you because of the practice of immunization -- a discovery based upon evolutionary principles?

Or how about the bread that you eat? The grain that went into that bread was the result of decades of extensive experience in breeding practices -- techniques based in evolutionary and genetic principles.

Where is the vast research program that ID has promised us? What about the scientific theory of ID?

It seems to me that the only "advantage" of ID is its root in literal fundamentalism -- which arguably, to me is one of the most destructive and cancerous movments in human history.

You have achieved your "victory" through shamless deception. profiteering and arrogant self-promotion, and distortion of the hard work of many, many scientists in evolutionary biology, when you yourselves won't even lift a finger to do even a modicum of the work which they have poured into their research, ironic, given the "Protestant Work Ethic" which you trumpet so loudly.

You and others of your kind bring shame to Christianity, and all Christians on this earth. Shame on you, for your gleeful destruction of the bridges which we are trying so hard to build with the other people with whom we share this earth. People like me try their damndest to show to others that we just want to coexist peacefully with them...but people like you are all too happy to see both sides burn together in their collective mutual hatred.

Shame on you.

Sir_Toejam · 15 May 2005

"So tell me, Pough. Have you been able to locate a specific retraction of ~that~ particular statement?"

it doesn't matter, FL. it's clear that Flew's admission that he really knew nothing about any other theories BUT ID eliminates his credibility on the issue, without him needing to say anything more.

It's rather like your credibility, since you constantly show us here how little you actually know about evolutionary theory yourself.

Knowing that it is easy to prove that you have no credibility, and this has been done on numerous occasions, one has to ask:

"why do you keep posting here?"

Are you tired of posting your genius on Dembski's blog?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 16 May 2005

FL, you just don't get it, do you? You gauge victories in terms of legal trials and "cross-examination", and public debates.

No he doesn't. If he *did*, he'd understand that in every case where creationist/IDers had "evolutionist" scientists on the stand, under oath, in front of a judge, being cross-examined ----- the creationsit/IDers lost. Curshingly, embarrassingly and completely. Indeed, the creationist/IDers have lost every single Federal court case they have ever been involved with. Every single one. And as Kansas shows, the IDiots can't even make their case when the other side doesn't bother to show up. (snicker) (giggle)

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 16 May 2005

You and others of your kind bring shame to Christianity, and all Christians on this earth.

How can that be, when IDers keep telling us that ID is *science* and has *nothing to do* with religious aims or goals. Nothing *at all*. Or are IDers just lying to us when they tell us that . . . . .

rampancy · 16 May 2005

Good. Let them. That will just give us more opportunities to expose them for who and what they are.

Sadly, no one really seems to listen, or care. It just seems that everyone's so willing to buy into what they say, regardless of whether or not its garbage. I don't think any of my teachers or professors would have ever imagined a day when marketing and PR would so thoroughly trump honest science.

Thom Larsen · 16 May 2005

To "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank: In comment 30138 you said, "How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?"

I'd be careful with this one. People are always asking for non-naturalistic cures for what ails them, whether faith-healing, energy fields or whatever. Look at the case of Silvia Millecam (Heading titled 'More Jomanda' here: http://www.randi.org/jr/050605free.html)

It is unfortunately all too common.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 16 May 2005

People are always asking for non-naturalistic cures for what ails them, whether faith-healing, energy fields or whatever.

And yet when they get hit by a car, they still go to a hospital.